You are on page 1of 7

Communication

and Collaboration
New Models
of Cooperative
Teaching
James M. Walsh

Barbara Jones

a time to increase and not classroom teacher comments and expe-


retreat from general edu- rience.
cation initiatives in our
schools. Moreover, as Benefits of Cooperative
school systems are signif- Teaching
icantly changing instruc- Since cooperative teaching was first
tional programs in suggested as a “mainstreaming strate-
response to the stan- gy” (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1991, p. 19)
dards-reform movement and “a practical merger between gener-
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 14-20. Copyright 2004 CEC.

In a standards-reform era demanding (Nolet & McLaughlin, al and special education integration”
increased access to general education 2000), and at the same time experienc- (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989,
classrooms by students with disabilities, ing an increasing shortage of certified p.17) that provides the direct and imme-
how can less restrictive instructional special education teachers (Kozleski,
diate support to students with disabili-
Mainzer, & Deschler, 2000), we need to
alternatives like co-teaching be expand- ties accessing the general education
develop alternative and additional
ed in light of special education teacher classroom, many authors have written
means to support students with disabil-
shortages and tighter budgets? about best practices in co-teaching
ities to successfully access general edu-
This article describes the challenges (Cook & Friend, 1995; Vaughn,
cation classrooms.
and benefits of new models of co-teach-
After reviewing the benefits of coop-
ing that work in schools today.
erative teaching in the public schools of
Although concern has been ex- Anne Arundel County, Maryland, on the
We propose four
pressed in the special education litera- basis of parent, teacher, and student alternative models for co-
ture regarding the need for more surveys; academic outcome data; and
research on the instructional benefits of classroom observations, we propose
taught classrooms that rely
cooperative teaching (Zigmond, 2001), four alternative models for co-taught on flexible teacher
new laws and regulations call for full classrooms that rely on flexible teacher
access to the general education curricu- schedules and the use of paraprofes-
schedules and the use of
lum for students with disabilities—with sionals. We describe the advantages and paraprofessionals.
highly qualified teachers. In fact, this is challenges of each model based on

