Co-planning in Co-teaching

Abstract

Co-planning is considered an integral part of a successful co-teaching relationship in which both teachers have parity and use their individual expertise to benefit all students. However, the literature has not discussed adequately how co-planning is achieved within the parameters of the already full schedules of two teachers. This column shares how co-teaching partnerships can work to use individual expertise in curriculum development, teaching, and ensuring student learning to create plans that meet all students’ needs. A co-planning framework used by practicing co-teachers is discussed in detail, including how to use synchronous and asynchronous tools to plan course goals, biweekly units, and daily lessons.

Keywords

co-teaching co-planning

Historically, special education has addressed the needs of students with disabilities independent of students enrolled in general education (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Robinson & Buly, 2007; Winzer, 1993). Separate classes promoted division of instruction that often created disconnects between students’ special education and general education classes (Tannock, 2009). As schools moved to meet the student proficiency standards of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the least restrictive environment requirements of the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Act, collaboration between special education and general education increased (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Johnson & Pugach, 1996; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012; Winzer, 2009). In particular, the model of co-teaching has become an accepted approach (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010).

Co-teaching is commonly defined as a partnership between a general education teacher and a special education teacher that includes shared planning, instruction, and assessment of students with and without disabilities (Friend & Cook, 2010). This instructional model allows schools to address standards for student achievement, provide least restrictive environments, and ensure all students have highly qualified teachers (Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007; Carpenter & Dyal, 2006; Friend & Cook, 2010; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Sayeski, 2009). The research has shown both academic and social benefits for students (Estell, Jones, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2009; Hang & Rabren, 2009; McDuffie, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006), as well as benefits for teachers serving as peer mentors to one another in refining instructional practices (McDuffie et al., 2009; Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Scheeler, Congdon, & Stansbery, 2010).

In achieving a successful co-teaching relationship, parity is an important component of co-teaching (Leatherman, 2009; Pratt, 2014; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Tannock, 2009). This is often discussed in light of both teachers taking an active role in the classroom, instead of one teacher consistently instructing with the other teacher consistently assisting. Yet in accomplishing parity co-teachers need to be able to do more than merely hold dual instructional roles in the classroom. Rather, a successful co-teaching relationship starts well before teachers first see their class of students. Co-teachers must be on the same page in (a) what will occur in the lesson for the day, (b) who will teach which components, (c) the instructional models that will be used, and (d) any accommodations or modifications that will be given to particular students. This occurs through collaborative planning in which both teachers share their expertise and come to shared agreements about how the instruction will occur (Idol, 2006; Rice, Drame, Owens, & Frattura, 2007; Sileo, 2011; Tannock, 2009).

Whereas research has shown the importance of co-planning, findings in this area also indicate one of the greatest hindrances to its effectiveness is establishing co-planning routines (Carter, Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009; McDuffie et al., 2009; Paulsen, 2008; Santoli, Sachs, Romey, & McClurg, 2008; Van Garderen & Whittaker, 2007). Under normal conditions for co-teaching, teachers report they lack sufficient common planning times in their schedules (Bouck, 2007; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Other practical challenges include different planning styles, distractions that can occur from colleagues, or sidebar conversations about particular students during planning sessions (Brown, Howerter, & Morgan, 2013; Murawski, 2012; Rice et al., 2007; Sileo, 2011).

Foundational challenges to co-planning can include differing philosophies, instructional approaches, or priorities held for a co-teaching relationship. These differences between general education and special education teachers often originate from the very beginning of their teacher preparation journey. Van Garderen and Whittaker (2007) stated the learning theories from each instructional field differ in emphasis in instructional practice, which may prohibit collaboration between general education and special education teachers. This difference in preparation can result in co-teachers bringing with them different philosophies about learning and teaching.

