CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
Co-Teaching: An Inclusion and Intervention Strategy in Secondary Education
Mary Ewart
Seattle Pacific University
EDAD 6580
1
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
2
Introduction
Co-teaching, by definition, is “two more more professionals delivering substantive
instruction to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space” (Cook &
Friend, 1995, p. 2). Since the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), schools have been
striving to find ways to incorporate students with disabilities into the general education
classroom, also known at times as the least restrictive environment. One strategy that has been
implemented to address this change in mindset is by implementing co-teaching. Often, when
considering how to create the least restrictive environment, this means creating a team of two or
more professionals, one being a general education teacher and the other being a special education
teacher, but as the above definition states, this is not a requirement. As the strategy has evolved,
its effectiveness has been studied for all students, regardless of special education status, and has
been considered as an intervention strategy for general education students (Nierengarten, 2013,
P. 74). Although co-teaching is a strategy that pairs experts in both content and specialized
instruction together to create an environment that is accessible to all students, it is not without its
opponents, particularly when applied in a secondary setting.
Personal Interest
My interest in co-teaching came out of a teaching assignment I received three years ago
where I was to be co-teaching in a Safety Net (intervention) Algebra 2 class. While I was excited
about the idea of co-teaching, I did not have much experience with it, aside from a friend of mine
who is a special education teacher using it in California as part of a shift to a Response to
Intervention model that her district had adopted. When I went to a district training for Safety Net
in math classrooms, I was confronted by a district administrator who informed me that there was
no evidence stating co-teaching was a good idea in secondary schools and that I must be
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
3
mistaken about my job assignment. That experience was the first time I realized that co-teaching,
especially in the secondary classroom, was a contentious topic. Although I have been coteaching now for two years, and have anecdotally seen how successful it can be in a secondary
classroom, I hoped to learn why an administrator would have such a strong reaction to the idea of
co-teaching as a secondary intervention strategy, and whether that reaction was supported by the
research.
Overview
The strategy of co-teaching is can be divided into five different arrangements: one
teaching/one assisting, station teaching, parallel teaching, alternative teaching, and team-teaching
(Zigmond & Magiera, 2001). In one teaching/one assisting, there is generally a primary teacher
who takes the lead for instruction, and a secondary assistant teacher who monitors students and
provides individual tutoring (Zigmond & Magiera, 2001, p.1). Station teaching occurs when
teachers run three stations in a classroom, with each teacher manning a station, and a third
independent work station (Zigmond & Magiera, 2001, p.1). Teachers who plan together and
teach the same lesson to separate groups of students is called parallel teaching (Zigmond &
Magiera, 2001, p.2), and alternative teaching occurs when a group of students is divided in
between a group of students who receive a review or extension activity and a smaller group who
receives re-teaching (Zigmond & Magiera, 2001, p.2). Lastly, there is team-teaching, in which
both teachers are actively engaged in instruction to an entire class of students (Zigmond &
Magiera, 2001, p.2). The focus of most literature on co-teaching focuses on the process of teamteaching, and that will also be the focus on this research critique.
Team-teaching can further be broken down into four additional categories: tag team, or
turn-taking, where one teacher teaches one part and then the other follows, speak and add, where
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
4
one teacher teaches and the other adds to what the first presented, speak and chart, where one
teacher teaches and the second records, and duet, where the teachers work in unison, often
finishing each others sentences and thoughts (Weiss & Lloyd, 2003).
Although team-teaching has been more commonly used in elementary classrooms, Dieker
and Murawski (2003) state that, “This practice is increasingly observed at the secondary level as
a potential method of addressing the inclusive movement” (p. 1). Dieker and Murawski continue
on to say, “…the development of a climate that embraces the different learning needs of all
students is one that is critical to the success of an inclusive and collaborative classroom
environment” (p. 4). One reason this method is becoming more popular in secondary classrooms
is because many secondary general education teachers participate in teacher preparation
programs that are very content-focused, and often feel unprepared or challenged to try to
integrate special education or significantly below standard students into their classrooms (Dieker
& Murawski, 2003). Considering the timing of the article, I agree that many teachers who
participated in secondary, content-specific teacher education programs prior to the writing of the
article lacked a formal level of training in integration of students with special education needs
into a general education classroom. Additionally, from my continued experience in education,
special education teachers are provided with more support and continued training in intervention
and integration strategies. However, it is important to note that many teacher education
programs, including all I have had experience with as both a teacher-education student, and as a
teacher working with new teachers, have worked to provide more support to secondary content
teachers to prepare them for this type of experience.