14 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN


Schumm, & Arguelles, 1997) and the teachers (58%) in self-contained class-
“intuitive sense” co-teaching makes rooms. In light of the critical need to
Co-teaching is a
(Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Despite find effective ways to enable students
the dearth of experimental research in moderately effective with disabilities to truly and consistent-
ly access the general education curricu-
the area of co-teaching, the require- procedure for influencing
ments for the least restrictive placement lum, the results of these classroom
of students with disabilities is a founda- student outcomes. observations provide additional support
tional principle of the Education for All for efforts to expand opportunities for
Handicapped Children Act (Public Law students with disabilities to receive
94-142) based on the long-standing lack instruction in co-taught settings.
A more recent discovery of the bene-
of empirically derived research for more fits of co-teaching in Anne Arundel Need for New Instructional
restrictive pullout models (Reynolds, resulted from an analysis of classroom Models
Wang, & Walberg, 1987). observation data comparing instruction- Since cooperative teaching was first
The most recent and complete analy- al indicators in co-taught classrooms described and recommended as a prag-
sis of the benefits of co-teaching as a with more restrictive special education matic means to foster a shared respon-
less-restrictive instructional model for classrooms. During the 2000-2001 sibility for students with disabilities in
students with disabilities concluded, school year, we conducted more than general education classrooms (Bau-
with some caution, that “co-teaching is 100 classroom observations in Anne wens, et al., 1989), much has changed
a moderately effective procedure for Arundel’s secondary schools in an effort in general education. The standards
influencing student outcomes” that to assess the instructional strengths and reform movement alone has revolution-
“can have a positive impact on student weaknesses of special education teach- ized what is being taught and assessed,
achievement” (Murawski & Swanson, ers and to recommend needed staff as well as what students are expected to
2001, pp. 264-265). Included in this syn- development programs (Walsh & learn and do before graduation. The
thesis of quantitative data on the effec- Conner, in press). Of 16 instructional shift from minimum competency assess-
tiveness of co-teaching were the results indicators from classroom observation ments in Maryland to rigorous end-of-
of earlier research conducted in the forms, two instructional areas show par- course content assessments has signifi-
Anne Arundel County Public Schools ticular differences between co-taught cantly raised the stakes for all students
finding that students in co-taught class- and self-contained classrooms (Table 1). seeking a high school diploma, none
rooms perform significantly better on Teachers in co-taught classrooms (n = more than students with disabilities.
state minimum competency tests as 39; 95%) were much more likely to pro- Schools have also changed how they
compared to students in similar general vide “instruction reflecting the general are organized to provide instruction.
education classes without co-teaching education curriculum” than were teach- The adoption of flexible block schedules
(Walsh & Snyder, 1994). This research ers in self-contained classrooms (n = and four-period days have increased
was conducted in response to early 64; 78%). Likewise, teachers (81%) in and broadened the curricular offerings
questioning regarding the efficacy of the co-taught classrooms were more likely in schools. In addition, the growing
“mainstreaming movement” and to provide instruction that involved stu- implementation of small learning com-
demonstrated that less-restrictive serv- dents in the higher dimensions of learn- munities in large high schools across
ing needed for success on the critical the United States, paralleling the shift to
ice options could result in positive out-
thinking tasks of the Maryland Student interdisciplinary teams in middle
comes for all students served by the col-
Performance Assessment Program schools, has significantly increased the
laborative efforts of a general and spe-
(MSPAP/DOL incorporated) than were
cial education teacher in a co-taught
classroom. Indeed, these academic out-
come results complemented earlier sur-
Table 1. Summative Data of 2000-01 Special Education
vey research (Walsh, 1992) document-
Observations: Self-Contained and Co-taught Classrooms
ing that students with disabilities in
Anne Arundel County Public Schools Instructional Indicators Performance Rating (%)
preferred co-taught classrooms to self-
contained classroom placements, indi- Self-Contained Co-taught
cating that they enjoyed school more, (n = 64) (n = 39)
learned more, and felt better about Instruction reflects general education curricu- 78 95
themselves in the general education lum
classroom setting. This research served MSPAP/DOL incorporated 58 81
to reinforce the rationale for increased
co-teaching implementation efforts and Note: Each teacher was rated on a scale of 0 (not observed) to 3 (consistently observed) to
resulted in countywide support for this determine the performance rating for a school. MSPAP/DOL = Maryland Student Performance
Assessment Program, Dimensions of Learning.
instructional model.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2004 ■ 15


number of general education settings
that students with disabilities access. Figure 1. Collaborative Scheduling—A
Because of these changes, many schools
are developing more effective ways to Description: Special educator splits class time between two different classes.
support students with disabilities in Teacher Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7
general education classrooms.
The reality of limited school system Teacher A Co-Taught Co- Co-Taught Lunch Co-Taught Self-con- Planning
budgets and availability of special edu- Math Taught Social Social tained
cation staff compounds the need to sup- Language Studies Studies Math
Arts
port students with disabilities required
Co-Taught Co-Taught
to learn general education content that
Science Science
is assessed for credit towards the diplo-
ma. Even when the county first pro-
posed co-teaching as a practical way to Pros Challenges
support students with disabilities in the
least-restrictive environment, schools May provide a better ratio of students Requires effective consultation skills.
did not have enough special education with IEPs to peers without disabilities.
teachers to co-teach the range of gener-
Special educator is present only when Special educator may not be seen by stu-
al education offerings throughout the
needed for instruction. dents as equal with the general educator.
school day. The ability to co-teach all
levels of English, math, science, and
Benefits of special educator may be real- More difficult for the special educator to
social studies classes from general to ized by more students. keep up with class activities.
honors sections was impossible given
the limitations of a typical special edu-
Access to a broader range of general ✔ Special educator moves in and out of
cation department. Moreover, even if a education classes (AP, honors, etc.). classes during class time.
school were fortunate enough to have
the special education teacher positions Accommodates student scheduling con-
needed to co-teach the necessary gener- flicts.
al education classes, there simply were
not enough certified special education
teachers available to fulfill this need. A
recent analysis of the mounting short- Note: IEP = individualized education program; AP = advanced placement. Checkmarks desig-
age of special education teachers indi- nate the unique pros and challenges of this schedule.