Yet it is possible to use these differing beliefs about learning and teaching to prepare for effective instruction in the classroom where both teachers share their expertise and experience (Pratt, 2014). Prior to the implementation of a co-taught class, deliberate thought must be given to the instructors tasked with teaching the course. Successful co-teaching partnerships require professionals whose educational philosophies, styles, and strengths complement one another. When co-teachers begin a partnership, the initial period of working together should involve explicit conversations about philosophies related to differentiation, accommodations and modifications for students, as well as grading practices. All of these factors will influence the unity with which a co-teaching team can plan for a cohesive delivery of instruction and assessment.

Having a similar philosophy can ensure that different teaching styles do not impede learning goals for students (Brownell, Adams, Sindelar, Waldron, & Vanhover, 2006; Leatherman, 2009). Because students with exceptionalities are often placed in co-taught classrooms (Idol, 2006; Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; McDuffie et al., 2009; Wilson & Michaels, 2006), the class typically includes learners who require multiple explanations to understand the topic. Sometimes, one teacher’s style can reach many of the students, but the second teacher’s style can support those students who need additional clarification. The varying styles of the co-teachers can be utilized in any of the co-teaching instructional models (e.g., one teach–one assist, parallel teaching, or station work). Thus, the differences in teaching styles become complementary to each other and benefit student learning.

As co-teaching teams work together throughout a school year, the question that often arises is whether co-planning can be accomplished when common schedules and distractions of all types regularly occur (Carter et al., 2009; Santoli et al., 2008). Research has shown several ways in which co-teachers are making co-planning practical and effective within the normal constraints of their teaching schedules (Author, 2014; Blood, 2011; Brown et al., 2013; Conderman & Hedin, 2013; Dieker & Rodriguez, 2013; Leatherman, 2009; Murawski, 2012; Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010; Rice et al., 2007; Sayeski, 2009). Three general principles seen across the literature include (a) going beyond a typical school day to include online interactive solutions, (b) using the individual expertise of each educator, and (c) dividing and conquering so that each person does not have to do it all. These three general principles demonstrate the importance of thinking creatively to overcome the challenges of finding a common time for planning and making both teachers equal partners in their responsibilities and roles.

Strategies and tools for creating an effective co-teaching model are available in the literature (Brown et al., 2013; Conderman & Hedin, 2013; Friend & Cook, 2010; Murawski, 2012); however, a clear description of a framework for how co-planning practically works and what it looks like in the field is lacking. This article describes a co-planning framework that utilizes the three general principles mentioned above and that is currently being used by practicing co-teachers in the field. This co-planning framework includes practical steps involved in long-term planning for a course and units, biweekly planning of lessons, and the daily planning that occurs naturally in an interdependent co-teaching relationship.

Co-planning Framework

Co-planning occurs every time co-teachers come together to look at the long-term goals and objectives, as well as the finer, more defined needs of students. The outcome of co-teaching and the inherent co-planning relies on a focus on both long-term goals and day-to-day adjustments to achieve the final objectives. A successful co-teaching partnership is rooted in the understanding that setting aside time for planning and reflecting is a priority. It is critical that co-teachers have administrative and district-level support of co-planning time to ensure the success of both the co-teaching relationship and the learners within the co-taught classroom.

Within the co-planning framework, conversations need to be streamlined and focused on the end goal. Asking questions such as “What is the target for the course, for the month, or for the class session?” has proven to be effective. While this sounds very simple in print, it is much more difficult in practice because creative thinking in the context of collaboration can cause co-teachers to veer off target and be unproductive with their use of time. Having a structured time allotment supports the flow of co-planning. Establishing a goal and setting a time frame ensure co-teachers can stay on task and achieve necessary jobs.

Unit Planning

Co-planning discussions must begin by looking at the end-of-course goals for the students as set forth in the state’s academic standards and diploma requirements. Whether the course requires state-mandated exams or school-administered end-of-semester final exams, teachers must work together to prepare students for academic success. Initial discussions of goals and the creation of benchmarks, which allow co-teachers to assess learning and growth, is best done face-to-face, perhaps even before school is in session, to ensure co-teachers share common objectives. While this initial meeting does require time outside of the school day (preferably before the course even starts), it is imperative to have this one-on-one conversation about the principles that will guide the semester’s instruction.

