12.1 The Six Co-Teaching Models: Planning, Parity & Implementation

Foundations of Inclusive Co-Teaching and Legal Mandates

Co-teaching is an instructional service delivery model wherein two or more certified professionals—typically a general education teacher and a special education teacher—collaboratively share the planning, instructional delivery, and assessment responsibilities for a diverse group of students within a single, shared physical classroom. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004, 34 CFR § 300.114), local educational agencies (LEAs) are legally mandated to educate students with disabilities in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) to the maximum extent appropriate with their nondisabled peers. Co-teaching operationalizes the LRE mandate by bringing Specially Designed Instruction (SDI, 34 CFR § 300.39) directly into the general education classroom, rather than removing students to segregated resource or self-contained environments.

True co-teaching is fundamentally distinct from paraprofessional support, volunteer classroom assistance, or disjointed "push-in" tutoring. In an authentic co-teaching partnership, both practitioners are licensed educators who maintain joint accountability for student outcomes. The general education teacher contributes deep pedagogical content knowledge, scope and sequence expertise, and mastery of state grade-level academic standards. The special education teacher contributes diagnostic knowledge of learning differences, mastery of instructional adaptations, specialized behavioral strategies, assistive technology integration, and systematic data collection techniques to ensure IEP goals are achieved.

---

The Marilyn Friend & Lynne Cook Co-Teaching Typology

Educational researchers Marilyn Friend and Lynne Cook conceptualized the canonical framework of six co-teaching models utilized in contemporary inclusive education. Effective practitioners select from these six models dynamically, matching the instructional design to curricular goals, student IEP accommodations, and classroom behavioral dynamics.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     THE FRIEND & COOK SIX CO-TEACHING MODELS           │
├────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. One Teach, One Observe          │ 4. Parallel Teaching              │
│ 2. One Teach, One Assist           │ 5. Alternative Teaching           │
│ 3. Station Teaching                │ 6. Teaming (Team Teaching)        │
└────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┘

1. One Teach, One Observe

In this approach, one teacher leads large-group instruction while the other systematically gathers observational, academic, or behavioral data on specific students or the class as a whole.

• Mechanics: Prior to the lesson, teachers decide exactly what objective data will be collected (e.g., student time-on-task, frequency of target behaviors, latency in initiating tasks, academic engagement, or peer interactions) and design an objective recording tool.
• Pedagogical Utility: Invaluable for completing Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBAs), monitoring progress on specific IEP benchmark objectives, tracking the efficacy of sensory accommodations, and evaluating student response to instructional delivery.
• Risk Mitigation: The observer role must rotate systematically between the general and special educator. If the special educator is permanently relegated to the observer role, students perceive that teacher as a passive bystander rather than an instructional leader.

2. One Teach, One Assist

One teacher assumes primary responsibility for delivering whole-group instruction while the co-teacher circulates throughout the learning environment, providing unobtrusive support, clarifying directions, checking for understanding, and implementing quick scaffolds.

• Mechanics: The assisting teacher moves quietly around the room, redirecting off-task attention, facilitating assistive technology use, scribing key vocabulary terms on a personal whiteboard, or delivering discreet behavioral prompts.
• Pedagogical Utility: High utility during initial presentations of novel, high-complexity material where struggling learners require real-time clarification or emotional regulation support without interrupting the instructional pacing.
• The "Assistant Trap": This is the most frequently overused and abused co-teaching model. When relied upon continuously, it causes the assistant trap—wherein the special educator is perceived by students, parents, and colleagues as an overpaid instructional aide. National best practice recommendations suggest limiting this model to no more than 10% to 15% of total instructional time.

3. Station Teaching

Instructional content is divided into non-sequential components, and students are distributed across distinct instructional stations through which they rotate on a timed schedule.

