Co-Teaching

It's a marriage, you know. Sure, it can end after a term, or after a year, but it's a marriage. Even if you only do it one period a day, if the chemistry isn't right, you may need a separation agreement. But even if you get one, there you are every single day, having to lead a class without killing one another. That can be harder than you might imagine.

A few years ago, a co-teaching couple I knew had irreconcilable  differences. The principal, after various interventions, decided there was no way they could work together. He determined to break up this couple and leave them each with half the class. The teachers each selected an advocate, and I was one of them.

We were tasked to sit together in the principal's conference room until we'd worked out a division. We sat and looked at the records of each student. We rated them in terms of their records. I don't remember exactly how we did that. We flipped a coin for who'd get first pick. We then went down the list, making little adjustments and deals as we went, and split the class in two. Neither of us were happy for the kids, who'd have to feel the palpable hatred embedded into that division.

More recently I've been called to other feuding couples that weren't working out. In some of these cases, one teacher was assigned to lead the class while the other was given a supporting role. There were various factors that went into these decisions, but I felt like there was a winner in each. I wasn't at all sure this was a victory for students.

There are a lot of co-teachers now for two reasons. One is that special education students need to be in least restrictive environments. These days, for a lot of these students, that means being assigned to a general education class with extra support in the form of a second teacher. The other is the new version of CR Part 154 that reduced a whole lot of my ESL colleagues to co-teachers.

I'm much more familiar with ESL situations. In small schools, this often entails giving an ESL teacher five co-teachers. That's because there's likely one ESL teacher who simply has to do everything. In these situations, there's really no possibility of co-planning. Often the ESL teachers go in with no idea what's going to happen in a given class, and no possibility of planning how to support the teacher.

A lot of subject area teachers are now taking the magical twelve credits and becoming certified to teach ESL. This is often because it's easier to get hired when you have this certification. A supervisor can pick you up and save the expense of a dedicated ESL teacher. It's practical. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that teacher really wants to pursue anything other than a job opportunity. I'm not remotely confident that these teachers can take, for example, my place.

I'm in a very large school, and we handle this situation better than most. We pair ESL with English. I'm certified to teach English, and a good number of my colleagues either have the certification or are pursuing it. But we still have co-teaching for both ESL and special ed., and with a large number of pairs we have our share of problems.

In fairness, our school does continue partnerships that work. I'm thinking of one pair that's been together for years. Despite this, new pairings are often made via the tried and true "eenie, meenie, miney, mo" method. Alas, this does not always achieve the optimum success level. It's kind of like, well, you're free and she's free, so there you go. There's no particular training and no compatibility test.

One day, after refereeing a particularly mismatched couple, I told my AP that I never wanted to co-teach. This proved an irresistible temptation for her to prove me wrong. She paired me with a new teacher who I'd told her I found smart and quick-witted. She knows I like people like that. It turned out we got along very well. We didn't follow any particular program. We would discuss our plans and whoever was going to lead that day would get the fun task of writing the lesson. I was persuaded co-teaching could be a thing.

Alas, not everyone thinks or plans like my AP. And no matter how well you get along with anyone, no one can successfully navigate more than one or two co-teachers. It's probably not a good idea for the state to declare from now on, there will be co-teachers. There ought to be more regulation on the roles and responsibilities. While I was fortunate enough to fall into something thoughtful that actually worked, it's just as easy to step into quicksand.

I'm not saying it's necessarily good or bad. I'm saying there needs to be more direction. There ought to be mandatory training, even if the state has to (gasp!) pay for it and/ or give teachers time off to learn about it. The current status quo, saying, "You and you, go teach together." is short-sighted and untenable.

And that's being nice. I know a lot of co-teachers who'd use much stronger language. If you have any co-teaching stories, please feel free to share in the comments.

Co-teaching, Part 154, This World, and the World of Theory

I'm still at NYSABE. There is a lot of good stuff going on. Everyone here supports ELLs. UFT VP Evelyn de Jesus, speaking this morning, quoted a Czech proverb, You live a new life for every language you speak, and expressed support for tweaking Part 154 so that we could give ELLs the language instruction they need.

