Teacher Leadership

oZ

Co-Teaching:Getting to Know

Your Partner

Mr. Salvatore and Ms. Happa weregetting to know one anotlier. They werein a new co-teaching partnership,designed by the school administrator,since just before the school year began.Mr. Salvatore had been a solo fourth-grade teacher for 15 years. He enjoyedteaching and maintaining completeinstructional responsibility for studentsin his classes.

Ms. Happa was new to the school.She had been a teacher for 7 years andenjoyed collégial interactions on behalfof students for whom she and otherteachers shared responsibility.

In the beginning of their teachingarrangement, Ms. Happa was comfort-able in a supportive role because shewanted to learn about the students andMr. Salvatore's teaching style. As timepassed, however, she wanted a moreactive instructional role and increasedopportunities to interact with students,especially in the upcoming implemen-tation of response to intervention(RTI).

32 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Jane M. Sileo

Co-teaching is analogous to a profes-sional marriage (Scruggs, Mastropieri,& McDuffie, 2007) in which teachingpartners collaborate to provide instruc-tional services to students with disabil-ities and others at risk of school failureas a result of the negative conse-quences of environmental events.Regrettably, in many instances co-teachers are carelessly placed togetherand therefore, completely miss out onthe development stages critical in arelationship. As in conventional mar-riage, skipping the time to develop astrong relationship may lead to com-munication problems and misunder-standings, as well as ending the rela-tionship. These difficulties betweenadults can negatively affect students inco-teaching settings. For example, stu-dents may receive conflicting messageswhen there is friction in a co-teachingrelationship and the teachers are notsynchronizing classroom logistics orlesson design and delivery. The situa-tion may be especially complex for stu-

dents with information-processing diffi-culties. As a result, they may not knowwhich direction to follow or whichteacher to ask for assistance. Anotherconsequence, often called "staff split-ting," may occur when teachers do notget along: the old game of "he said,she said." Always savvy students canread an uncomfortable and tense rela-tionship and may use a rift betweenteachers to manipulate a situation totheir advantage. Here, of course, as inmany families, one teacher says no to arequest but the other teacher may sayyes. The process of staff splitting mayincrease friction between the co-teach-ers. Thus, like parents, teachers mustcommunicate with each other andensure they are on the same pageregarding interactions with children.

Effective communication is key tonavigating professional relationships,whether teachers are thrown togetheror have time to get to know eachother. The important consideration, aswith family life and parents who have

children's best interests at heart, isthat most teachers enter the professionbecause they want to help children.To ultimately benefit students, then,this article presents problem-solvingstrategies to facilitate communicationbetween co-teachers.

Getting Started; TheReifrtionsiiip-Building StageBefore beginning a co-teaching rela-tionship, teachers first must know themeaning of co-teaching, as well aslogistics involved with the process.

Co-teaching is an instructional deliverymodel used to teach students with dis-abilities and those at risk of education-

planning, delivering, and evaluatinginstruction for all students (Arguelles,Hughes, & Schumm, 2000; Villa,

Effective communication is key tonavigating professional relationships.

al failure in the least restrictive, mostproductive, integrated classroom set-tings where both general and specialeducators share responsibility for

Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). The prac-tice provides teachers with an opportu-nity to share professional expertise. Inmost instances, general educators are

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAY/JUNE 2011 33

considered masters of content, andspecial educators are viewed as mas-ters of access (Villa et al., 2008). Thisdelineation of competencies suggeststhat general educators have exclusiveknowledge of curriculum, whereasspecial educators have sole knowledge

regard, parity is the next issue theyshould address in their relationship.Parity implies equal status, or equalityin substance. In a co-teaching relation-ship, parity suggests that all classroomresponsibilities are shared equally,including instructional planning and

Co-teachers' inability to discuss nitty-gritty detailsregarding shared classroom space, instructional noise levels,

discipline, and daily chores often leads to unresolved issues thatinterfere with efforts to collaborate on hehalf of students.

of instructional processes for studentswho are identified as having disabili-ties or being at risk.

Unfortunately, attempts to mergethe knowledge bases in co-teachingsettings often causes confusionbetween teachers. Therefore, teachingpartners need to communicate openlyabout issues that arise. The situationcorresponds to newly married couples:Each person enters the relationshipwith diverse individual and culturalmores, which must be meshed to forma harmonious home. Co-teachers cometogether with dissimilar personal andprofessional values that they mustidentify, state, and combine in an effortto create positive academic and socialclimates for all students in their class-room settings.

