Middle School Co Teaching: Effective Practices and Student Reflections
"In this class, I get more attention and more help." "I get more time with both teachers." "They have different stories to tell, so it seems more interesting with two teachers in the class." "I get help whenever I need it." "I understand the subject more." These comments from seventh grade students in co taught language arts and social studies classes suggest some of the potential benefits of co teaching. These benefits did not occur by accident; the teachers of these classes spent considerable time co planning, implementing evidencebased practices, and reflecting on their instruction. This article provides an overview of co teaching, highlights effective practices used by a middle school co teaching team, and presents reflections from students in their classroom. What is co teaching? One way to meet the unique challenges in diverse classrooms is co teaching. Friend and Cook (2010) described co teaching as an approach that provides specialized services to individual students in a general education classroom. Specifically, co teaching involves two or more educators working collaboratively to deliver instruction to a heterogeneous group of students in a shared instructional space. In this environment, teachers blend their expertise, share materials, and develop common instructional goals (Friend Cook, 2010) Generally, co teaching team consists of a general educator and another licensed professional such as a special educator, speech/language pathologist, reading specialist, language specialist, or other general educator. Villa, Thousand, and Nevin (2008) noted that co teaching assumes teachers agree on a goal, share a common belief system, demonstrate parity, share leadership roles while completing tasks, and practice effective communication skills. These principles provide the foundation for creating a fulfilling, professional co teaching relationship. Co teaching has gained popularity for a number of reasons. First, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) encourages schools to hold high expectations for all students and ensure students have access to the curriculum in general education classrooms to the maximum extent possible. Most professional educators acknowledge that, given appropriate supports and services, most students should be held to the same academic standards (McLeskey Waldron, 2007) Coteaching is one viable, effective strategy to serve the needs of all students in general education settings, as required by IDEA (Villa, Thousand, Nevin, 2008) Similarly, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) includes provisions that all students receive instruction from highly qualified teachers. Because some middle and high school special educators are not highly qualified in all academic subjects as defined by NCLB (Rice, Drame, Owens, Frattura, 2007) this mandate has caused school administrators to reconceptualize how to best use the skills and expertise of all instructional and support faculty (Carpenter Dyal, 2007) Co teaching can help schools comply with the spirit of these NCLB provisions by arranging for teachers with content expertise to jointly plan and deliver instruction with special educators to ensure the success of all students. Such efforts may increase academic outcomes for all students while ensuring that students with disabilities receive necessary adaptations (Murawski Dieker, 2004) Finally, teacher roles have become more collaborative than in the past. No longer do teachers work in isolation as they did just a few decades ago. For example, general educators now assume a more active role in developing individualized education plans (IEPs) by helping determine the appropriate accommodations and modifications students need to access the general education curriculum (Turnbull, Huerta, Stowe, 2006) Consequently, general and special educators now collaboratively discuss students' needs, solve problems, demonstrate instructional techniques, lead or participate in professional development initiatives, share resources, and network with other professionals and outside agencies (Dettmer, Thurston, Knackendoffel, Dyck, 2009)