The following literature review is of an article titled,
“Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Continuous Improvement,” authored
by James M. Walsh. It was published in
2012 by Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
I want to start this review
with some background knowledge as to why I chose to review this article.
My research is based on providing Tier 2 level math interventions in a
co-taught setting. I have always considered co-teaching as a Tier 2 level
intervention, however I have found that some colleagues and professionals in my
field have disagreed, stating that co-teaching is not a researched based
intervention. I chose this article to hopefully answer two questions: 1.
Can co-teaching be considered a research based Tier 2 level intervention? &
2. What strategies are most effective in improving student performance in a
co-taught classroom?
The article is
written by James Walsh, who has been the Director of Special Education in
Howard County Public School in Maryland for 20 years. He wrote the
article to discuss the successes of co-teaching within his district over the
past 8 years. He provided continuous
professional development for all schools willing to implement a co-taught model
for 6 years. The training included how to use assessments to guide
instructional grouping, effectively using a rotation model between teachers,
and scaffolding assignments across the continuum of abilities within the
classroom of special education students as well as general education students
(Walsh, 2012, p. 30).
Students with disabilities
reported that they learned more and enjoyed the co-taught class more than a
separate class taught by a special education teacher alone. They felt
better about themselves and happier about schoo1. The co-taught model also benefited students
without disabilities, who reported that they felt that they learned more due to
smaller instructional groups and more opportunities for individual instruction
(Walsh, 2012, p. 29).
Student performance also
increased over the eight years of implementation for both students with
disabilities and those without disabilities. The percentage of general
education students scoring proficient on state testing in math rose from 75% to
88% over the eight years, while the percentage of students with IEPs who showed
proficiency rose from 35% to 57%. Walsh argues that the co-teaching model
can help close the educational gap for all students (Walsh, 2012, p. 33).
Walsh concludes that
effective co-teaching methods and professional development can be developed
into a school district’s policy for effective instructional practices in
accessing the general education curriculum that are mandated by IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities Act, 2004). He argues that the mandates
laid out by IDEA and No Child Left Behind Act (2006) can all be met by using a
co-taught model to provide differentiate content to all students while
providing yearly progresses monitoring (Walsh, 2012, p. 33).
Review:
I think that Walsh’s work greatly supports the use of a
co-taught model as a Tier 2 level intervention if implemented with fidelity and
while using research based instructional strategies. To review my
questions, I believe that I have found evidence that using a co-taught model
may not be directly a researched based intervention, however it may be the most
effective vehicle for educators to implement the research based interventions
to the maximum amount of students that require them. A strategy that
helps made this model successful is providing ongoing professional development
to give teachers the resources they need to be able to progress monitor, plan
and implement instructional grouping strategies, and scaffold assignments to
meet the educational needs of all students. My hope is that my research helps
to promote the idea that a co-taught model can be effective for all students.
References:
Walsh, J. M. (2012).
Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Continuous Improvement. Preventing
School Failure, 56(1), 29-36
