Co-Teaching Handbook: Utah Guidelines

CO-TEACHING HANDBOOK
Utah Guidelines
ING
L TEACH
PARALLE
TEAM
ING
ONE TEACH, ONE ASSIST
N TE ACHING
STATIO
ONE
TEAC
H, ON
E OB
SERV
E
tation
ndent S
Indepe
STATE
Utah OFFICE
of Education
CO-TEACHING HANDBOOK:
Utah Guidelines
Larry K. Shumway
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Glenna Gallo
Director of Special Education
Sydnee Dickson
Director of Teaching and Learning
Janet Gibbs
Education Specialist
Utah State Office of Education

250 East 500 South
P. O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4200
September 2011
ii
Table of Contents
Foreword………………………………………………………………………………………………….vi
Definition.................................................................................................................................... 1
Several Attributes of Co-Teaching.............................................................................................. 2
Co-Teaching: What It IS, What It Is NOT.................................................................................... 3
Tips for School-Wide Implementation......................................................................................... 4
The Administrator’s Role............................................................................................................ 5
Model - Parallel Teaching ...........................................................................................................7
Model - Station Teaching……………………………………………………………………..………….9
Model - Teaming .......................................................................................................................12
Model - Alternative Teaching.....................................................................................................14
Model - One Teach, One Observe ............................................................................................16
Model - One Teach, One Assist ................................................................................................18
Evaluating a Co-Teaching Program…………………………………..……………………………... 20
Frequently Asked Questions .....................................................................................................22
Appendices ...............................................................................................................................27
School Readiness Checklist......................................................................................................28
Co-Teaching Partner Checklist .................................................................................................29
Co-Teaching Classroom Practices Reference Chart .................................................................30
Resource Websites...................................................................................................................31
iii
Dear Utah Educators,
Your ongoing efforts and dedication to improving educational results for all of Utah’s
collaborative partnerships of education professionals in our public schools. The Utah State
Board of Education has made “Promises to Keep” for Utah’s public education system. These
promises include:
• Ensuring literacy and numeracy for all Utah children.

• Providing high quality instruction for all Utah children.
• Establishing a curriculum with high standards and relevance for all Utah children.
• Requiring effective assessment to inform high quality instruction and accountability.
Utah has adopted the Common Core State Standards, the intent of which is to ensure that all
students are college and career ready. This new Utah Core Curriculum has resulted in a shift of
learning expectations for students and educators, causing traditional instructional methods to be
reevaluated to determine effectiveness for student learning. The Promises alone are not
sufficient to accomplish needed instructional practice changes. Although we now have higher
standards for all students, including those with disabilities, we must continue efforts toward
ensuring that all of our students receive quality instruction by highly effective teachers.
One instructional model that has been reevaluated is co-teaching. Co-teaching is an

instructional arrangement in which a general education teacher and a special education teacher
deliver core instruction (along with specialized instruction as needed) to a diverse group of
students in a single physical space. These co-teaching partnerships require general and
special educators to make joint instructional decisions and share responsibility and
accountability for the learning of all students, while at the same time building on the strengths of
each involved educator to provide high quality core instruction paired with needed specialized
instruction in an effort to meet the variety of student needs. Co-teaching is an adaptable model,
allowing educators to adjust and blend teaching skills - a benefit for students, teachers, and the
school, allowing students to receive effective, targeted instruction while teachers continue to
learn and apply instructional skills.
We appreciate you taking the time to review this co-teaching manual to determine whether this
is an instructional strategy that meets your specific needs. As we continue to collaborate and
work together, we will be able to accomplish our goal - to improve educational outcomes for all
students. Thank you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Glenna Gallo, Director of Special Education, Utah State Office of Education
Sydnee Dickson, Director of Teaching and Learning, Utah State Office of Education
iv
Utah State Board of Education
250 East 500 South
P. O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4200
District 1 District 6 District 11

Tami W. Pyfer Michael G. Jensen David L Crandall
52 Ballard Way 4139 S Aubrey Ln 13464 Saddle Ridge Drive
Logan, UT 84321 West Valley City, UT 84128 Draper, UT 84020
Phone (435) 753-7529 Phone: (801) 955-5550 Phone: (801-232-0795

Keith M Buswell Leslie B. Castle Carol A. Murphy
1027 West 3800 North 2465 S. Marys Drive 463 West 140 North
Pleasant View, UT 84414 Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Midway, UT 84049
Phone: (801) 510-1773 Phone: (801) 581-9752 Phone: (435) 729-0941

Craig E. Coleman Janet A. Cannon C. Mark Openshaw
621 South Main Street 5256 Holladay Blvd. 3329 Piute Drive
Genola, UT 84655 Salt Lake City, UT 84117 Provo, UT 84604

David L. Thomas Joel Coleman Dixie L. Allen
7875 South 2250 East 3740 Bawden Avenue 218 West 5250 North
South Weber, UT 84405 West Valley City, UT 84120 Vernal, UT 84078