After outlining learning targets for students and creating benchmark assessments to reflect those learning goals, the benchmark assessments should be plotted on a shared calendar, such as the one shown in Figure 1. Doing so allows teachers to create time frames for instruction and formative assessments within units.

Figure 1.

Sample Monthly Planning Calendar.

Biweekly Planning

After the initial benchmark and review of students’ current levels, the biweekly planning stage of co-planning can begin. Once teachers are acquainted with current students and their unique needs, before school, after school, and lunch time meetings must be commonplace. A shared calendar can be used to identify key learning experiences that the learners must have and the formative assessments that will be used to track student progress. Targets, standards covered, most materials used, and how it will be delivered (e.g., parallel, team, alternative teaching) are all helpful aspects to include on this shared calendar. These conversations can be held during lunch, after school, or via email; because co-teachers will have an idea of what students need and the days in which instruction will need to be provided, co-teachers will not need to spend excessive amounts of time outside of school working on this. At this point in the co-planning process, co-teachers can begin to divide and conquer the development of specific lessons. Responsibilities should be divided by areas of comfort, professional expertise, and access (see Table 1 for a typical planning conversation).

Table 1.

Typical Planning Conversation.

Special education teacher:	Students scored poorly on vocabulary development on the benchmark. I think they need some mini-lessons on determining word meaning in context. I can create a few bell ringers, maybe with some manipulatives for our hands-on learners.
General education teacher:	Good idea. I’ll send you some of the power verbs they will most likely see on the state tests. Will that work?
Special education teacher:	Perfect. I will most likely pull Desmond, Suzy, Simeon, Miranda, and Juan to preteach the words in isolation tomorrow, as I see they struggled the most. That way they can gain traction to their learning.
General education teacher:	Yes, and maybe Gregory, too. I could also add a written component. Maybe they could collaboratively write test questions about what they are reading in English class right now.

From this planning conversation, one can see that a few minutes spent looking at student data on previous assessments followed by a 3-minute conversation gave each co-teacher an idea of the specific lessons needed for the next few days. It also gives both teachers the opportunity to use their strengths as general education and special education teachers in the co-planning process. Dividing and conquering in the co-planning sense is definitely not limited to just dividing up various jobs. Because of the unique pairing of a special education teacher and a content area teacher, the jobs assigned are very specific to the professional expertise and strengths of the educators. For example, when discussing and planning for a lesson on constructed responses, the general education teacher is typically responsible for locating the content-area text and aligning it to standards, whereas the special education teacher is generally tasked with thinking in terms of strategy, including reviewing student profiles and scores to determine how various learners will grasp the concept taught. The longer co-teachers work together the more interchangeable the roles will become. However, the critical piece is that each teacher has a distinguished job and that neither one is neglected.

Daily Planning

After the course and unit overviews have been established, the use of a co-planning template, such as one created by Murawski (2009), allows co-teachers to easily articulate the learning objective aligned in the subject area and develop the daily lesson plan(s). In addition, the template lends itself to establish to-do lists, determine individual task assignments, and write out how the instruction will be implemented, (i.e., which co-teaching method will be used). See Figure 2 for a sample plan using a co-planning template. This initial document guides co-teachers’ thoughts to be systematic and purposeful for students as they develop learning materials.

Figure 2.

Sample Completed Co-teaching Plan.

