Wendy W. Murawski is an Associate Professor of Special Education at California State University, Northridge. Her research and publications focus on co-teaching, inclusive education and teacher preparation. Her two recent books are available through Corwin Press and are entitled “Collaborative Teaching in Elementary/ Secondary Schools: Making the Co-teaching Marriage Work!” In 2004, she was honored as California Teacher Educator of the Year and received CEC’s Division of Research early career publication award for her meta-analysis on co-teaching. Dr. Murawski is frequently asked to keynote conferences, consult with school districts, and present for the Bureau of Education and Research and other entities. She is the CEO of the educational consulting company, 2 Teach LLC (www.2TeachLLC.com).
What is co-teaching?
Co-teaching is when we put two professionals (most often a special education and general education teacher, but this can vary) together in the classroom to share in the planning, instructing, and assessing of a group of kids. While Cook and Friend made this relationship popular back in 19951, its use and success have waxed and waned over the years, but recently, it has become more popular in schools as a way to ensure differentiation and standards-based instruction in the general education classroom.
In my books on co-teaching2,3 , I liken the co-teaching relationship to a marriage. Think about it. We are talking about two adults who regularly make decisions that impact their kids’ social, emotional, behavioral and academic progress. Good communication between teachers results in effective co-teaching teams that are amazing to watch. However, it’s also this communication that I think is too often lacking in teams thrown together and simply called “co-teachers.”
What is the essential question for co-teaching?
An Essential Question (EQ)4 is the over-arching goal for the lesson – something we should be able to answer at the end of instruction and that will be applicable for life. As I observe teaching teams nationwide, my EQ is always “How is what these two teachers are doing substantively different and more effective for kids than what one teacher would be doing alone?” To me, this is key. Let me give an example.
What does good co-teaching look like?
Last week, I observed two 9th grade World History classes at the same school. Both classes were introducing the upcoming unit on Europe and both teams consisted of a general and a special education teacher. In the first observation, students were paired and were given a laminated map of the world, a dry erase marker, and a worksheet. The worksheet asked students to find and mark items on their map (e.g., “Circle the United Kingdom.”) The result? In most pairs, one student worked while the other daydreamed. Both teachers circulated but with no specific purpose. Though I liked the fact that the teachers were clearly trying to do something kinesthetic with their students, I didn’t see (a) evidence of differentiation, (b) evidence of real learning, (c) evidence of proactive planning that would show both teachers’ input, or (d) evidence of why two teachers were needed for this lesson.
Compare that example to what I saw in the very next lesson. As the kids entered the room, one teacher was at the door welcoming them as the other was in the classroom, passing out materials as the kids sat down. As soon as the bell rang, one teacher took roll while the other asked kids if they’ve ever heard of a “Blitzkrieg.” After a brief discussion, both teachers introduced a “lightening war” game they would be playing to introduce the unit on Europe. Kids were put in groups of three, given a laptop, a textbook and a bag of pre-created cards, and asked to work together to identify which country related to the capitol, landmark or map on their cards. Both teachers facilitated the game, helping kids to think of how to find their answers, without actually giving any answers themselves. Differentiation was evident as some children chose to work the computer, others to “run” up to the board, and yet others to use the textbook. Learning was evident as all were engaged and could answer teachers’ questions. There was clear evidence that both teachers planned the lesson, knew the content, considered students’ needs, and were actively engaged in the instruction. Academic engaged time was maximized as both teachers had their own jobs to do, as well as engaging in complementary instruction. There was humor, connection, and movement. What a delightful class to watch!
I make this comparison to emphasize that simply having two teachers in the same classroom is not enough. It is not co-teaching. Co-teaching requires co-planning, co-instruction, and co-assessment. That may seem like a lot, but when done well, the benefits are clearly evident for kids with and without disabilities.
My suggestion? Find a great team. Keep them together. Don’t separate them to work with other teachers. Use them as a model for others to see. Have them mentor other teaching teams. Videotape them and share their lessons with other teachers. There is almost nothing more inspiring that watching excellent teaching in action. Watching excellent co-teaching, however? Twice as inspiring!
1Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-12.
2Murawski,W.W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-
teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
3Murawski,W.W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-
teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd edition). Alexandria,