Kim R. Burningham Laurel O. Brown Debra G. Roberts
932 Canyon Crest Drive 5311 South Lucky Clover Ln Box 1780
Bountiful, UT 84010 Murray, UT 84123 Beaver, UT 84713
Phone: (801) 292-9261 Phone: (801) 261-4221 Phone: (435)-438-5843
Meghan Holbrook* Daniel W. Campbell* Isaiah (Ike) Spencer***

775 North Hilltop Road 4304 Stone Creek Lane 1029 East 11780 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Provo, UT 84604 Sandy, UT 84094
Phone: (801) 539-0622 Phone: (801) 434-3400 Phone: (801-949-0858
James V. (Jim) Olsen** R. Dean Rowley**** Tim Beagley*****

5657 W 10770 N 526 South 170 West 3974 S. 3550 W.
Highland, UT 84003 Springville, UT 84663 West Valley City, UT 84119
Larry K. Shumway Lorraine Austin

Chief Executive Officer Board Secretary
(801) 538-7510 (801) 538-7517
*Board of Regents Appointments ** UAT Representative Appointment

***CMAC Advisory Representative Appointment ****USBA Advisory Representative Appointment
*****Charter School Representative Appointment
v
Foreword
In 2001 the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, and in 2004 the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was reauthorized. These two pieces of Federal
legislation put increasing pressure on educators to educate students with disabilities in
the general education environment. In addition, there is an emphasis in these two
pieces of legislation on having higher standards for students with disabilities and
ensuring that students with disabilities receive instruction from highly effective teachers.
With this emphasis in mind, schools are searching for service delivery options that will
address the need for quality instruction provided by highly effective teachers to students
with disabilities and those at risk of not succeeding. One service delivery model that is
receiving renewed attention is co-teaching.
Co-taught classes provide students with disabilities with access to the general
curriculum. These co-taught classrooms ensure that each student has a highly qualified
content area teacher, as well as a teacher who is highly qualified in differentiation
strategies.
The purpose of this document is to provide Utah administrators and teachers - both
general and special educators - with a starting point from which to obtain information on
different models, some implementation guidelines, and some basic forms when
implementing co-teaching. The models described in this document are based on the
work of Marilyn Friend. She has been and continues to be the inspiration for educators
who implement co-teaching to improve student outcomes. This document is not
intended to be the final word or provide comprehensive information when putting co-
teaching into practice. Other resources are plentiful, both on the Internet and in
published materials, which should be accessed when planning and implementing
models of co-teaching school-wide.
vi
Definition
Co-teaching is the instructional
arrangement in which a general education
teacher and a special education teacher
deliver core instruction along with
specialized instruction, as needed, to a
diverse group of students in a single
physical space. Co-teaching partnerships
require educators to make joint instructional
decisions and share responsibility and
accountability for student learning.
1
Several Attributes of Co-Teaching
Students, teachers and schools can receive many overarching benefits when there is a well-
constructed co-teaching model(s) in place which is supported by strong, ongoing professional
development and a supportive administrator. Listed below are possible benefits for students,
teachers, and schools.
Students receive the following benefits from a well-constructed and supported co-teaching
model(s):
x Enrichment opportunities
x Tiered levels of instruction within the classroom
x Access to a variety of instructional strategies supported by two highly qualified
instructors
x A supportive system for educators that addresses students’ needs
x Opportunities for peer interactions
x Accommodations for students
x Reduced stigma for students with disabilities
x Exposure to positive academic and social role models
Teachers receive the following benefits from a well-constructed and supported co-teaching
model(s):
x Shared responsibility, which lightens the workload

x Combined ownership of the instructional environment
x Experts to collect and analyze data to inform instruction
x Increased collaboration in lesson development and delivery of instruction
x Mutual goals
x Less teacher isolation
x Greater teacher efficacy
x Shared responsibility for outcomes
x Classrooms with a potential for fewer behavior referrals
Schools receive the following benefits from a well-constructed and supported co-teaching
model(s):
x Establishment of a school-based culture of collaboration

x Establishment of a supportive system for all educators
x Decreased student-to-teacher ratio
2
Co-Teaching: What It IS, What It Is NOT
Co-teaching IS Co-teaching is NOT