Nierengarten (2013) summarized her own work, and many previous studies, producing a
set of twenty suggestions that create effective co-teaching team at a high school level. Some of
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
5
the suggestions include: administrative training and support, teacher choice in participation and
choice of partner, teacher training, appropriate class ratios, common planning time, protection
and respect for the team, maintain effective teams, and continue with professional development
(Nierengarten, 2013). When used effectively, Nierengarten (2013) states, “Studies suggest that
co-teaching is not just a service delivery option for students with special needs; indeed it
provides all students with instructional advantages” (p. 74). Twenty suggestions can be daunting,
but as I read them with an eye as a future leader, it became clear to me that many are suggestions
that are necessary to successfully implement any program. For example, all new programs will
need administrative support, teacher buy-in, and effective teacher training before they can be
implemented successfully.
Dieker and Murawski (2003) also state: When coteaching is done in a purposeful manner,
the teaching team considers not only the needs of students with disabilities, but also the
needs of all students. As the diversity of our nation’s classrooms continue to expand,
models such as coteaching are needed at all levels to ensure the success of each student,
especially at the secondary level where the greatest learning gaps can occur. (p. 11)
These two articles touch on the idea that this strategy, which began as a strategy for inclusion
due to the IDEA, has now been found to be beneficial to not just the special education students,
but to all students, and especially in secondary classrooms where the gaps become the most
pronounced.
Critique
The first concern with co-teaching is touched on by Jung (1998), “For how long will
schools districts and states financially support co-teaching practices, given that the schools I
visited usually assigned two-teachers per inclusion classroom” (p. 138)? Although the issue was
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
6
skirted in many studies, multiple authors found that administration has to be supportive,
financially, of co-teaching. Nierengarten (2013), touched on this with the suggestions that
teachers need common planning time, respect of teams, appropriate ratios, and financial support.
Common planning time means making time in the master schedule or paying teachers for
additional planning time. Respect of teams means that a building cannot choose to use one of the
two teachers to cover another class without a teacher during the day. Appropriate ratios requires
maintaining class sizes and ratios of special education to general education to at-risk students
that are effective. Lastly, Nierengarten (2013) states very clearly that administration needs to
financially support the teams, including spending money and personnel allotment to ensure the
classrooms have two teachers. In an environment where schools are trying to balance between
current funding and test scores to ensure future funding, the idea of putting two teachers in a
classroom that only has 20-25 students at the most can be daunting.
An additional concern is finding staffing who share, “common, or at least compatible,
philosophy and approach to the instructional process” (Zigmond & Magiera, 2001). Nierengarten
(2013) suggests that teams need to work together for at least two to three years before they can
establish predictable routines, and states, “..co-teaching is an effort that takes time and patience”
(p. 81). In order to create a team of teachers who can develop effective routines and strategies, all
teachers involved have to be willing and prepared to participate. Ploessi, Rock, Schoenfeld &
Banks (2010) found, “co-teaching may be popular but it does not come naturally…the greatest
obstacle to co-teaching is the lack of preparedness of the educators involved…because it requires
an additional set of skills that are rarely used when teaching alone” (p. 158). A teacher in a case
study by Shaffer and Thomas-Brown (2015) states, “I feel that this is one more prep I have to do
on top of size already! I really don’t have the time or energy to fit in more conference time to
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
7
plan for this one hour” (p. 121). Keefe and Moore (2004) conclude, “The importance of the
relationship between the co-teachers appeared to be the most important determinant in how
successful the teachers viewed co-teaching and how likely they would be to continue coteaching” (p. 86). Without a staff of teachers on board, co-teaching will not be a successful
strategy for any student in the co-taught classroom.