cated that more than 30,000 special


education positions in the United States
Models of Co-teaching providing an opportunity for the special
were filled by noncredentialed teachers
educator to maintain ongoing continuity
(Kozleski, et al., 2000). Traditional Co-teaching with the curriculum and instruction.
The traditional model of co-teaching In our own 2000-2001 observations
involves the general education teacher of co-teachers, we noted problems with
The ability to co-teach all the traditional co-teaching model. First,
and the special education teacher imple-
levels of English, math, menting a range of co-teaching options special education department heads
from “one lead teacher, one teacher reported that the county did not have
science, and social studies enough special educators to co-teach
teaching on purpose”; to two groups,
classes from general to “two teachers teach the same content”; most general education classrooms,
to multiple groups, “two teachers moni- and, as a result, co-taught classrooms
honors sections was easily became disproportionately filled
tor/teach varying content” (Vaughn, et
impossible given the al., 1997). In each of these models, both with students with disabilities. Another
teachers remain in the classroom chronic problem was that during some
limitations of a typical period of the class, due to the nature of
throughout the entire lesson. The obvi-
special education ous advantage to the traditional model the whole-group instruction or the
of co-teaching is the availability of con- teaching style of the general education
department. teachers, special education teachers
tinual support for students with disabil-
ities throughout the period, as well as

16 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN


were often expected to function more
like a teacher assistant than a teacher. Figure 2. Collaborative Scheduling—B
In response to these concerns about
traditional co-teaching, Anne Arundel’s Description:
special education teachers have experi- Special educator splits time between two different classes on different days of the
mented with adjusting teacher schedul- week.
ing and using paraprofessionals to pro- The schedule is modified on the basis of the needs of team members.
vide additional options for supporting
students with disabilities in general edu- Teacher Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7
cation classrooms. The advantages and
challenges of each of these models
Teacher A Co-Taught Co-Taught Co-Taught Lunch Co-Taught Self-Con- Planning
based on teacher comments and reac-
Math Language Social Social tained
tions follow.
Arts Studies Studies Math
Collaborative Scheduling–A (M, W, F) (T, Th)

In one form of collaborative scheduling


of co-teachers, the special educator will Co-Taught Co-Taught
divide teaching time between two dif- Science Science
ferent classes in one or more periods of (T, Th) (M, W, F)
the school day. This form of scheduling,
identified as “Collaborative Scheduling–
A, (see Figure 1)” enables students with Pros Challenges
disabilities to access a broader range of
general education classrooms, including
advanced placement and honors classes May provide a better ratio of students with Requires effective consultation skills.
with limited numbers of special educa- IEPs to peers without disabilities.
tion teachers. This model ensures the
availability of direct support from a spe- Benefits of special educator may be Special educator may not be seen by
cial education teacher for critical parts realized by more students. students as equal with the general educa-
of the instructional programs, although tor.
it does require careful planning by co- Access to a broader range of general More difficult for the special educator to
teachers. A critical advantage of this education classes (AP, honors, etc.). keep up with class activities.
model is the improved ratio of students
with disabilities to students without dis-
✔ Can implement a full range of co-teach- ✔ Students do not have the support of a
abilities, resulting in positive academic
ing models. special educator in every class every
and behavioral role models. In addition
day.
to accommodating student scheduling
needs, both special and general educa- ✔ Recognizes the responsibility of the ✔ Danger of special education teacher
tors in this model can plan their cooper- general educator for all students. burn-out.
ative teaching to address the instruc-
tional needs of all students with a mini- Note: IEP = individualized education program; AP = advanced placement. Checkmarks des-
mum of down time. ignate the unique pros and challenges of this schedule.
The challenge of any model requir-
ing teachers to divide their time teacher moving in and out of the class- lenges result from this model but in
between two classrooms in the same room during class time. addition, co-teachers report an ability to
period is the need for effective consult- implement a full range of co-teaching
ing skills on the part of the special edu- Collaborative Scheduling–B models because of the planned involve-
cator. In addition, collaborative teachers This model, a second version of collab- ment of both teachers in complete class-
report that there is a danger that the orative scheduling, also requires the es on certain days of the week. That is,
special education teacher will not be special education teacher to divide time on days when both teachers are in
seen as equal to the general education between two different classes; but the attendance for the full period, teachers
teacher and it is difficult for the special involvement of the special education can plan differentiated activities, led by
education teacher to keep up with the teacher would vary by days of the week, both teachers, as well as team teaching
class activities when he or she is miss- not within classes in the same day (see strategies for the entire class period.
ing part of the class. Moreover, the pos- Figure 2). As with Collaborative The successful implementation of
sibility for disruption to the class rou- Scheduling–A, similar benefits and chal- Collaborative–Scheduling B requires
tine exists with the special education