Joint responsibility for planning, instruction One teacher maintaining all
delivery and classroom management planning and instruction
A component of a continuum of services Having a “smaller” class in a
for students with disabilities large classroom
Carefully matched professionals to ensure Two professionals providing
success for ALL students instruction to a homogenous
group of students
Both professionals present in class every An extra set of hands in the
day classroom
Both professionals planning lessons to One paraprofessional and one
meet the needs of ALL learners professional instructing
Both professionals being responsible for A special educator working only
ALL students with students with disabilities
3
Tips for School-Wide Implementation
x Start the process before the school year begins by sharing with stakeholders,
including parents, proposed program planning, vision, and professional
development outcomes.
x Identify and provide common planning time.
x Plan team composition, compatibility, and schedules to ensure effective
instruction.
x Identify and provide opportunities for ongoing and targeted professional
development.
x Set class size guidelines to enable numbers to be maintained at a reasonable
level.
x Maintain effective teams from year to year.
x Teach school faculty members about the benefits of co-teaching.
x Develop a school-wide belief in inclusive practices that increase accessibility to
the core for all. The notion of “your kids, my kids” should be replaced with the
notion of “our kids”.
x Develop parental support/buy in/knowledge regarding co-teaching.
x It is important to have special education teachers teach in the same content area
rather than spreading them across multiple content areas.
x Assign special education teachers to content areas in which they have
credentials, expertise or interest.
x When assigning students to a co-taught class, some issues to assess are:
o The severity of cognitive, behavioral and academic skill deficits of
student(s).
o Compatibility issues of the teachers and students.
o Seeing that both teachers are familiar with students who have IEPs.
o Having guidelines in place for the number of students with disabilities in a
co-taught class. Friend (2008) recommends the following:
o Elementary grades in which no more than 25% of the class
members are students with disabilities
o Secondary grades in which no more than 33% of the class
members are students with disabilities
o When the numbers increase at either level, the quality of co-teaching may
suffer.
4
The Administrator’s Role
Teaching has traditionally been an isolated profession, but changes in funding and
staffing, as well as the increased focus on improving outcomes for all students and
minimizing the achievement gap, has brought co-teaching to the forefront as one of the
fastest growing options to address these issues. Unfortunately, it also has been
misunderstood and misapplied. This has created an environment or experience that has
left many educators resistant to and wary of this practice. Administrative support at the
school and district levels is crucial in providing and maintaining a supportive environment
for an effective co-teaching program. With this in mind, what are some steps an
administrator can implement to create and maintain a supportive environment?
Administrators should:
x Have knowledge and understanding of the definition, purpose and models of co-
teaching.
x Assist in the evaluation of the co-teaching process.
x Have the ability to articulate the definition and purpose of co-teaching to
stakeholders.
x Understand the models that are most effective and when their use is
recommended.
x Provide funding for materials.
x Build and support a school culture that supports educating all students.
x Provide ongoing opportunities and funding for professional development.
x Expect all teachers to be accountable for student outcomes, both behaviorally
and academically.
x Develop a school policy that sets criteria for student placement in co-teaching
classes.
x Consider class size for co-teaching and evenly distribute students.
x Actively support and be engaged in facilitating change.
What are some ways in which an administrator can provide support for
co-teaching?
x View inclusion as a collaborative effort, and consider that the success of students
with disabilities is everyone’s responsibility, not just the responsibility of special
education teachers.
x Ensure there is a continuum of services for students with disabilities. Ensure that
appropriate services are provided to students with disabilities based on their
unique needs as described in their IEPs.
x Avoid blanket statements such as “All special education students will be served
through the co-teaching model” or “We are a totally inclusive school.”
x Match educators appropriately to ensure successful co-teaching teams.
5
x Allow teachers to volunteer to co-teach. By allowing teachers to volunteer,
administrators create an environment where co-teaching is more likely to be
successful.
x Find creative ways to provide teachers with a common planning time. Providing
common planning time may be difficult, but it is crucial that common planning
time be provided as often as possible.
x Provide targeted and ongoing professional development opportunities that
contribute to successful co-taught classrooms and programs. Some topics might
focus on building continuing collaborative efforts for co-teachers, content
knowledge, instructional strategies, classroom management, and assessment
(formative and summative).
Infusing and implementing any instructional technique or methodology into a school culture can
be challenging. The successful implementation of a co-teaching program may depend on
several variables, but an administrator’s commitment to the process, support for teachers and
ongoing professional development may ensure a smoother and more successful co-teaching
program.
6
Model—Parallel Teaching
Recommended Use (Frequent)
Teachers are both teaching the same information, but they divide the class into equal
groups and teach simultaneously. This allows for more support, more supervision and
greater participation from students.
Implementation:
x Students are divided into equal-sized groups.
x Each teacher teaches the same content in the same amount of time.
x Instructional methods may differ.
x Groups do not rotate.
Opportunities:
x Students may be divided into groups using a variety of strategies based
on student or curricular needs.
x Teacher flexibility can enhance instruction.
x Student-to-teacher ratio may be lower.
x Students have an increased opportunity for response and participation.
x Both teachers play an active role in instructing in this model.
Challenges:
x Teachers need to identify appropriate physical space.
x Teachers must have adequate knowledge of content and pedagogical

skills to provide equally effective instruction.
x Having two teachers instructing at the same time may be distracting.
x Teachers must consider noise level tolerance and purposefully plan for an
effective classroom environment.
7
Parallel Teaching
Classroom Setup Model
8
Model—Station Teaching
Recommended Use (Frequent)
Teachers divide content and students. Each teacher then teaches a portion of the
content to one group and subsequently repeats the instruction for the other group. A
third or fourth “station” can give students opportunities to work independently, accessing
peer tutoring and technology.
Implementation:
x Students are divided into equal-sized groups.
x Each teacher teaches a portion of the content in the same amount of

