Inclusion and Accessibility
Co-Teaching Models in Inclusive Education: A Practical Guide
Co-teaching is a service and instructional arrangement in which two educators share responsibility for a class. A model is only the visible structure for one lesson segment. It does not decide credentials, caseloads, planning time, services, grading authority, or required supports; those come from applicable student plans, assignments, policy, and local agreements.
Compare the six models
Select a model after naming the objective, student action, grouping need, teacher expertise, and evidence to collect. Partners may change models within a lesson, but every transition adds time and coordination.
| Model | Best fit for the segment | Teacher roles | Planning and equity check |
|---|---|---|---|
| One teach, one observe | Collecting predefined evidence while one educator leads | Lead teacher instructs; observer records agreed indicators and may monitor access | Write the observation question and data rule first. Rotate roles; observation is professional work, not passive presence. |
| One teach, one assist | Brief support during a familiar whole-group routine | Lead teacher instructs; assisting teacher provides planned prompts, access, or feedback | Define whom and what the support is for. Avoid roaming help that interrupts, overprompts, or makes one educator a permanent aide. |
| Station teaching | Distinct but connected content, practice, or evidence tasks | Each educator teaches a station; an independent station is optional | Align station objectives, timing, transitions, noise, materials, access, and individual evidence. |
| Parallel teaching | The same objective benefits from smaller groups and more response opportunities | Both educators teach equivalent content to separate groups | Agree on examples, success criteria, pacing range, accommodations, and evidence so opportunity is comparable. |
| Alternative teaching | A temporary group needs targeted preteaching, reteaching, extension, or assessment | One educator teaches the targeted group; the other teaches the larger group | Use current evidence, protect access to grade-level work, change the group, and rotate which educator teaches it. |
| Team teaching | Two perspectives, methods, models, or jointly facilitated discussion advance the objective | Both educators have planned instructional moves and decision authority | Script handoffs, questions, disagreement, monitoring, and intervention enough to prevent duplication or interruption. |
Select a model for one segment
- Write the evidence: What will every student do that reveals the objective?
- Identify the reason for two educators: More response opportunities, two instructional representations, temporary targeted support, systematic observation, or distinct station expertise?
- Choose grouping: Whole class, two comparable groups, temporary evidence-based group, or rotations. Grouping should have an instructional reason and a review point.
- Assign professional work: Name who explains, models, prompts, monitors, records, assesses, and makes the next decision. Avoid “lead” and “help” as the entire plan.
- Check access and services: Confirm accommodations, assistive technology, language supports, behavior or health procedures, and each educator’s authorized role.
- Set a contingency: Decide what happens if a teacher is absent, time is lost, a station becomes inaccessible, or the evidence shows the grouping is wrong.
No model is a required starting level. One teach–one observe may fit a genuine observation question, while parallel or station teaching may be simpler when both educators already know the content and routine. Choose by purpose, not by a presumed progression.
Protect role equity
Parity is visible in who does substantive work over time, not in matching every action minute by minute. Review a sequence of lessons rather than one snapshot.
| Area | Look for | Repair when imbalanced |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | Both educators shape objectives, examples, access, grouping, and assessment. | Reserve shared decisions; use an approved shared plan; ask leadership for needed planning conditions. |
| Instruction | Both explain content, model reasoning, question students, and close learning. | Rotate or redistribute content leadership according to expertise and assignment. |
| Student relationships | Students approach both teachers for academic feedback and support. | Use both names, shared classroom language, and planned contact across groups. |
| Assessment | Both understand criteria, examine work, and contribute to authorized decisions. | Calibrate scoring and define who records, communicates, and follows up. |
| Access expertise | Specialized knowledge shapes the lesson for the class without making one teacher solely responsible for selected students. | Embed supports in shared planning while keeping individual services and responsibilities clear. |
| Workload and voice | Preparation, materials, communication, and administrative work are visible and discussed. | Name the task, owner, time, and escalation route instead of treating overload as a personality conflict. |
Worked lesson: Grade 6 equivalent ratios
Objective: Students will determine whether two ratios are equivalent using a table or double number line and explain the multiplicative relationship. Evidence: Every student solves one new comparison and writes or dictates a one-sentence explanation. Current evidence: Most students can generate equivalent ratios with whole-number factors; several confuse additive and multiplicative change.