In a recent study, Scruggs and col-leagues (2007) found that co-teachersbelieve personal compatibility is themost important factor for co-teachingsuccess. Thus, once teachers under-stand the definition of co-teaching theycan begin to talk about the practicali-ties of their relationship. Teachersshould first discuss their philosophy ofeducation, specifically how they feelabout teaching together in an inclusiveclassroom. Did they choose co-teach-ing, or was it chosen for them? If co-teaching was chosen for them, is it aprocess to which they can commit fora full school year?

Most teachers are willing to worktogether to benefit students for whomthey share responsibility. In that

delivery, discipline, grading, and col-laborating with parents, among othertasks. Co-teachers' inability to discussnitty-gritty details regarding sharedclassroom space, instructional noiselevels, discipline, and daily choresoften leads to unresolved issues thatinterfere with efforts to collaborate onbehalf of students. Co-teachers need todiscuss the basics of their parinership.

Ms. Happa's and Mr. Salvatore's hasti-ly arranged relationship did not allowthem an opportunity to talk aboutissues of parity and other fundamen-tals important to their professionalassociation. Fortunately, they recog-nized the weakjiess in their relation-ship and rather than allow it to deteri-orate, they decided to use a portion oftheir common planning time to addresstheir roles and responsibilities. Someissues were easy to discuss, whereasothers took a bit longer.

For example, they had commonideas about shared classroom space,discipline, daily chores, and communi-cating with parents. Mr. Salvatore wasmore than willing to share his class-room with Ms. Happa. He understoodthe need for both teachers to have sepa-rate desks or at least discrete places fortheir instructional materials andbelongings. He also acknowledged thatmaterials for a particular lesson shouldbe stored in the classroom so that theywere readily available for instruction.As a result, he arranged for a kidney-

shaped table in the classroom for Ms.Happa to use during their lessons. Thestudents were accustomed to MrSalvatore's disciplinary plan, so, it waseasy for Ms. Happa to follow hisapproach.

The teachers also decided to sharedaily chores, such as attendance takingand lunch count. Since Ms. Happa wasnot always in the room for attendanceand lunch count activities, she per-formed other routine tasks during theday. For example, she often accompa-nied students to the cafeteria, therebyallowing Mr. Salvatore time to catch upwith his e-mail messages.

Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore recog-nized the importance of parity in par-ent-teacher interactions and decidedthat they would communicate, jointlywhen possible, with all parents. As amatter of fact, on back-to-school night,they co-presented an overview of theschool year and anticipated classroomevents. This approach allowed parentsto view both teachers as equal partnersin the classroom.

Effective strategies for communicat-ing with parents include (a) using var-ious modes of communication, (b)inviting parents to visit or attendschool events, (c) engaging families incurriculum planning, and (d) provid-ing parents with resources to helptheir children succeed in school(Salend, 2010). Communication withparents is essential in building strongcollaborative and co-teaching relation-ships, which ultimately benefit stu-dents. The advantage of a co-teachingpartnership is that both teachers cancommunicate with parents to keepthem informed of their children's aca-demic and social growth and develop-ment. When this communicationoccurs, the teachers also learn aboutparental concerns and aspirations fortheir children.

Instructional noise is another issueto which co-teachers must attend.Classroom noise can become a prob-lem if one teacher prefers teaching in aquiet setting and the other is comfort-able with a noisy instructional envi-ronment. Figure 1 shows various types

34 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

of classroom structures that many co-teachers use or consider as they plan(Friend & Bursuck, 2009].

Mr. Salvatore believed that noisy class-rooms were signs of collaborative learn-ing: on the other hand, Ms. Happabelieved that students should collabo-rate, but in a quiet manner. The easi-est solution was to discuss acceptablenoise levels within the classroom andto acknowledge that the intensity mayincrease or decrease, depending on theco-teaching structure (e.g., one teach,one observe; team-teaching: stationteaching; one teach, one drift aroundthe classroom).

Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore wereable to accommodate this variability byplanning instructional activities forboth quiet and noisy classrooms. Forexample, a noisy lesson might be onein which the students work togetherusing rulers to measure various itemsin the classroom. A quiet lesson mightbe one where students work in pairs todetermine the meaning of a poem.

Manning: Hie Marriage/Co-Teaciiing StageAfter talking about minor details intheir relationship, co-teaching partnersmust address the area of instruction.Most co-teachers, initially, were soloteachers and, like Mr. Salvatore, maynot be comfortable sharing responsibil-ity for instructional decisions. There-fore, it is essential for them to addressissues related to curriculum planningand instruction. Critical topics to dis-cuss include concerns such as who

• Plans and teaches the lessons,• Prepares and organizes instructional

materials,• Chooses co-teaching structures that

complement the lessons and stu-dents' abilities,

• Identifies assessment processes thatdetermine students' acquisition ofknowledge and ability to demon-strate skills and competencies,

• Grades assignments.

Figure 1. Description of Co-Teaciiing Structures

1. One Teach, One Observe—when one teacher is responsible for wholegroup instruction while the other teacher observes the students and gathersinformation on their academic, social, and behavioral skills. This co-teach-ing structure allows co-teachers an opportunity to gather information abouttheir students, and each other as well,

2. Parallel Teaching—when the co-teachers place the students into two equalgroups and each teacher simultaneously teaches the same material to his orher small group. The benefit of this co-teaching structure is that it allowsfor increased teacher interaction and student participation as well as differ-entiation of instruction,

3. Station Teaching—when the co-teachers arrange the students into two orthree equal groups, and the students rotate through each of the instructionalstations. In this structure, the stations should not build on one another, butrather be nonsequential. The advantage of this co-teaching structure is thatit also allows for increased teacher and student interactions.

4. Alternative Teaching—when one teacher teaches the whole group and theother teacher teaches a small group of students. The grouping for this struc-ture should change according to students' needs. This co-teaching structureallows either teacher the opportunity to teach (e.g., remediation, preteach-ing, vocabulary development, and enrichment activities) for a short periodof time.

5. One Teach, One Assist—when one teacher Instructs the whole group andthe other teacher assists individual students. The co-teaching structureallows the drifting teacher the opportunity to provide brief periods of indi-vidualized instruction to students who may be struggling with the academiccontent.

6. Team Teaching—when both teachers deliver instruction simultaneously toa large group of students. This structure affords the team teachers thechance to interact with the students. It also provides them with an opportu-nity to ask clarification questions of one another, thereby eliminating thepotential confusion in instruction.

Such planning is crucial, especially forteachers who may experience arrangedpartnerships as a result of school dis-trict decisions and policies to imple-ment RTI, which seeks to prevent aca-demic failure in children who incur dif-ficulty learning, RTI uses early instruc-tional assistance, frequent measures ofacademic progress, and increasinglyintense research-based instruction. Assuch, it requires general and specialeducators to collaborate actively toensure implementation of lessons thataddress a wide array of instructionalneeds in general education classroomsand provide access to the general edu-cation curriculum for diverse learners(Murawski & Hughes, 2009),

As stated previously, special educa-tors may be considered as the masters

of access who, at first have limitedfamiliarity with curriculum andinstructional materials. Consequently,they may assume several supportiveroles in co-teaching settings, such as(a) providing back-up support to stu-dents, (b) teaching a component of thecurriculum, and (c) team-teaching(Weiss & Lloyd, 2003). Special educa-tors often assume more participatoryinstructional roles when they feel con-fident with curricular content,

lïent and colleagues (2003) foundthat a mutually satisfying co-teachingrelationship emerges when teachersfocus on technical aspects of planning,which ultimately benefit them, as wellas the students. These teachers recog-nize the significance of "identifyingtheir roles, responsibilities, sequences.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAY/JUNE 2011 35

and most importantly, who was goingto do what" (p. 209). In addition, theteachers feel it is imperative to havestructured planning time, rather thanimpromptu planning 5 minutes beforeclass sessions. These delineations helpdefine co-teaching relationships. Whenteachers are equal partners in instruc-tional processes, they outwardly showfew distinctions between them (Trentet al., 2003; Weiss & Lloyd, 2003).Therefore, it is imperative that co-teachers discuss planning and instruc-tional techniques.

