As a service
delivery option, co-teaching
utilizes a general education teacher and a special education teacher through
shared instructional responsibility and accountability for a diverse group of
students, including some with disabilities. The goal of co-teaching is
improved outcomes, reduced gap in achievement gap, and optimized success for
ALL students. Co-teaching is premised on each educator bringing clearly
identified and different types of expertise to the classroom, thereby blending
their skills to create a classroom that is instructionally appropriate for each
student whereby specially designed instruction is integrated into
implementation of the general education curriculum.
However, even when
professionals are committed to co-teaching and prepared to implement it,
barriers often arise related to the logistics of implementation as a
sustainable service delivery option. The most frequently mentioned concern
pertains to scheduling. This includes scheduling students into co-taught
sections, populating co- taught sections with other students, assigning special
educators and general educators to co-taught classes, and arranging for common planning time
(Friend & Barron, 2014).
In relation to
planning and scheduling for effective co-teaching, Friend & Barron (2014)
suggest a few universal principles must be heeded. When foundational concepts
are either not understood or inappropriately reflected in district and school
policies and practices, then scheduling for effective inclusive practices will
suffer. Specifically, stakeholders need to accept that co-teaching is not
a cure-all. Co-teaching should not be the only type of special
education service offered within a school. Realistically, some students with
disabilities benefit greatly from supplemental instruction in a separate
setting while others might need extensive services in separate classes.
Not all students
with disabilities within general education classes need co-teaching as a
service delivery model. Depending on needs based on the content area than a
diagnostic label, some students with disabilities might succeed in general
education without co-teaching. A student with disabilities should be assigned
to classes accordingly to his or her present level of academic achievement and
functional performance (PLAAFP),
assessed needs, and IEP
goals. These diverse areas should form the basis for determining a
student’s service delivery and schedule.
Therefore, while
some students with disabilities should have co-teaching on their IEPs for an
entire class period or subject area, other students may need only partial
support. Not all secondary students need co-teaching in all core academic
areas. Neither should elementary students with disabilities have
co-teaching prescribed all-day as a matter of course. By being fully aware of
the students’ needs and appropriate service options, stakeholders can then
determine the most effective amount of co-teaching.
While grouping
students with disabilities in co-taught classes is usually required to make
service delivery feasible, when many students with disabilities are grouped
into a single class then curriculum momentum can be compromised. Recommended
proportions range from 20-40 percent of a class being comprised of students
with disabilities. Of course, natural
proportions are closer to 20 percent. However, any model should be
based on the assumption that the remainder of the students within the class
exhibit a range of abilities and needs. Crucially, no classroom should be
comprised of only struggling students (Friend & Barron, 2014).
Co-teaching
requires three components: co-planning,
co-instructing, and co-assessing (Murawski &
Lochner, 2010). Without all three, co-teaching as an effective
service model is not occurring. Given teachers and administrators often
question what constitutes a shared lesson an observational checklist may be
beneficial. Is it sufficient for teachers to agree on a lesson one teacher has
already taught before? Can teachers agree to take care of “their own” students,
provided diverse students are in the same class- room? The following clarifies
what is required of each of the three components to ensure that teachers and
observers know how to optimize effectiveness in a co-taught inclusive
classroom:
Without sufficient
co-planning, at best teachers are working together in a parallel or reactive
manner. exemplify a special educator entering the classroom and asking, “So,
what are we doing today?” When special educators are not expected to be content
experts, they are placed at a disadvantage, and too often spend the class time
catching up, figuring out the instruction, and later remediating when students
are not able to access the instruction as originally presented. Another
situation has the general and special educator taking a typical lesson plan and
determining which teacher will do which part. This can often result in both
teachers’ simply splitting up a lesson and delivering it exactly as the general
educator would have if working solo, thereby resulting in the question, “What
is special about special education?” (Murawski and Lochner, 2010).
The purpose of
co-planning is for the special educator to have proactive input into the
instructional process. By using his or her expertise in differentiation,
accommodations, positive behavior support, and pedagogy, a lesson can be
created that will enable more of the students to access and learn the
curriculum the first time it is presented (Murawski,
2015). Students with disabilities can be more successful with the general
education curriculum when their specific areas of need are proactively
addressed by both teachers (Murawski & Lochner, 2010).
As the
in-classroom element of co-teaching, effective co-instruction
is possible when two teachers with varying areas of expertise collaborate to
provide quality instruction. The results can be and should be inspiring.
On the contrary, when two adults who do not believe in co-teaching or who do
not respect one another as professionals are physically in the same classroom
and do not interact, the result is often dis-heartening, discouraging, and
ultimately a complete waste of time for the teachers and the students.
Although it is fairly easy to determine when teachers are dynamic together
compared to those who are apathetic together, a large continuum looms between
for the teachers who are unclear as to how to successfully share the
classroom.
Teachers who
co-teach well together are those who take advantage of the fact that there are
two adults in the room. They engage students actively, use a variety of
co-teaching approaches to regroup students, collect and share assessment
information to better individualize for students’ needs, are open-minded and
willing to be innovative. These teachers communicate with one another during
instruction and provide classroom structure that is supportive of
students. They are also flexible to meet ALL students’ changing needs. It
is clear that the classroom, as well as all the students in it, belong to them
both and that they are both willing and
capable of providing substantive instruction that utilizes their areas of
expertise. Co-instruction does not look the same as in any general class. The
input of the special educator is clear, resulting in strategies, mnemonics, and
differentiated instruction. In a perfectly co-taught classroom, one would see
two teachers enjoying each other and all students, who are clearly learning and
benefiting from the positive instructional environment (Murawski &
Lochner, 2010).