time.
x Teachers prepare two or more stations in advance.
x Groups rotate from station to station.
x Secondary teachers may consider station teaching, especially if they

are in block schedules.
Opportunities:
x Teachers have an opportunity to work with every student in the class.
x Allows for a lower student-teacher ratio.
x Results in fewer behavior issues during instructional time due to higher

student activity/engagement.
x Allows teachers to more closely monitor student learning and behavior.
x This model may be used to increase student participation.
x This model may be used when content is complex but not hierarchical.
Challenges:
x Identifying appropriate physical space can be difficult.
x Teacher instructional methods may differ.
x Teachers must have adequate knowledge of content and pedagogical

skills to provide equally effective instruction.
9
x Classroom environment may be distracting for students with two
teachers instructing.
x Stations must be designed to function independently.
x Teacher planning time may be significant.
x Teachers must consider noise level tolerance and purposefully plan for
an effective classroom environment.
10
Station Teaching
11
Model—Teaming
Recommended Use (Occasional)
Both teachers are delivering the same instruction at the same time. Some teachers refer
to this as having “one brain in two bodies.” Others call it “tag-team teaching.” Most co-
teachers consider this approach the most complex but satisfying way to co-teach. This
approach is most dependent on teachers’ styles.
Implementation:
x Both teachers are fully engaged in delivery of the core instruction.
x Both teachers are responsible for classroom management and student

behavior.
Opportunities:
x This model can be very energizing.
x Allows for a broadening of the curriculum through a variety of teaching

strategies.
x Allows teachers to work together collaboratively.
x Allows teachers to demonstrate individual expertise.
x Teachers can orchestrate instructional conversation.
x Teachers can introduce new topics/concepts.
Challenges:
x Both teachers must have strong content knowledge.
x Teachers must gauge their contributions so that pacing is maintained.
x Teachers must have significant planning time available.
x Teachers are required to collaborate effectively.
x Teachers may not be as aware of individual student needs.
x Demands the greatest amount of trust and commitment from teachers.
12
Teaming
13
Model—Alternative Teaching
Recommended Use (Limited)
One teacher takes responsibility for the large group while the other works with a smaller group.
The smaller group is not a permanent subset of the class and can be pulled aside for pre-
teaching, enrichment, tiered intervention, to develop a special activity to present to the
remainder of the class, or for presentation of content using an alternative method or strategy.
Implementation:
x Teachers need to determine instructional/intervention needs of class (grouping
for the day, who manages specific groups, instructional needs of groups).
x The teacher who works with the smaller group follows the same lesson plan
being implemented by teacher in the larger group.
x The small group instructor makes accommodations and/or modifications to

instruction to meet the needs of students.
Opportunities:
x Use when students’ content knowledge varies tremendously.
x Use for managing student behavior to focus student learning.
x Use for monitoring student performance to provide immediate feedback, positive

reinforcement, and correction.
x Use for informal assessment to inform instruction and meet needs of students.
x Use for pre/re-teaching, enrichment activities, and intentional observation time.
Challenges:
x Students with disabilities may always be in the same group at the same time.
x Students may perceive a stigma of being placed into a small group.
x Teachers may have difficulty finding adequate planning time.
x One teacher may dominate the other in content and/or teaching style.
14
Alternative Teaching
15
Model—One Teach, One Observe
Recommended Use (Limited)
One teacher manages instruction of the entire class while another teacher systematically
gathers data that the two teachers have determined to be important. This approach may best be
used during the first weeks of school and near the end of the school year. Teachers should use
this model five to ten percent of the time during a class period.
Implementation:
x Teachers review instruction and mastery of concepts.
x Teachers review and record student behavior(s) for decision making.
x Teachers use this model to evaluate the effectiveness and delivery of

instructional strategies.
Opportunities:
x Teachers focus on students’ needs more explicitly.
x Teachers may monitor their own skills.
x Teachers collect data for Individualized Education Program (IEP) planning.
Challenges:
x Teachers need to know how to collect and analyze appropriate data.
x Teachers’ trust level needs to be strong.
x Teachers may overuse.
16
One Teach, One Observe
17
Model—One Teach, One Assist
Recommended Use (Seldom)
One person takes primary responsibility for teaching the content of a lesson while the
other professional circulates through the room providing unobtrusive assistance to
students as needed. During certain types of instruction or certain portions of a class
period, this approach can be helpful. It should not be overused, and teachers should
switch roles so that one isn’t the primary provider of content and the other isn’t the
primary “assistant” in the lesson.
Implementation:
x Assisting teacher may collect data and observe to ensure student
understanding.
x Assisting teacher may provide assistance to struggling student(s).
x Assisting teacher may monitor student behavior.
x Instructing teacher orchestrates learning tasks and classroom discussion.
Opportunities:
x Students may silently signal an adult for assistance.
x Teachers may monitor more closely students’ social and academic behavior.
Challenges:
x Assisting teacher may act as a passive partner while instructing teacher
maintains a traditional teaching model.
x Students may view one teacher as the “real” teacher and the other as an
assistant or aide.
x Students may be distracted when one teacher walks around.
x Students may expect one-on-one assistance.
x Special educators need to be experts in the content area.
x Teachers should use this model sparingly, and only for a portion of the
instruction time.
x Teachers should alternate roles, balancing instruction and assisting.
18
One Teach, One Assist
Other teacher moves around the classroom.
19
Evaluating a Co-Teaching Program
The purpose of observing and evaluating any program is to determine the effectiveness of the
program and make decisions based on the outcome of the evaluation. The overarching question
when evaluating a co-teaching program is “Does co-teaching positively affect student
outcomes?”
Before implementing a co-teaching program, a school or district should determine whether or

