Co-teaching, it’s about relationships and communication!
Co-teaching at its best is where learning results in
continuous development of transferable
knowledge that is provided by two facilitators who integrate their unique learning and teaching
styles. It’s been said that students and
observers should not be able to tell the difference between the general educator
and the special educator. I agree, however,
too often it is not reflective of what is seen in the co-taught classes. The occurrence of faulty co-teaching or the
lack thereof does not just happen on “the day of” in the classroom. It happens prior to entering the classroom
walls and results from ineffective communication. Miscommunication stems from events such as inadequate
planning that is done in isolation and missing the collaborative component. Gately
and Gately (2001), in their work on co-teaching suggest that planning for the
co-taught classroom should occur during the summer prior to the start of school. This approach to building towards the
collaborative stage is a wonderful idea.
The challenge is getting teachers to invest in planning time that
centers on relationship building during the summer.
A successful educational program begins with effective
communication that is ongoing. When
relationship building is at the core of an operation, it tends to work more
like a well-oiled machine. When
co-teachers are assigned to work together they begin with what Gately et al.
describes as guarded careful communication. School leaders have to set the
stage to help teachers to transition beyond guarded communication even though
it is wise to be careful. Johnson and
Johnson (2009) say groups should not over trust, nor should they under trust in
group dynamics. School leaders must cultivate a climate that nudges the staff
to connect, creating a sense of family and community. To help co-teachers to move beyond the
compromising stage into the collaborating stage, principals should use the
Co-teaching Rating Scale for the special educator and general educator. The
teachers could then help to design PD based upon their individual needs. A lunch meeting during the summer may be a
nice place to start the conversation about plans for a successful school year!
Entry #2 Individualizing Curriculum through Mini-/Elective
Courses
Now, more than ever with the onset of the Common Core
(CCSS), I think it would be wise to offer mini elective courses. A variety of
course offerings provide learners with choices to make decisions about their
learning. In some schools the focus
seems geared towards the learner who may not be performing on grade level. Schools should make a conscious effort to
include all learners of different
performance levels into the overall scheme of the school-wide programs. Now that our schools have adopted the CCSS it
would benefit both struggling and gifted learners to have options for mini
courses.
The research supporting the Common Core Standards states
that the impact that low reading achievement has on students’ readiness for
college, careers, and life in general is significant. Imagine mini courses surrounding a high
interest topic that is appealing to a low-reader. Say for instance, a struggling reader who is
interested in fashion could venture into learning more about topics such as
chemistry (unintentionally)while learning about different fabrics. The same applies to a gifted learner. Talented and gifted students could begin to extend
their learning by exploring beginning courses in their area of interest at the
college level or using college-related materials.
Good curriculum fosters the development of mini/elective
courses. Many teachers have a wealth of
experience outside of teaching and can lend their expertise to developing well-produced
courses of study. Offering mini/electives
courses is something to think about as we continue to explore the art of
teaching through the common core standards.