Conclusions/Implications
The shift in mindset from pull-out support to mainstreamed inclusion for special
education students is almost 20 years old, and yet is still one that many educators and
administrators struggle with implementing. Administrators have to consider staffing, class sizes,
class dynamics, funding, facility restrictions, and individualized education goals when designing
a master schedule to provide the least restrictive environment for all students. Educators have to
consider class dynamics, facility restrictions, content standards, and individualized education
goals when designing instruction to provide the least restrictive environment for all students and
ensure all students equal access to the required content standards. This unique balance can
become even more difficult to achieve in a secondary school where the content becomes more
specialized and requires more advanced education prior to instruction.
The costs, both fiscal and related to time and support, associated with co-teaching are
daunting to say the least. The concerns with effectiveness of teams, master scheduling
complications, professional development requirements, and team dynamics are not minor, and
cannot be ignored. The question then becomes, is co-teaching an instructional strategy for
inclusion or intervention that is worth the costs of proper implementation?
When you consider the studies presented above, it becomes apparent that, when
implemented correctly, co-teaching is a strategy that can be easily implemented at a secondary
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
8
level. It is important to remember that co-teaching will not be as effective, or effective at all, if
teachers are placed in teams without buy-in, or if administrators do not support the teams and the
concept with time and fiscal support. Although staffing can be difficult, and expensive, if
administrators make intentional staffing decisions, and support that staffing with professional
development and appropriate class sizes and maintain the teacher teams, co-teaching provides
multiple layers of support for both special education students, and students at risk of failure in
the content area. This makes it a valuable and worthwhile strategy to use at the secondary level
in both inclusion and intervention scenarios.
Implications on Future Leadership Practice
Considering how this will impact me in my future leadership roles causes me to consider
both very specific and very broad implications to my leadership practice. The most immediate,
and specific, implication is that I will definitely be supportive of teams of teachers who are
interested in using co-teaching as a strategy. Although this will take a significant amount of
planning and support from all leaders involved, including department chairs, content team
leaders, building and district level administrators, I will provide as much support and
professional development as I can, as both the research and my own personal experience has
shown me how effective this strategy can be when implemented correctly. The broader
implication is how this research has shown me that decisions or strategies that work are not
always the easiest to implement, nor are they without their opponents. It is easy, as a leader, to
try to find something that will make everyone happy from the beginning, and although coteaching is only one specific example of a contentious topic, it is clear from critiquing this
research that decisions that will be effective and beneficial to many stakeholders will require a
significant amount of work in preparation, implementation, and continued support. This is an
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
9
important reminder to me, as I consider future leadership roles, to not look for the easiest path to
travel, but to look for what will be best for all stakeholders, keeping in mind that there will be a
lot of work to be done to provide the necessary support for any decision to be successful.
CO-TEACHING: AN INCLUSION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
10
References
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,
current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law No. 105-17. (1997). 20 U.S. Code
Section 1400 et. Seq.
Jung, B. (1998(. Mainstreaming and fixing things: secondary teachers and inclusion. The
Educational Forum, 62(2), 131-138.
Keefe, E. B., & Moore, V. (2004). The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the
high school level: What the teachers told us. American Secondary Education, 32(3), 7788.
Nierengarten, G. (2013). Supporting co-teaching teams in high schools: Twenty research-based
Practices. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 73-83.
Ploessi, D., Rock, M., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. (2010). On the same page: Practical
techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in school and clinic, 45(3),
158-168.
Shaffer, L., & Thomas-Brown, K. (2015) Enhancing teacher competency through co-teaching
and embedded professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies,
3(3), 117-123.
Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditions for co-teaching: Lessons from a case study. Teaher
Education and Special Education, 26(1), 27-41.
Zigmond, N. & Magiera, K. (2001) A focus on co-teaching. Current Practice Alerts, 6, 1-4.