Selected model: Station teaching for practice, then team teaching for the close. The three groups are mixed and rotate through every station; they are not named by performance. Both educators teach new examples and score the same exit evidence.
| Time | Student work | Educator A | Educator B | Evidence or contingency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | Solve 2:3 = 6:? privately | Launches objective and response routine | Scans response cards for additive-error pattern | If fewer than half show a valid strategy, replace first rotation with a joint model |
| 5–8 | Review station map, materials, and noise signal | Models movement and table station | Models double-number-line station and points out accessible materials | Students may remain seated and receive materials at their location |
| 8–18 | Rotation 1 | Table station: build equivalent rows and explain factor | Number-line station: align and label multiplicative jumps | Independent station uses a self-check card sort; each student records answers |
| 18–20 | Transition | Checks materials and timing | Checks route and provides planned movement support | If transition exceeds two minutes, remove one card from later stations |
| 20–30 | Rotation 2 | Repeats table station with next group | Repeats number-line station with next group | Teachers use same two prompts and note additive reasoning |
| 30–32 | Transition | Reviews station notes | Reviews station notes | Partners exchange one pattern, not student labels |
| 32–42 | Rotation 3 | Teaches final table group | Teaches final number-line group | All groups receive both teacher-led representations |
| 42–46 | Compare table and number-line reasoning | Displays one table solution | Connects the same factor on the number line | Team-teaching handoff is scripted around one example |
| 46–50 | Independent exit comparison and explanation | Collects and sorts strategy evidence | Checks access and records incomplete attempts | Both score a sample against the same criteria after class |
Access: directions appear in print and are read aloud; ratio cards use readable text and patterns in addition to color; manipulatives and digital-free materials are available; students may point, write, dictate, or use an approved communication system for the explanation; required individual supports remain in place. Review: partners compare exit work by strategy, note whether each station exposed the misconception, and decide whether the next lesson needs a joint model or temporary group.
Blank co-teaching planning form
CO-TEACHING LESSON PLAN
Class/date:
Objective:
Evidence every student will produce:
Current evidence or prerequisite:
Required plans, services, and supports:
SEGMENT PLAN
Time/segment:
Co-teaching model:
Why this model fits:
Student grouping and rationale:
Educator A instructional actions:
Educator B instructional actions:
Student actions:
Materials and access:
Evidence collected and by whom:
Handoff or transition:
Contingency:
Repeat the segment block as needed.
ROLE-EQUITY CHECK
Who shaped the objective and examples?
Who teaches content?
Who provides feedback?
Who assesses and records evidence?
Who communicates and follows up?
Which role should rotate next?
AFTER-LESSON REVIEW
Evidence pattern:
Access or grouping issue:
Role/workload issue:
Model to keep, revise, or replace:
Owner and date for next decision:
Completed planning form: Ratio station segment
CO-TEACHING LESSON PLAN
Class/date: Grade 6 mathematics / Tuesday
Objective: Determine equivalent ratios and explain the multiplicative factor
Evidence: New comparison plus one-sentence explanation from every student
Current evidence: Additive reasoning appears in 7 of 24 recent responses
Required supports: Existing plans; readable print; communication and movement routes
SEGMENT PLAN
Time/segment: 8–42 minutes / three rotations
Co-teaching model: Station teaching
Why this model fits: Every student practices two representations with teacher feedback
Grouping: Three mixed groups; all rotate; no fixed performance group
Educator A: Teach ratio-table station; prompt “What factor links the rows?”
Educator B: Teach double-number-line station; prompt “Where is the same factor?”
Students: Solve, explain, record individual response at each station
Materials/access: Patterned ratio cards, manipulatives, print directions, seated route
Evidence: Both teachers mark strategy used and additive-error signal
Handoff: Two-minute visible transition; exchange one pattern after rotation 2
Contingency: If opening evidence is weak, jointly model first and run two longer rotations
ROLE-EQUITY CHECK
Planning: Both selected examples and criteria
Content teaching: Both teach all groups
Feedback: Both use common prompts
Assessment: Both calibrate exit responses
Communication: A posts class summary; B prepares next support materials
Next rotation: Swap representation stations in the next ratio lesson
AFTER-LESSON REVIEW
Evidence pattern: [complete after lesson]
Access/grouping issue: [complete after lesson]
Role/workload issue: [complete after lesson]
Decision: [keep / revise / replace]
Owner/date: [name and agreed planning date]Resolve predictable coordination problems
- No common planning time: identify the decisions that require joint work and ask the responsible leader for conditions consistent with schedules and agreements. Use an approved shared document for bounded details; unpaid personal time is not a durable default.
- One educator repeatedly assists: audit the last two weeks of planning, content instruction, assessment, communication, and support. Redistribute substantive roles and raise unresolved assignment or staffing issues through the authorized route.
- Groups receive different opportunities: compare objective, examples, time, supports, and evidence across groups. Reteach missing content and revise the model.
- Student information is overshared: record only what the instructional decision needs in the approved system and share it only with staff who have the relevant role.
- A teacher is absent: use the prewritten single-teacher contingency that preserves required services and the core objective; notify the appropriate staff when services or safety cannot be delivered as planned.
Authoritative sources
This guide does not replace an IEP, 504 plan, individualized accommodation, or local service decision. Follow the applicable plan and contact the student’s support team when a required support is unclear, unavailable, or cannot be delivered as planned.
- IRIS Center: Co-Teaching Models — definitions and classroom examples for the six common structures.
- U.S. Department of Education: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — federal resources; applicable law, student plans, state rules, and local procedures govern services.
- CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines — options for designing access alongside individualized requirements.