not it is “ready” to implement co-teaching. This could be accomplished through a needs
assessment or a co-teaching team readiness checklist (see Appendices).
After determining an LEA’s readiness, creating a culture of collaboration, and implementing co-
teaching model(s) with fidelity, the evaluation process of co-teaching may involve two levels.
The first would be at a classroom and the second at a district level.
CLASSROOM-LEVEL EVALUTION
In evaluating a co-teaching classroom, the principal should understand that there will be many
factors to consider. First, as in any classroom, there should be evidence of components of an
effective lesson. Differentiated instruction, clear objectives, formative assessment and evidence-
based practices should all be apparent in an effective lesson.
Beyond ensuring an effective lesson and instruction, decisions need to be made about
observing and evaluating a co-taught classroom. These decisions should be made well before
co-teaching is implemented, and co-teaching teams should be aware of any observation and
evaluation criteria. Some questions to help move toward an observation and evaluation protocol
are:
9 Should teachers be observed separately or as a team?

9 Should the special education administrator observe the special education
teacher individually?
9 Should the general education administrator observe the general education
teacher individually?
9 Should there be different criteria for each teacher?
9 Would criteria be above and beyond the traditional classroom?
9 Most importantly, what will the criteria be for observing co-taught classes?
School administrators should be clear and consistent regarding criteria for a co-teaching
observation and evaluation protocol. G.L. Wilson (2005) has suggested three areas that should
be the focus when developing a co-taught class observation and evaluation protocol. The three
main areas are (1) meaningful roles for both teachers, (2) use of research-based strategies, and
(3) evidence of success.
20
The following suggestions may help an administrator with defining and developing a protocol in
these three areas for a co-taught classroom.
Roles for both teachers:
9 Evidence that each teacher’s role is clearly identified throughout the lesson
9 Evidence that the special educator is identified as a teacher with equal
instructional responsibilities
9 Evidence that both teachers are appropriately qualified and certified
9 Evidence that both teachers understand the Utah Common Core
Research-based strategies:
9 Evidence of co-planning
9 Evidence of an effective lesson
9 Evidence of research-based effective and systematic instructional strategies,
both academic and behavioral
9 Evidence of opportunities to learn, including accessibility strategies and
accommodations, where needed, for students with disabilities
Evidence of student success:
9 Evidence that all students are actively engaged by asking and answering
questions
9 Evidence of progress monitoring
9 Evidence of effective classroom management
9 Evidence of high expectations for all students
9 Evidence that the Utah Common Core is being taught
District-Level Evaluation
Although it is important to evaluate co-teaching at the school level, district-level

administrators also may wish to evaluate the program district-wide. District evaluation
may focus on broader questions such as:
o What are the goals and objectives?

o Have the original goals and objectives been met?
o What are the outcomes for all students?
o Is co-teaching having a positive impact on student outcomes?
o Is co-teaching working in schools?
o Are teachers supportive of co-teaching?
o Is sustainability of co-teaching possible?
School and district administrations can use the above suggestions or create their own
evaluation protocols that may be specific to their school or district. The final outcome of any
evaluation is to enable a school- or district-level administration to use data to inform decision
making with regard to co-teaching.
21
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What does the research say about co-teaching? Does co-teaching improve
the achievement of students?
In education, there are times when practice outpaces research. Research on co-
teaching that meets the “gold standard” is limited. However, there are some
general conclusions that can be drawn from the limited research available.
Some of the conclusions are:
x Administrators, teachers, and students respond to co-teaching in a

positive way.
x Teachers report they benefit professionally from a co-teaching
relationship.
x Teachers report that students with disabilities benefit academically
from a co-teaching model.
In the Resources section there are several journal articles that can provide
additional information on co-teaching research, especially in the content areas.
2. What type of skills and knowledge should teachers have when participating
in co-teaching?
These types of skills and knowledge may be course specific, but some skills and
knowledge that should be consistent are content knowledge, special education
laws, disabilities characteristics, collaborative skills, and classroom management
strategies.
3. How does an administrator form effective teams?
Many teachers believe that compatibility is the most important factor in

developing co-teaching teams. Co-teaching should be a mutually beneficial
arrangement for the teachers and the students involved. Educators who have a
desire and a commitment to co-teaching should start the team-building process
by communicating about some of the following issues.
x Is there a joint understanding of the definition of co-teaching?