Problem Solving: IheOngoing Relationship StageWhat should teachers do when prob-lems arise? As in other relationships,when things go wrong the partnersneed an opportunity to sit down andaddress issues in a structured manner.Similarly, co-teachers must discussissues that confront them in a well-thought-out and orderly process.Luckily, co-teachers can find variousproblem-solving models (Berkeley &Ludlow, 2008; Sinclair, 1998) that canbe modified to meet specific needs.

Sinclair's (1998) classic model is aseven-step process that includes (a)identifying issues; (b) developing alter-native courses of action; (c) analyzingrisks and benefits of each course ofaction; (d) choosing a course of action;(e) taking action; (f) evaluating resultsof the action; and (g) assuming respon-sibility for the consequences, correctingpotentially negative consequences, orre-engaging in the decision-makingprocess. Although some issues can beresolved rather quickly, others aremore intricate and demand consider-able time to disentangle them. A struc-tured problem-solving model allows co-teaching partners to elucidate largerproblems and hopefully avoid abreakup. The following scenariodemonstrates how teachers may useSinclair's problem-solving model intheir co-teaching relationship.

After approximately a month of gettingto know each other and the students,Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore hit aroad bump in their teaching relation-

ship. They had a solid foundation, yetMs. Happa believed she could offermore to their professional association.As a result, she explained to Mr.Salvatore that she would like to con-tribute to instructional design anddelivery. Although they had discussedvariolas co-teaching models, Ms. Happaand Mr Salvatore struggled with class-room implementation. They had a ten-dency to follow the "one teach, oneassist" model, with Mr Salvatore lead-ing the lessons.

Mr. Salvatore enjoyed collaboratingwith Ms. Happa; however, he wasuncertain about sharing instructionalresponsibility for the students. Ms.Happa explained to Mr Salvatore thatshe earned a Master's Degree in SpecialEducation and was knowledgeableabout the curriculum, as well as appro-priate instructional strategies.

The co-teachers were truly in a bind.They knew it was their responsibility toensure a quality education for stu-dents. Yet, differences in how to pro-vide instruction had the potential tointerfere with the process. So, theydecided to resolve their issues usingSinclair's (1998) model of problemsolving.

Step 1 : Identify the issues.Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore werehaving difficulty communicating. Onthe one hand, Mr. Salvatore wantedMs. Happa in the classroom, but onthe other, he did not want to shareinstructional design and delivery. Ms.

Step 2: Develop alternativecourses of action.Mr. Salvatore and Ms. Happa knewthey shared the same goal: to affordsuccess for all students. They just haddifficulty figuring out how to achievetheir goal. On the one hand, they couldmaintain the status quo and plod alongin their disjointed efforts. On the other,they knew this approach was notappropriate and they needed alterna-tive practices to work together. Ms.Happa and Mr. Salvatore decided togenerate various solutions to theirdilemma. After a lengthy discussion,they narrowed down their choices tothree options. The first choice was togive up and end their relationship. Thesecond alternative was to speak withthe principal to see if she could easethe situation. The third option was forMr. Salvatore to observe Ms. Happa co-teaching in another classroom.

Step 3: Analyze the risks and ben-efits of each course of action.Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore dis-cussed each alternative. They decidedthat Option 1, giving up and endingthe relationship, was not an option,especially because of the potentialdeleterious effects on the students.They were frustrated. They knew theyhad a solid foundation; they just hit aspeed bump. They also knew they didnot want to stay the course and endup hating co-teaching and each other.The risks of Option 1 were just toohigh; they had to identify anotheralternative.

A structured problem solving model allows co-teaching partnersto elucidate larger problems and hopefully avoid a breakup.

Happa felt underappreciated becauseshe was a competent teacher andwanted the opportunity to demonstrateher skills and knowledge. Althoughshe tried many times, she could notget Mr. Salvatore to understand the"co" in co-teaching. She did not wantto be in charge of his class; rather,she wanted to share instructionalresponsibilities.

Ms. Happa and Mr. Salvatore knewthat they were both good teachers andthere had to be a way to work together.They discussed Option 2, speakingwith the principal. Eor Ms. Happa, thebenefit of discussion with the principalwas that she would receive support forher position. The principal was a firmbeliever in co-teaching. There wererisks involved, however, in sharing the

36 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

problem with the principal. First, bothteachers had a good relationship withthe principal and did not want to seemas though they could not solve theproblem on their own.

