Article Critique

Kloo, A., & Zigmand, N. (2008). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52(2), 12-20.

The authors’ focus in this article is defining, evaluating, endorsing and improving the practice of co-teaching. As they state early on, co-teaching is the most commonly used format for delivering special education services to students with disabilities. This increase in co-teaching is a direct result of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which holds schools accountable for teaching students in the least restrictive environment. With this focus in mind, schools have created learning environments where general education teachers deliver the content in a traditional manner while the special education teacher personalizes the experiences for the students with disabilities in the classroom. It is a useful strategy that enforces effort, mastery and staying on task. After the introduction, the case was made for why co-teaching is so successful. Most importantly, co-teaching only works, the authors stated, when there is collaboration between the teachers in the planning of the lessons, as well as the performance of the students. These types of relationships need support to succeed, which is why support from the school’s administration and a commitment to co-teaching makes its success a reality. Co-teaching provides a classroom with the resources of two teachers, which gives students more one on one time with a teacher and limits possible behavior issues that may arise. Although co-teaching is highly recommended and reports from teachers are very positive, the authors fairly note that research into the effectiveness of co-teaching is, as they say, “elusive”. The authors then go on to argue that although co-teaching is becoming very visible in schools, educators are not taking full advantage of the benefits it can provide for students. This is because teachers do not incorporate all of the different models or styles in which co-teaching is possible. The article lists five different styles for delivering co-teaching. In one teaching-one assisting, one teacher leads the instruction while the other basically serves the role of a paraeducators. This is the most common form of co-teaching. Station teaching has both teachers delivering instruction in a portion of the room that is theirs. This gives students the opportunity to move around. Parallel teaching occurs when two teachers assume equal roles in the planning and teaching of a lesson. Alternative teaching breaks the students into uneven groups where one educator can provide instruction at a ratio that gives the students more direct time with the teacher. Finally, team teaching allows teachers to take over certain parts of lessons and alternate to provide a better experience for students. The final point the authors make is an important one. For co-teaching to really excel, the special education teacher has to be used for the areas that he or she is an expert in. The teaching responsibilities should not be divided equally without reason. Instead, they need to be guided by what benefits the students most and when their skills and strengths allow content to be taught in the most effective manner.

I found this article to be particularly insightful regarding co-teaching. I completely agree with the authors that co-teaching is probably not as effective is it could be. I also agree with most of the reasons they state to support their argument. Co-teaching is a wonderful strategy for delivering content to students of all ability levels. Having two teachers work together to deliver the best experience possible is a fortunate luxury some students are afforded. My experience with co-teaching is that it has been a great way to reinforce concepts and ideas. Having the extra teacher also allows students to stay on task and receive more feedback and one on one instruction. All of these benefits were described in great detail. The authors’ description of the five different teaching styles used in co-teaching illustrates very different ways to take advantage of have two professionals in the classroom. I would expect that the one teaching, one assisting model of co-teaching is the most widely used. It may also be the least effective. When the students see the two teachers as equals with regards to how the content is delivered, they will build better relationships with both and take advantage of the natural differentiation that occurs when two different teachers deliver the same information. Having the two teachers in a classroom, as well as their peers to learn from, provide students with multiple different avenues to learn that takes advantage of their learning styles. Unfortunately, while co-teaching is a great teaching method, it is often hampered by the costs associated. Having two teachers in one classroom removes a class from the schedule that the second teacher could be teaching. When system budgets are determined by student enrollment, the opportunity of having extra teachers available for co-teaching is not always a reality. To make up for this, many times inclusion classrooms have a teacher and paraeducators working together. While many paraeducators are fabulous at working with students, most do not have the content knowledge or pedagogy that is necessary to take full advantage of co-teaching. In cases where true co-teaching is possible, it is often limited to the subjects where the most pressure exists to perform, such as math and English. Other core subjects are often left hanging. Another concern for co-teaching is the time needed for effective planning. For teachers to work together to plan lessons that take advantage of both educators, they must share a common time to collaborate. This is often not possible. If teachers were given extra time in the day to collaborate, this would not be a concern. Unfortunately, with most teachers teaching a full schedule and class sizes ballooning beyond reason, planning time during the day must be reserved for the responsibilities of teaching and communicating with parents. In both of these articles, many good reasons have been provided for why these strategies work. Few people debate whether co-teaching is a best practice. What people do debate is the business side of education and the dollar figure that goes with it. This is sad because it means that economics trumps the needs of our students.