Planning, Implementing, and Mentoring for Successful Co-Teaching

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