x What are teachers preferences in the classroom about their
teaching style?
x How is communicating with parents handled?
x How are lessons planned?
x Is more than one model used?
x Who chooses the co-teaching model(s)?
22
Other areas to discuss are classroom environment, procedures, rules for
behavior, instructional noise level, and other issues that have an impact on
effective instruction.
Once a team is formed, maintaining the professional relationship will be an on-

going process built upon continued communication about the needs of both the
teachers and the students.
4. In what grade level should co-teaching be implemented?
Co-teaching models can be implemented across all grade levels and content
areas.
5. What type of professional development should be considered when

co-teaching?
Co-teachers will require professional development in the content areas,

accommodations, general disability areas, instructional strategies, behavior
management, and classroom management. Co-teacher teams may wish to meet
at regular intervals and discuss and share what is working. Co-teaching teams
could access various websites on co-teaching strategies, which could be another
source of providing professional development support.
6. Does co-teaching need to look the same everywhere?
Since there are several different models of co-teaching, there isn’t a “one size fits
all,” nor would it look the same everywhere. The benefit of co-teaching is that a
team can use a variety of models, depending on the situation and student needs.
7. How do teachers select the co-teaching approach that works best?
Co-teachers may select a model to use depending on what instructional

outcomes are desired. At other times the choice may be based on the needs of
the students and the content or skills being taught during a specific lesson. No
one model is recommended to be used exclusively.
8. What are some factors that should be considered when creating a co-
teaching school-wide schedule?
Some elementary schools stagger the content being taught, so that one specific
content is not taught in more than one place at the same time. Other elementary
schools teach one specific content class to all students at the same time,
allowing for student grouping based on need, which may allow the special
educator to move among classrooms.
In secondary schools, scheduling co-taught classes first, before other scheduled

classes, may allow for clearer expectations of students and teachers. This may
23
also send the message that co-teaching is important. Some secondary schools
assign a special educator to specific departments. This is particularly important
where the content may be perceived as being more difficult, such as in
mathematics or science classes.
One recommendation would be to begin with a master schedule that shows co-
taught classes and the common planning time.
9. How can teachers find common planning time?
There are a variety of ways to create a common planning time. Some ways to
build opportunities for a common planning time include:
x Using a substitute to release the professionals for collaboration.

x Using an administrator to cover classes.
x Using paraeducators to cover classes during non-instructional
time.
x Using time before or after school.
10. How much time is needed for common planning time during the school
year?
The answer to this varies. Many teachers feel that they need to meet once a
week, some every day, and others less often. As teachers become more
comfortable with their content and role, or as the content changes, the time
needed may increase or decrease.
11. Is co-teaching always the teaming of a special educator with a general

educator?
This is the typical approach. Co-teaching should always have a general educator
as one of the partners. There are other professionals who might be involved in
co-teaching; English as a second language (ESL) teachers, high-ability teachers,
speech-language pathologists (SLP) or school psychologists may all be involved
in a co-teaching situation. The issue isn’t the “title” of the other professional, but
the fact that both teachers are licensed professionals with the commitment to
collaborate and improve outcomes for all students.
12. What is the expectation for special education teachers when co-teaching
various content areas?
It would be best practice to have a special educator co-teach in content areas of

his/her expertise. If a special educator co-teaches in multiple content areas it
may limit or prevent collaboration, instruction and providing other IEP services for
students with disabilities.
24
13. Should co-teaching be indicated on a student’s IEP? Should all students
with IEPs be taught in co-teaching classrooms?
The special education teacher should check with his/her local special education
director to see if there are guidelines regarding this question. If there is no
policy, the team should be consistent in how they identify and provide co-
teaching. The IEP team makes the placement decision based on where a student
with disabilities would be best served. Co-taught classes should not be the only
option for students with disabilities to access the general curriculum. A continuum
of services must be available.
14. How are the goals and objectives in a student’s IEP addressed in a
co-taught classroom?
Co-teaching is an optional service delivery model. The IEP team may want to
review the goals and objectives in a student’s IEP and the opportunity for
specialized instruction in the co-taught classroom. Before considering placement
of a student with a disability in a co-taught classroom, the IEP team may wish to
consider and discuss:
x The degree of specialized instruction the student needs in order to

meet his/her IEP goals.
x The severity of a student’s behaviors.
x The student’s ability to keep up with the general curriculum.
x The prerequisite skills the student needs in order to master the
grade-level curriculum.
x The option of a trial placement in a co-taught classroom.
Remember that accommodations and modifications do not constitute