• Mechanics: In a standard three-station configuration, Station A is facilitated by the general educator (focusing on core conceptual content), Station B is facilitated by the special educator (focusing on targeted SDI, guided practice, or specialized skill remediation), and Station C is an independent or peer-collaborative station (utilizing adaptive digital learning software, laboratory investigations, or extension projects).
• Pedagogical Utility: Drastically reduces student-to-teacher ratio (e.g., from 1:24 to 1:8), provides repeated opportunities for active student verbalization, allows direct hands-on manipulation, and naturally integrates varied instructional modalities.
• Considerations: Stations must be pedagogically independent so that students can complete them in any sequence without compromising conceptual understanding. Requires robust classroom transition routines and careful pacing calibration between teachers.

4. Parallel Teaching

The heterogeneous class is divided into two equal groups, and both educators deliver the identical instructional lesson simultaneously in different physical areas of the classroom.

• Mechanics: Both teachers plan the core lesson together, selecting shared essential questions, materials, and formative exit tickets, but deliver instruction simultaneously to their respective cohorts.
• Pedagogical Utility: Cuts the student-to-teacher ratio exactly in half. Maximizes student participation opportunities, doubles active student responding during discussions, permits closer monitoring of complex problem-solving, and facilitates structured student debates.
• Considerations: Requires both teachers to possess mastery of the academic content, synchronized pacing so both groups conclude simultaneously, and an instructional environment with sufficient physical space and acoustic management to tolerate dual simultaneous presentations.

5. Alternative Teaching

One teacher delivers whole-group instruction to the majority of the class, while the co-teacher works with a smaller, specialized group (typically 3 to 6 students) for a designated, short-term instructional purpose.

• Mechanics: The small group can be convened for pre-teaching critical vocabulary, re-teaching prerequisite skills, conducting intensive reading decoding interventions, delivering behavioral or social skills coaching, or providing advanced enrichment for high-achieving learners.
• Pedagogical Utility: Offers high-intensity, Tier 2/Tier 3 targeted intervention directly within the general education setting without formal pull-out exclusion.
• Stigmatization Prevention: To avoid stigmatizing exceptional learners as the "slow group," the composition of the small group must remain fluid, dynamic, and heterogeneous. Both educators must rotate leading the small group, and the small group must regularly include students without IEPs for enrichment or extension activities.

6. Teaming (Team Teaching)

Both educators stand together at the front of the classroom, sharing whole-group instructional leadership fluidly and dynamically throughout the instructional period.

• Mechanics: Teachers engage in seamless professional dialogue, tag-team complex explanations, model collaborative discourse, role-play contrasting historical or literary perspectives, and demonstrate multiple problem-solving algorithms (e.g., the general educator demonstrates the standard mathematical algorithm while the special educator simultaneously demonstrates a visual-spatial representation or heuristic model).
• Pedagogical Utility: Demonstrates parity at the highest level, keeps all students engaged through dynamic dual-presenter interactions, and provides real-time cognitive modeling of expert metacognitive strategies.
• Considerations: Requires extensive co-planning time, deep mutual professional trust, matched pedagogical chemistry, and a non-defensive willingness to share instructional space without rigid turf boundaries.

---

Friend & Cook Six Co-Teaching Models: Comparative Framework

---

Establishing Professional and Instructional Parity

A pervasive barrier to successful co-teaching is the lack of instructional parity—the visible, structural, and relational equality between both practitioners. When parity is absent, students, parents, and colleagues perceive the general education teacher as the "real" teacher and the special education teacher as a subordinate assistant. Establishing authentic parity requires deliberate environmental, operational, and structural commitments across multiple dimensions:

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     PILLARS OF CO-TEACHING PARITY                      │
├────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Environmental Footprint          │ • Shared Behavioral Authority     │
│ • Equal Public Identity            │ • Joint Assessment & Grading      │
│ • Synchronized Parent Engagement   │ • Fluid Instructional Roles       │
└────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┘