Second, there was additional riskfor Mr. Salvatore because he knew theprincipal was in favor of co-teaching tobenefit students' education as well asteachers' professional development. Hedid not want to be viewed as an indi-vidual player rather than as a teammember.

Finally, they discussed Option 3.Ms. Happa also co-taught with a fifth-grade teacher, and asked Mr. Salvatoreif he would like to observe her co-teaching in the other setting. The bene-fit of this option is that Mr. Salvatorewould have a concrete and positiveexample of a different co-teachingrelationship.

Step 4: Choose a course of oction.After considerable discussion, Ms.Happa and Mr. Salvatore chose thethird alternative. Mr. Salvatore wouldobserve Ms. Happa co-teaching inanother setting.

Step 5; Take action.The following week during a preparato-ry period, Mr. Salvatore observed Ms.Happa co-teaching a fifth-grade mathe-matics lesson in which Ms. Happa andher co-teaching partner demonstratedtwo co-teaching structures. They beganthe lesson with parallel teaching, inwhich each teacher reviewed the morn-ing work assignment. Next, she andthe co-teacher taught alternatively. Inthis situation, Ms. Happa taught asmall group of students while the co-teacher taught the larger group. Theobservation allowed Mr. Salvatore anopportunity to scrutinize Ms. Happa'steaching and learn that she couldindeed teach.

Step 6: Evaluate results of theaction.The next day, Ms. Happa and Mr.Salvatore discussed the observation.Ms. Happa explained the lesson com-ponents to Mr. Salvatore and asked ifhe had any questions. Mr. Salvatoretold Ms. Happa that he was impressed.

Figure 2 . Examples of How to Use Co-Teaching Structures

1. One Teach, One Observe is an excellent strategy to implement during thefirst few weeks of school. It may be used during any lesson to determinewhich students are contributing to the lesson, as well as to identify studentswho need extra encouragement and support to contribute to class discus-sions. One teach, one observe also may be used to collect student data,monitor and support student behavior, and write and evaluate students'individualized education program objectives in preparation for meetingswith parents and colleagues.

2. Parallel Teaching may be used in many different ways. The strength of theformat is that it enables teachers to work with smaller numbers of studentsand to provide all students an opportunity for individualized and hands-onlearning. Parallel teaching is an excellent format to use in science lessons,particularly those with experiments, especially because the teachers areworking with a smaller number of students and have a better chance ofcontrolling the variables.

3. Station Teaching is a good format to use in any curricular area. For exam-ple, in an English language arts lesson, the students, who are working insmall groups, rotate through one of three stations. The teachers teach twostations (e.g., grammar and spelling) while other students work independ-ently on narrative writing activities.

4. Alternative Teaching is an exceptional format to provide students withmore intense and individualized instruction in a specific academic area. Forexample, many students have difficulty solving word problems. Therefore,one teacher can provide them with explicit instruction on solving wordproblems twice weekly for 15-20 minutes per session, while the otherteacher works on other word problem-solving activities with the remainingstudents in the class.

5. One Teach, One Assist is an excellent strategy to check for student under-standing. For example, during a math lesson, while one teacher is teaching,the other teacher can provide additional one-to-one assistance, such asreminding students about the first step to solve a problem, prompting stu-dents' use of a diagram to help understand the problem, or providing thedefinition of a concept to address students' difficulties and to ensure theirunderstanding of the new material.

6. Team Teaching can be used in any academic subject, especially when pre-senting new material. In this instance, the co-teachers set up the lesson toquestion one another when a difficuh concept is presented, thereby takingthe pressure off of the students who may have difficulty understanding thenew material. This structure also helps the teachers support each other asthey present the material to ensure they addressed all steps and accuratelyreinforced the concepts.

Note. Adapted from "Creating optimal opportunities to learn mathematics: Blendingco-teaching structures with research-based practices," by J. M. Sileo & D. vanGarderen (2010), TEACHING Exceptional Children, 42(3), 14-21. Copyright 2010 bythe Council for Exceptional Children.

but he wanted to review the variousco-teaching structures. He just was notsure how they would work in theirshared setting. Ms. Happa explainedthe co-teaching structures (i.e., oneteach, one observe; team-teaching; sta-tion teaching; and one teach, one

drift) and offered examples of howeach structure could work in theirclassroom, depending on the lessoncontent and students' instructionalneeds. (See Figure 2 for examples ofhow co-teaching structures may beused.)