specialized instruction.
15. What does co-teaching look like for students with significant cognitive
disabilities?
There is no single answer, but experience suggests that students with significant
cognitive disabilities can benefit from participating in a co-taught classroom, even
if that exposure is limited. This model might occur more at the elementary level.
This service model might help meet the IDEA requirement of least restrictive
environment (LRE). A discussion at the local education agency (LEA) level after
careful reflection and discussion about inclusive practices would be appropriate.
16. Does co-teaching work for high-ability students?
If there is an understanding or belief that high-ability students have exceptional

needs, then the answer may be yes. Unlike students with disabilities, there is no
mandate for a high-ability student to be instructed in a specific setting. The
25
school may wish to research the issue, discuss implementation and determine
the impact on all students. A discussion at the LEA level after careful reflection
and discussion would be appropriate.
17. How do I effectively work with a substitute teacher when the other co-
teacher is absent?
It is beneficial to meet briefly with the substitute to review the co-teaching

process, and to continue to co-teach with the substitute.
18. What are some grouping strategies to use in co-teaching?
The following strategies might be considered:
x Heterogeneous
o Unlike needs/interest/skills/mixed gender, this may be useful when
assessing instructional or intervention focus for future grouping.
x Homogeneous
o Like needs/interest/skills/same gender, this may be useful when
providing targeted instruction or interventions.
x Skill-based
o Same skill level; this may be useful when providing targeted
interventions.
x Student interest
o Same research topic/project; this may be useful when a project or
topic is assigned for class-wide presentations.
x Action research
o Teachers may wish to do action research on instructional or
intervention strategies for an identified group of students.
x Random
o No formal organization; allowing students to group themselves.
19. How do we address parents’ concerns about their students in a co-taught

class?
Implementing co-teaching in a school is like any other change in an educational

environment. The more information parents have, the more likely they will
understand the benefits for their student in a co-taught class. The LEA should
communicate at the first of the school year about the co-teaching model,
expectations for students, teachers, and the selection process; this will help
alleviate some of the issues. A principal can identify, through a master schedule,
which classes and teachers participate in co-teaching, have in place a policy on
class grouping, and ensure that parent and teacher input has been gathered and
considered. As professionals, teachers in a co-taught class have a responsibility
to listen to parents, ask questions and work on solutions to resolve parent
concerns or fears. Co-teaching is an option both for students with disabilities and
for other students.
26
Appendices
27
School Readiness Checklist
Yes No
The school administration is supportive and committed to co-teaching,
especially regarding co-planning time, scheduling assistance and
professional development.
Teachers have participated in a school-wide pre-implementation

planning and professional development on co-teaching.
The administration has purchased resources (classroom materials, co-

teaching literature, etc.) to support co-teaching implementation.
Plans have been developed for dissemination of information on co-

teaching to teachers who did not attend initial training.
Plans have been developed for regular dissemination of information on

co-teaching to parents and other stakeholders.
Plans have been developed for evaluating the school’s co-teaching

program.
Co-teaching implementation has been incorporated as part of the

school improvement plan.
There is collaboration between general and special education teachers

to ensure all students succeed.
Teachers have been provided with mutual planning time for

co-teaching.
28
Co-Teaching Partner Checklist
Co-teaching partners have:

_____ Discussed and understood the definition of co-teaching.
_____ Discussed and identified preferred co-teaching model.
_____ Discussed and shared understandings with regard to students with

disabilities and expectations in relation to accommodations, and
instructional needs.
_____ Shared, discussed, and identified shared roles and responsibilities.
_____ Discussed perceptions of a shared classroom.
_____ Shared and discussed similar beliefs and how to resolve

differences if they arise.
_____ Shared the potential strengths and liabilities each teacher brings to
co-teaching.
_____ Shared and discussed perceptions on the following topics:
x Classroom rules
x Grading
x Disciplinary issues
x Parent contact
x Classroom routines
x Homework
x Physical environment of classroom
x Teacher style or preference
x Other
Source: Adapted from M. Friend & L. Cook, Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School
Professionals, 6th ed. (Boston: Pearson, 2010).
29
Co-Teaching Classroom Practices Reference Chart
Model Advantages Disadvantages Recommended
Use
Parallel Teaching Flexibility in teaching; Teachers must provide equivalent Frequent
increases students’ instruction; pacing of instruction can be a
response time challenge
Station Teaching Elementary teachers are Stations must function independently; Frequent
comfortable with this noise levels
model; small groups
Teaming Appropriate for all grade Loses valuable instructional strategy of Occasional
and content areas; very grouping; comfort level of both teachers (most popular with
energizing teachers)
Alternative Teaching Provides intense, small- Small-group instruction may be seen as Occasional
group instruction; equivalent to a special education
enrichment and classroom; special education students
intervention are over-identified to participate in small
opportunities group instruction
One Teach, One Observe Monitoring of student Potential to overuse; should not be used Limited
skills; ability to collect in a new co-teaching partnership; may be
data seen as a “evaluation” of teacher leading
instruction
One Teach, One Assist Content teacher Greatest potential to be abused and Limited
provides most overused; one teacher becomes “glorified (for certain
instruction; individual aide” instructional situations)
assistance readily
available
This graphic serves only as a quick reference tool. Please review the information in the document for complete
information on the six co-teaching models.
30
Resource Websites
http://www.coteach.com
http://www.k8accesscenter.org
http://www.doverschools.org
http://www.rock-hill.k12.sc.us
http://education.wm.edu
http://www.iu17org.org
http://www.powerof2.org
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu
Print Sources
Fattig, M.L. & Taylor, M.T. (2008). Co-teaching in the Differentiated Classroom:
Successful Collaboration, Lesson Design, and Classroom Management.
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Friend, M. (2008). Co-Teach! A Handbook for Creating and Sustaining Effective