• Physical Classroom Architecture: Both teachers must have dedicated, equal adult workstations within the room. A co-taught classroom should never feature one large teacher desk and a folding chair or small student desk in the corner. Names of both teachers must be displayed on the door, on classroom bulletin boards, on the digital learning management system (LMS), and on the printed course syllabus.
• Shared Behavioral Authority: Both educators must possess equal authority to establish classroom norms, grant student permissions, dispense positive reinforcement, and administer disciplinary consequences. Neither teacher should say, "Let me check with Mrs. Smith to see if you can use the restroom."
• Unified Assessment and Grading: Both teachers collaboratively design rubrics, evaluate student work, assign grades, and maintain the electronic grade book. The special educator does not merely grade the "IEP students" while the general educator grades the general education students; grading is a shared, integrated responsibility.
• Coordinated Family Communication: All parent communications—including introductory letters, weekly email updates, phone calls, and report cards—must feature both teachers' names and contact information. Both educators must be present and contribute equally during parent-teacher conferences.

---

Dedicated Co-Planning Protocols and Division of Labor

Research consistently demonstrates that the single greatest predictor of co-teaching success is the presence of protected, dedicated co-planning time. Without structured weekly planning, co-teaching inevitably degenerates into the One Teach, One Assist default pattern. Co-teaching teams require a minimum of 45 to 60 minutes of uninterrupted planning time per week.

The 3-Phase Co-Planning Framework

1. Phase 1: Before the Planning Meeting (Independent Preparation)
   • The general educator reviews upcoming state curriculum standards, identifies primary textbook/thematic resources, and outlines the broad scope and sequence.
   • The special educator reviews IEP goals, accommodations, behavior intervention plans, and formative assessment data for students with exceptionalities, identifying potential learning barriers.
2. Phase 2: During the Planning Meeting (Collaborative Co-Design)
   • The team articulates the core learning target: What must all students know, understand, and be able to do?
   • The team selects the co-teaching model(s) that directly align with the target learning objectives and student profile.
   • The special educator embeds Specially Designed Instruction (SDI): designing modified graphic organizers, tiered assignments, tactile models, text-to-speech accommodations, or explicit mnemonic strategies.
   • The team determines formative assessment strategies and calibrates behavioral supports.
3. Phase 3: After the Lesson (Reflective Debrief)
   • Teachers spend 5 minutes evaluating student exit tickets and behavioral data, reflecting on instructional execution, and adjusting the next instructional cycle.

Division of Labor Matrix

To prevent duplication of effort while maintaining parity, co-teachers should delineate distinct operational responsibilities while maintaining joint instructional ownership:

┌──────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┐
│      GENERAL EDUCATION PARTNER       │      SPECIAL EDUCATION PARTNER       │
├──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Content area standards mastery     │ • Specially Designed Instruction (SDI)│
│ • Curricular scope and sequence      │ • IEP accommodations and modifications│
│ • Subject-specific assessment targets│ • Multisensory & scaffolded materials│
│ • Pacing guides and textbook content │ • Assistive technology integration   │
│ • Broad thematic project design      │ • Behavioral & progress data systems │
└──────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┘

---

Data-Driven Selection of Co-Teaching Models

Selecting a co-teaching model must never be dictated by teacher convenience, comfort zones, or administrative habit. Instead, model selection should be guided by a diagnostic decision matrix:

• Are students struggling with prerequisite vocabulary or mathematical concepts? Deploy Alternative Teaching to pre-teach concepts to a small group before the whole-group lesson.
• Does the lesson involve complex laboratory steps or multi-faceted textual analysis? Deploy Station Teaching to provide small-group, hands-on guided facilitation.
• Does the lesson require intense student discussion, active debate, or close observation of problem-solving steps? Deploy Parallel Teaching to halve the group size and double communicative opportunities.
• Is a student exhibiting a spike in interfering behaviors or failing to meet an IEP benchmark? Deploy One Teach, One Observe to collect objective duration, latency, or ABC behavioral data.