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2004 ■ 17


effective consultation skills by the spe-
cial education teacher, planning with Figure 3. Collaborative Scheduling—C
two teachers who would surely prefer
that the special education teacher be in Description:
all classes fulltime. Again, there are Special educator’s schedule is set weekly on the basis of activities planned for each
risks that the students will not see both class.
teachers with equal status. In addition, The special educator serves as a resource for the team and does not have a rigid
teachers planning in this model have to schedule.
be cognizant of the presence of two Teacher P e r i o d P e r i o d Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7
teachers on only certain days of the 1 2
week. Students with specific support
and accommodation requirements have Teacher A Co- Co- Co-Taught Lunch Co-Taught Self-con- Planning
to be well aligned with activities that Taught Taught Social Social tained
provide varying degrees of support as Studies or Studies Math
the week unfolds. Special education Math or Math or Science (T, Th)
teacher burnout is a real concern with Language Language
this model because it requires a greater Arts Arts
command of the general education cur-
riculum by the special educator, and it
relies on the ability of the general edu- Pros Challenges
cator to implement individualized edu-
cation program (IEP) requirements in May provide a better ratio of students with Requires effective consultation skills.
the absence of the special education IEPs to peers without disabilities.
teacher. Supervisory judgment will be
needed regarding which teachers can
Benefits of special educator may be real- Special educator may not be seen by
effectively plan and implement this
ized by more students. students as equal with the general educa-
model. tor.
Collaborative Scheduling–C ✔ Team-based decision making. More difficult for the special educator to
A third variation of a collaborative keep up with class activities.
scheduling model requires the greatest
amount of flexibility and planning by an ✔ Special educator is present when most ✔ Students do not have the support of a
interdisciplinary team of teachers. This needed for instruction. special educator in every class every
model, however, has the potential of day.
being most instructionally beneficial for ✔ Most responsive to student needs and ✔ Requires careful planning among a
all students. In “Collaborative Sche- schedules. number of teachers.
duling–C” (see Figure 3), the special
education teacher serves as a resource
to the interdisciplinary team, and his or Note: IEP = individualized education program; AP = advanced placement. Checkmarks des-
ignate the unique pros and challenges of this schedule.
her schedule is established weekly on
the basis of the instructional activities
planned across the team. That is, the educator is present when needed most advantage of the longstanding contribu-
team of teachers identify the essential for instructional support, according to a tion to special education by paraprofes-
opportunities for IEP instruction and team decision. Instructional need dic- sionals (Giangreco, Edelman, Broer, &
support throughout the school day and tates the cooperative teaching role, not Doyle, 2001). In this collaborative
week, and a schedule is established the calendar or time of day, and thus, model, a teacher assistant teams with a
accordingly. In this model, the special this model can be responsive to student special education teacher to support a
needs and schedules. Collaborative caseload of students with disabilities
Scheduling–C clearly requires the high- (see Figure 4). The teacher assistant
Special education teachers est degree of planning and buy-in by a extends the support of the special edu-
team of teachers. cation teacher to multiple general edu-
were often expected to
cation settings, enabling increased
function more like a Collaborative Scheduling With a access and success in these environ-
Teacher Assistant
ments and decreasing the need to group
teacher assistant than a A final version of collaborative schedul- students with disabilities disproportion-
teacher. ing recognizes the reality of special edu- ately in the same co-taught classrooms.
cation teacher shortages and takes This model takes advantage of the avail-

18 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN


Figure 4. Collaborative Scheduling With a Teacher Assistant Students with disabilities in
Description: Teacher assistant represents the special educator in co-taught classes-
as directed. co-taught classrooms
Teacher Period 1 and 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7 reported that they enjoyed
school more, learned more,
Teacher Co-Taught Co-Taught Lunch Co-Taught Self-Con- Planning and felt better about
Language Arts or Math or Social tained
Science Social Studies or Math themselves in the general
Studies Science
education classroom
setting.