Classroom Partnerships in Inclusive Schools. Marilyn Friend, Inc., NC.
Friend, M & Cook, L.(2010). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School

Professionals. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Heacox, D. (2002). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to

Reach and Teach All Learners, Grades 3-12. Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.,
Minneapolis, MN.
McDuffie, K. (2010). The Co-Teaching Guide for Special Education Directors:

From Guesswork to What Really Works. LRP, PA.
Sileo, J. Co-Teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional

Children, May/June 2011 (v.43. n. 5).
Scruggs, T.E. Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffie, K.A. (2006). Co-teaching in

inclusive classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional
Children, 73, pp. 392-416.
31
Scruggs, T.E.; Vaughn, S., Schumm, J.S., & Argyelles, M.E. (1997). The
ABCDE’s of co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(2), pp. 4-10.
Walther-Thomas, C.S. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and

problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 30, pp. 395-408.
Wilson, G.L. (2005). This doesn’t look familiar! Intervention in School and Clinic,
40(5), pp. 271-275.
32
STATE
Utah OFFICE
of Education
250 East 500 South
P.O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4200
Larry K. Shumway, Ed.D.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction
www.schools.utah.gov

Co-Teaching Handbook: Utah Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Co-Teaching Handbook: Utah Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Co-Teaching Handbook: Utah Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CO-TEACHING HANDBOOK

ONE TEACH, ONE ASSIST

Utah State Office of Education

Several Attributes of Co-Teaching.............................................................................................. 2

Co-Teaching: What It IS, What It Is NOT.................................................................................... 3

Tips for School-Wide Implementation......................................................................................... 4

The Administrator’s Role............................................................................................................ 5

Model - Parallel Teaching ...........................................................................................................7

Model - Station Teaching……………………………………………………………………..………….9

Model - Teaming .......................................................................................................................12

Model - Alternative Teaching.....................................................................................................14

Model - One Teach, One Observe ............................................................................................16

Model - One Teach, One Assist ................................................................................................18

Evaluating a Co-Teaching Program…………………………………..……………………………... 20

Frequently Asked Questions .....................................................................................................22

School Readiness Checklist......................................................................................................28

Co-Teaching Partner Checklist .................................................................................................29

Co-Teaching Classroom Practices Reference Chart .................................................................30

• Ensuring literacy and numeracy for all Utah children.

One instructional model that has been reevaluated is co-teaching. Co-teaching is an

Glenna Gallo, Director of Special Education, Utah State Office of Education

District 1 District 6 District 11

District 2 District 7 District 12

District 3 District 8 District 13

District 4 District 9 District 14

District 5 District 10 District 15

Meghan Holbrook* Daniel W. Campbell* Isaiah (Ike) Spencer***

James V. (Jim) Olsen** R. Dean Rowley**** Tim Beagley*****

Larry K. Shumway Lorraine Austin

*Board of Regents Appointments ** UAT Representative Appointment

x Shared responsibility, which lightens the workload

x Establishment of a school-based culture of collaboration

Co-teaching IS Co-teaching is NOT

x Instructional methods may differ.

x Groups do not rotate.

x Teacher flexibility can enhance instruction.

x Student-to-teacher ratio may be lower.

x Students have an increased opportunity for response and participation.

x Both teachers play an active role in instructing in this model.

x Teachers must have adequate knowledge of content and pedagogical

x Having two teachers instructing at the same time may be distracting.

x Each teacher teaches a portion of the content in the same amount of

x Teachers prepare two or more stations in advance.

x Groups rotate from station to station.

x Secondary teachers may consider station teaching, especially if they

x Allows for a lower student-teacher ratio.

x Results in fewer behavior issues during instructional time due to higher

x Allows teachers to more closely monitor student learning and behavior.

x This model may be used to increase student participation.

x Teacher instructional methods may differ.

x Teachers must have adequate knowledge of content and pedagogical

x Stations must be designed to function independently.

x Teacher planning time may be significant.

x Both teachers are responsible for classroom management and student

x Allows for a broadening of the curriculum through a variety of teaching

x Allows teachers to work together collaboratively.

x Allows teachers to demonstrate individual expertise.

x Teachers can orchestrate instructional conversation.

x Teachers can introduce new topics/concepts.

James V. (Jim) Olsen R. Dean Rowley Tim Beagley***