Alas, until that happens, we have to deal with what's in front of our faces. That's why I chose to attend a presentation about co-teaching. The presentation was certainly thoughtful. In an ideal world, everyone would follow the practices the presenter espoused. The problem is we're not quite in an ideal world. I made the egregious error of answering two questions before I realized I was thinking about a universe that was not precisely relevant to the topic at hand.

The first question was, "What is co-teaching?" My answer was co-teaching is when the principal says, "You, and you, go teach together." This was not well-received by my group. They said co-teaching is a relationship. It's a marriage. It's a negotiation. They weren't wrong. But I wasn't wrong either.

The presenters weren't totally out of the loop on what goes on. For example, the presenter acknowledged that the ESL teacher often appears to be an educational assistant. The young woman next to me said she often felt that way. In fact, she said, two of the teachers with whom she co-teaches don't even acknowledge her presence in the room.

So think about that. If co-teaching is a marriage, this young woman is conducting at least three marriages concurrently. I don't know about you, but that's a high bar for me. If we really wish these things to work, why are we setting such impossible standards? The presenter said when you have issues with your co-teacher, the best thing to do is go out for a drink or something. Don't go to the principal and complain. As the person who's often in the room with the principal and the co-teachers who've complained, I couldn't agree more. Alas, it's always too late.

The second time I opened my mouth I made yet another faux pas. What's the main issue with co-teaching? The main issue, I said, was that the English language was not regarded as sufficiently important under Part 154 to be regarded as a subject. Another attendee took exception to that. "Did you try telling your co-teacher about specific English errors, as opposed to simply labeling them "awkward?"

Now she isn't wrong about that. Were I paired up with the science teacher I might be able to offer specific suggestions on how to more effectively improve composition skills. She thought I was expressing some sort of feeling of inferiority or envy, as though I weren't being appreciated. That's not the case at all. I have multiple certifications, and I don't actually need to co-teach.

What I'm talking about is the fact that these co-taught ESL classes come at the expense of direct English instruction, something my kids direly need. There is simply no substitute for it. How would you like to go to China and be placed in a Chinese history class taught entirely in Chinese? Would it help you if I gave you five vocabulary words every day? Would it help you if I had a Chinese as a second language teacher wandering around the room to give you tips on what the hell the other teacher was talking about? Maybe a little, but probably not remotely enough for you to learn Chinese history.

Under CR Part 154, what really happens when you plant the ESL teacher in the science class? As someone who struggled with science in my native language, I don't really see how I could be expected to learn not only science, but also a new language, especially in the same time native speakers learned only science. No matter how many good ideas you have about co-teaching, that's an insurmountable obstacle right there. Furthermore, it's made worse by the fact that the ESL teacher likely has several other co-teachers and little or no time to consult with any of them.

The presenter said two heads are better than one. That's potentially true. Last year I was in a great co-teaching situation. After having mediated between bitter pairs of teachers for years, I told my boss I never wanted to co-teach. Unfortunately, I'd also told her how quick-witted and smart I found one of our new teachers. My AP, to prove me wrong yet again, paired me up with her and we got along very well. Our only issue was how fast we did things. I make decisions very quickly, and she always wanted to think about things. "We have no time for that!" I'd tell her, but she persisted. Nonetheless, whenever I got called out to some stupid meeting somewhere, I had absolute confidence my students were well-cared for.

Co-teaching would be great if we were actually adding something. Under Part 154, we add a co-teacher, but we take away a fundamental element of language learning, to wit, time. You don't acquire a language simply by wishful thinking and good intentions. Adding a co-teacher to one period does not mitigate the fact that you've subtracted another period of direct English instruction. Not only have you failed to compensate for that, but you've also taken time away from the core subject by adding language instruction to it.

Hey, it's great for co-teachers to get along. And it's great to add extra classroom support. But in New York State, they're attacking the problem backwards. If you couldn't climb a mountain in one day, I'd suggest you take two or three days to do it. New York State says do it in half a day, but here, bring someone with you.

How stupid is that?