At this point in the co-planning framework, Google Docs or a similar document sharing system can be used to create the daily learning materials that will be used in class with students. Once an idea has been decided on for a lesson, one of the co-teachers can create and share a new Google Doc to write out the specific assignment and instructions for the students. Using the sample conversation regarding vocabulary development from above, the general education teacher might author a shared Google Doc with a list of power verbs often seen on the state assessment. He or she might also type out a chart that requires students to write what they think each word means, the dictionary definition, and then an original sentence correctly using each word. Since the special education teacher is able to access the same document at any time, he or she can then write a second mini-lesson that requires the learners to create flash cards that have the new vocabulary word on one side and the definition, a picture, and a memory clue on the other side. Later, the general education instructor will be able to create the application part of this vocabulary development lesson by writing out the collaborative test question assignment. Since this is all done via Google Docs, either of the co-teachers can get online and help one another, adjust formatting, revise, and edit. In addition, using Google Docs allows both instructors to know what each other is thinking without having to be together or working on it at the same exact time. Be sure to consider privacy issues when using any digital data source that will contain student information that may be subject to regulations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

Most interesting and intense is the daily planning, which occurs during the “unplanned” time that co-teachers must allow themselves during the day. The precious commodity of time can be wedged in during transitions between classes or subjects. Quite often, 3 to 4 minutes debriefing and reflecting on the lesson could occur by asking questions such as the following: What did we notice? What should we reteach? Who is really struggling? Who has reached the target today? What do we do tomorrow? Do our plans remain the same or do they require adjustment? Even, do we have materials for tomorrow?

Beyond spontaneous reflecting and planning, a successful co-teaching relationship requires a familiarity between teachers that goes beyond colleague status, and as such, co-teachers need to contact each other frequently. Asynchronous and synchronous technologies are invaluable to frequent conversations that make co-planning feasible for already busy educators. The beauty of using these two platforms lies in their flexibility. Not having a shared plan period necessitates that co-teachers have the ability to work online, together or separately. Moreover, having living and breathing documents accessible to both instructors means they can each add or change ideas on a daily basis, dependent on what happened in class that day or a new strategy one stumbled on while reading. In addition, after family obligations are completed for the day, co-teachers could work together on a Google Doc for an assignment. Text messages and phone calls are also helpful tools for asynchronous co-planning. While driving to or from school, co-teachers can often have conversations about particular student concerns that need to be addressed. Phone technology allows the instructors to check in with each other for simple questions and reminders.

Throughout daily planning interactions, co-teachers must be aware of each other’s commitments outside of the school and classroom walls. They are not just teachers; instead, they also likely have other responsibilities such as department leaders, volunteers, parents, and spouses. The time commitment for each of those other roles needs to be acknowledged and understood by the co-teaching partner, and there may be days when one must complete more of the planning than the other. It is important to be mindful and understanding of these outside commitments for the teaching partner. Conversely, though, co-teachers must also be aware of how often they are asking their partner to do more than his or her share of the work.

Conclusion

This column has shown how suggestions from the research on co-teaching can be implemented in practical, everyday interactions between general education and special education teachers. At each step of the co-planning framework shared above, co-teachers are equally involved in determining how to make instruction effective for student learning. They should begin with determining the long-term course goals and objectives, turn to biweekly planning, and frequently adjust instruction through daily preparation and communication.

This co-planning framework becomes possible when co-teachers have both a shared philosophy of student learning and a commitment to collaboration. Using the special expertise of each teacher’s individual roles makes it possible to share the work between each other. The use of synchronous and asynchronous technologies makes co-planning possible as teachers go beyond their typical work day and fulfill the various responsibilities in both their personal and professional lives. Even without a shared co-planning period during teachers’ contracted work day, investing small moments from transition times between classes or evenings at home promotes the formation of a strong relationship that ultimately benefits the students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arthaud, T. J., Aram

R. J.

Breck

S. E.

Doelling

J. E.

Bushrow

K. M.

(2007). Developing collaborative skills in pre-service teachers: A partnership between general and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 1–12.

Blood

(2011). Point systems made easy with Google Docs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 305–309.

Bouck

(2007). Co-teaching . . . not just a textbook term: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 51, 46–51.