Teacher P e r i o d Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 and 7


1 bility to supervise and monitor the
implementation of the IEPs of all stu-
dents on their caseload, including stu-
Te a c h e r Language Science Math or Lunch Social T. A. scheduled with dents served by the paraprofessional.
Assistant Arts Social Studies or a special educator
Studies Science on another team. Final Thoughts
Cooperative teaching has been a benefi-
cial service delivery model in Anne
Pros Challenges Arundel County over the past 10 years.
We have documented benefits in how
Instruction can be differentiated to meet Teacher assistants are not as highly skilled students feel about themselves and
student needs. as teachers. school and have shown that co-taught
settings can result in improved academ-
ic outcomes for all students. We have
Students have the support of a parapro- Teacher assistants have less time to plan
also seen how schools have changed
fessional or professional for most of their with teachers.
organizationally during this period in
instructional time.
response to the rigorous expectations
Availability of human resources. Students must work with a greater number established by standards-based reform.
of adults. The remodeling of co-teaching des-
cribed in this article was shaped by the
Access to a broader range of general Diminishes the role of the co-teacher. comments of general and special educa-
education classrooms with support. tion teachers with years of experience
collaborating in the classroom. We hope
Less costly in a limited resource environ- Requires IEP supervision by the profes- that educators will use this information
ment. sional special educator. to expand their options for serving stu-
dents with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment.
Parent concerns.
References
Bauwens, J., & Hourcade, J. (1991). Making
co-teaching a mainstreaming strategy.
Preventing School Failure, 35(4), 19-24.
ability of qualified paraprofessionals in for paraprofessionals. Moreover, there is Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., & Friend, M.
the absence of professional employees, the danger that special education teach- (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for
and, because paraprofessionals are less ers will feel that their role as a co- general and special education integration.
costly than teachers, more staff can be teacher has been diminished with this Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17-
22.
hired to support students with disabili- model, and parents may question the
Cook L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching:
ties. ability of a paraprofessional to provide Guidelines for creating effective practices.
Schools and districts with collabora- direct support to students with disabili- Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
tive scheduling with a teacher assistant ties in the absence of direct supervision Education for All Handicapped Children Act
face significant challenges. For example, by the special education teacher. Special of 1975, 20 U.S.C 1400 et seq.
Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S.
schools and districts must provide ongo- education teachers involved with this
M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Parapro-
ing staff development and supervision model must understand their responsi- fessional support of students with disabil-

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAY/JUNE 2004 ■ 19


ities: Literature from the past decade. ABCDE’s of co-teaching. TEACHING Spotsylvania County Schools, Spotsylvania,
Exceptional Children, 68, 45-63. Exceptional Children, 32(2), 5-10. Virginia.
Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R., & Deschler, D. Walsh, J. M. (1992). Student, teacher, and
(2000). Bright futures for exceptional parent preference for less restrictive spe- Address correspondence to James M. Walsh,
learners: An action agenda to achieve cial education models—Cooperative Director of Special Education, Howard County
quality conditions for teaching and learn- teaching. Case in Point, VI(2), 1-11. Public School System, 10920 Route 108,
ing. TEACHING Exceptional Children, Walsh, J. M., & Conner T. N. (in press). Ellicott City, MD 21042 (e-mail: James_
32(8), 56-64. Teacher observations to increase partici- Walsh@hcpss.org)
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). pation by students with disabilities in
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 36,
A meta-analysis of co-teaching research. standards-based reform. Journal of Special
No. 5, pp. 14-20.
Remedial and Special Education, 2, 258- Education Leadership.
267. Walsh, J. M., & Snyder, D. (1994). Copyright 2004 CEC.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2000). Cooperative teaching: An effective model
Accessing the general curriculum: for all students. Case in Point, VIII(2), 20-
Including students with disabilities in 22.
standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, Zigmond, N. (2001). Special education at a
CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document crossroads. Preventing School Failure,
Reproduction Service No. ED 448 546) 45(2), 70-74.
Reynolds, M. C., Wang M. C., & Walberg, H.
J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of James M. Walsh (CEC Chapter #246),
special and regular education. Exceptional Director of Special Education, Howard County
Children, 53, 391-398. Public School System, Ellicott City, Maryland.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Arguelles, M. Barbara Jones (CEC Chapter #192), Special
(1997, November/December). The Education Coordinator for Middle Schools,

20 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

You might also like