Co-teachers view
ALL students as “their kids” and consciously avoid “my kids” compared to “your
kids” situations. This mindfulness extends to assessment, evaluation, and
grading as well. General and special educators may have different frames of
reference that will affect the way each views assessments. Often, a general
educator more initially be more versed in curricula standards and whole-class
assessments. By contrast, the special education counterpart may be more
familiar with individualized or alternative assessments. From the perspective
of students with disabilities, this combination of specialization becomes
beneficial given the standards-based focus of the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2010)
and need for individualized instruction and assessment mandated by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004).
Working together, effective co-teachers ensure that they are able to assess
what students actually know as well as what they are able to demonstrate on
formative, summative, standardized, or high-stakes assessment.
There are many
choices co-teachers can utilize to validly and reliably assess. Being
aware and open to each option is crucial. Co-teachers should become fully
capable to describe or demonstrate how they plan to accommodate needs through
diverse assessments that treat students as individuals in determining their
mastery of content standards and curriculum. How can administrators assess the
effectiveness of co-teachers in this regard? Certainly, looking at student
grades is an indicator of co-teaching effectiveness. For instance, do
students with disabilities fail at a greater rate than typical students? A single measurement should not be the only
method of assessing students. Student improvement can be exhibited and
documented in a variety of formative processes. Just as co-teachers need to be
open to various methods of assessment, observers likewise need to know the
variables that determine the collaborative effectiveness of the two teachers in
an inclusive classroom.
When seeking to provide mentorship or
professional development related to co-teaching dynamics, the role of an
observer needs to be clearly understood and presented in advance. Before walking into a co-taught classroom, an
administrator or other observers need to know the goal of the observation and
therefore be empowered to clearly describe what they want to collect, see, and
hear (Peterson
& Petersen, 2006). Observation literature indicates that to maximize
feedback provided by observers, data need to be descriptive rather than
evaluative (Cook & Friend, 2017).
Students with
disabilities, those with English language needs, those who are gifted, and the
typical learners in any classroom deserve to be instructed based on their
individual learning needs. There is a wide variety of literature available on
diverse learning styles, multiple intelligences, and the value of brain-based
instruction. Effective teachers recognize that each student presents a unique
learning profile and therefore every student benefits when education matches
his or her profile (Lavoie,
2007; Levine, 2002). When alone, addressing the various learning profiles
exhibited within the classroom can be daunting. By contrast, working with
a partner can be truly exciting and beneficial to all stakeholders. Co-teaching
enables two teachers to collaborate in an effort to effectively plan,
implement, and assess differentiated instruction. For those teachers that may be new to
co-teaching, an administrator needs to serve the role of supervisor, mentor,
and support provider. Confounding the
needs of the teachers that may be struggling with their collaborative role in
the inclusive classroom could be administrators that themselves do not feel
sufficiently instructed on what they should be seeing in an effectively co-taught
classroom and collaborative relationship. The ability to observe,
document, give feedback, and be an instructional leader for co-teachers
requires time and experience (Murawski & Lochner, 2010).
By utilizing the Co-Teaching
Core Competencies Observation Checklist (Murawski & Lochner, 2015) the
administrator and co-teachers understand the specific items that should be
asked for, looked for, and listened for during the observation of the
co-teachers’ lesson and collaborative activities. Crucially, the
Co-Teaching Core Competencies Observation Checklist helps guide the administrator
or observers in their effort to shape and improve the co-teaching. When
providing constructive feedback to the co-teachers working collaboratively
within the inclusive classroom, the ultimate goal is to improve the learning of
students with and without disabilities.
To
Cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (August 31, 2019) Planning, implementing, and mentoring for
successful co-teaching.
[Web
log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/
References
Collaborative
teaching: The co-teaching model. (2002). PsycEXTRA Dataset.
doi:10.1037/e522152004-001
Cook,
L., & Friend, M. (2017). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective
Practices. Focus on Exceptional Children,
28(3). doi:10.17161/fec.v28i3.6852
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting
professional learning communities at
work:
New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Friend,
M. (2008) Co-Teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 2(2).
Retrieved from http://www.joci.ecu.edu/index.php/JoCI/article/view/17/26
Friend,
M., & Barron, T. (2014.). Chapter 25:
co-teaching: inclusion and increased student achievement. proven programs in
education: classroom management & assessment, 121–125. Proven Programs
in Education: Classroom Management & Assessment; R.E. Slavin (Ed). doi:10.4135/9781483365633.n25
Lavoie,
R. (2007). Richard Lavoie: The Motivation Breakthrough. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e576212010-001
Lezotte, L. W., &
Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the
correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Murawski,
W. W (2015). Wendy Murawski Discusses Co-Teaching. SAGE Video. doi:10.4135/9781473930667
Murawski,
W. W. (2015). Chapter 13: Creative
Co-Teaching. What Really Works in Elementary Education, 203–216. Murawski
& Scott (Eds). doi:10.4135/9781483390161.n14
Murawski,
W. W., & Goodwirt, V. A. (2014). Chapter
21: Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum. Handbook of
Effective Inclusive Schools. doi:10.4324/9780203102930.ch21
Murawski,
W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2010). Observing Co-Teaching: What to Ask For,
Look For, and Listen For. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183. doi:10.1177/1053451210378165
Peterson,
K.D. & Peterson, C.A. (2006). How Principals Promote Effective Teacher
Evaluation. (n.d.). Effective Teacher
Evaluation, 16–23. doi:10.4135/9781412990219.d7