Brown

N. B.

Howerter

C. S.

Morgan

J. J.

(2013). Tools and strategies for making co-teaching work. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 84–91.

Brownell

M. T.

Adams

Sindelar

Waldron

Vanhover

(2006). Learning from collaboration: The role of teacher qualities. Exceptional Children, 72, 169–185.

Carpenter

L. B.

Dyal

(2006). Secondary inclusion: Strategies for implementing the consultative teacher model. Education, 127, 344–350.

Carter

Prater

M. A.

Jackson

Marchant

(2009). Educator’s perceptions of collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure, 54, 60–70.

Conderman

Hedin

L. R.

(2013). Co-teaching with strategy instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 156–163.

Dieker

L. A.

Rodriguez

J. A.

(2013). Enhancing secondary cotaught science and mathematics classrooms through collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49, 46–53.

10.

Englert

C. S.

Tarrant

K. L.

(1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 325–336.

11.

Estell

D. B.

Jones

M. H.

Pearl

Van Acker

(2009). Best friendships of students with and without learning disabilities across late elementary school. Exceptional Children, 76, 110–124.

12.

Friend

Cook

(2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

13.

Friend

Cook

Hurley-Chamberlain

Shamberger

(2010). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9–27.

14.

Hamilton-Jones

Vail

C. O.

(2013). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 28, 56–68.

15.

Hang

Rabren

(2009). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259–268.

16.

Hardman

M. L.

Dawson

(2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52, 5–11.

17.

Idol

(2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 77–94.

18.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).

19.

Johnson

L. J.

Pugach

M. C.

(1996). Role of collaborative dialogue in teachers’ conceptions of appropriate practice for students at risk. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 7, 9–24.

20.

Leatherman

(2009). Teachers’ voices concerning collaborative teams within an inclusive elementary school. Teaching Education, 20, 189–202.

21.

Magiera

Zigmond

(2005). Co-teaching in middle-school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 79–85.

22.

McDuffie

K. A.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Scruggs

T. E.

(2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493–510.

23.

Murawski

W. M.

(2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

24.

Murawski

W. M.

(2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15.

25.

Murawski

W. M.

Hughes

C. E.

(2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53, 267–277.

26.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).

27.

Paulsen

K. J.

(2008). School-based collaboration: An introduction to the collaboration column. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 313–315.

28.

Ploessl

D. M.

Rock

M. L.

Schoenfeld

Blanks

(2010). On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 158–168.

29.

Pratt

S. M.

(2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12.

30.

Rice

Drame

Owens

Frattura

E. M.

(2007). Co-instructing at the secondary level: Strategies for success. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(6), 12–18.

31.

Robinson

Buly

M. R.

(2007). Breaking the language barrier: Promoting collaboration between general and special educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94.

32.

Santoli

S. P.

Sachs

Romey

E. A.

McClurg

(2008). A successful formula for middle-school inclusion: Collaboration, time, and administrative support. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32(2), 1–13.

33.

Sayeski

K. L.

(2009). Defining special educators’ tools: The building blocks of effective collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 38–44.

34.

Scheeler

M. C.

Congdon

Stansbery

(2010). Providing immediate feedback to co-teachers through bug-in-ear technology: An effective method of peer coaching in inclusion classrooms. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 83–96.

35.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

McDuffie

K. A.

(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.

36.

Sileo

J. M.

(2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–38.

37.

Solis

Vaughn

Swanson

McCulley

(2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498–510.

38.

Tannock

M. T.

(2009). Tangible and intangible elements of collaborative teaching. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 173–178.

39.

Van Garderen

Whittaker

(2007). Planning differentiated, multicultural instruction for secondary inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 12–20.

40.

Wilson

Michaels

(2006). General and special education students’ perceptions of co-teaching: Implications for secondary-level literacy instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 205–225.

41.

Winzer

M. A.

(1993). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

42.

Winzer

M. A.

(2009). From integration to inclusion: A history of special education in the 20th century. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.