TEACHINC EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAY/JUNE 2011 37

Step 7: Assume responsibility forthe consequences, correct poten-tiolly negotive consequences, orre-engoge In the decision-mokingprocess.After the observation, Mr. Salvatoredecided to share responsibility forinstructional design and delivery withMs. Happa. Because he had observed amathematics lesson, Mr. Salvatoredecided to start co-teaching in mathe-matics. Ms. Happa was comfortablewith his decision. They co-planned thelesson to ensure they were bothengaged in the instructional processes.The lesson was a huge success withoutany hitches.

As an aside, Ms. Happa and Mr.Salvatore have been co-teaching suc-cessfully for 8 years and advocate forthe process among their colleagues.

Final ThoughtsThe beginning stage of any co-teachingrelationship is similar to the initialaspects of any dating relationship. Atfirst, the relationship is great, and thepartners are blissful and happy. Astime evolves, however, newly formed

relationships need to be nurtured tocreate a stronger relationship, becauseperforming as a team is hard work, if itis to be successful and long lasting.New couples in any relationship oftenargue about simple things, such asleaving the cap off the toothpaste tubeor which of the partners is responsiblefor doing laundry, vacuuming, or cook-ing. The same can be said for new co-teaching partners. The teachers maydisagree about leaving the lid off thewhiteboard marker or putting awayinstructional materials at the end of theday.

In either marriage or co-teaching,the key to success is compromise andcollaboration. All co-teachers must beflexible for their relationship to flour-ish. Therefore, co-teaching partnersmust communicate throughout therelationship to ensure the relationshipfocuses on what is most important inco-teaching—children's academic andsocial growth and development.

ReferencesArguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Schumm,

J. S. (2000). Co-teaching: A differentapproach to inclusion. Principal, 79(4),48, 50-51.

Berkeley, T. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (2008).Ethical dilemmas in rural special educa-tion: A call for a conversation about the

ethics of practice. Rural Special EducationQuarterly, 27(1/2), 3-9.

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2009).Including students with special needs: Apractical guide for classroom teachers (5thed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Murawski, W. W, & Hughes, C. E. (2009).Response to intervention, collaboration,and co-teaching: A logical combinationfor successful systemic change. Prevent-ing School Failure, 53, 267-277. doi: 10.32001PSFL53.4.267-277

Salend, S. J. (2010). Creating inclusiveclassrooms: Effective and reflective prac-tices (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuf-fie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusiveclassrooms: A metasynthesis of qualita-tive research. Exceptional Children, 47,392-416.

Sileo, J. M., & van Garderen, D. (2010).Creating optimal opportunities to learnmathematics: Blending co-teaching struc-tures with research-based practices.TEACHING Exceptional Children. 42(3),14-21.

Sinclair, C. (1998). Nine unique features ofthe Canadian code of ethics for psycholo-gists. Canadian Psychology/PsychologieCanadienne, 39, 167-176. doi: 10.1037/h0086805

•n-ent, S. C , Driver, B. L., Wood, M. H.,Parrott, P. S., Martin, T. F., & Smith W. G.(2003). Creating and sustaining a specialeducation/general education partnership:A story of evolution, change, and uncer-tainty. Teaching and Teacher Education.19, 203-219. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(02)0014X

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I.(2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practicaltips for facilitating student learning (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Weiss, M. P., & Lloyd, J. (2003). Conditionsfor co-teaching: Lessons from a casestudy. Teacher Education and SpecialEducation, 26, 27-41. doi: 10.1177/088840640302600104

Jane M. Sileo (New York CEC), AssistantProfessor, Department of EducationalStudies, State University of New York at NewPaltz.

Correspondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to Jane M. Sileo,Department of Educational Studies, StateUniversity of New York at New Paltz,SCB150, 1 Hawk Drive, New Paltz NY 12561(e-mail: sileoj@newpaltz.edu).

Note: The names of the co-teachers in thisarticle are pseudonyms.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 43,No. 5, pp. 32-38.

Copyright 2011 CEC.

38 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.