Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT)

Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) is an educational model used in classrooms with mixed groups of students with and without special needs. In standard ICT paradigms, a general education teacher and a special education teacher manage the classroom together. The general education teacher leads sessions and activities for students without special needs, while the special education teacher instructs learners with special needs.

When planning lessons and preparing materials, the general and special education teachers cooperate to create differentiated learning experiences. They also prioritize multisensory lessons, projects, and student activities, drawing on a full range of educational strategies to meet varied student needs and learning styles.

ICT classrooms are subject to state-level regulations that include limits on the number of special-needs students. In 2008, these guidelines were updated to cap the number of students with learning variances at 40 percent of the classroom total, up to a maximum of twelve special-needs students per class.

Brief History

ICT began to evolve during the second half of the twentieth century in various developed countries including the United States. In the 1950s, educators began critically reexamining established classroom structures and learning policies, questioning whether their efficiency and positive impact could be improved. One alternative pedagogical model that emerged from this process was known as team teaching.

Team teaching was based on the premise that subject experts should lead lessons on topics in their area of expertise to the greatest possible degree. In public schools, this meant that the faculty member with the most knowledge in a specific area would deliver core instruction in that area. For example, a high school English teacher with the institution’s most complete educational background in the works of William Shakespeare would lead modules on Shakespeare plays to specially assembled groups of students. Those students could come from multiple grade levels, with the teacher’s expertise in the subject acting as a unifying factor. Team teaching was used at the primary, middle school, and high school levels, and was generally deemed to improve both institutional efficiency and educational effectiveness.

By the 1960s, critical reexaminations of legacy educational models had expanded to question the assumptions underlying the segregation of disabled and nondisabled students. This was, in many ways, a response to the unequitable educational outcomes created by the existing system, which was widely considered not to serve special-needs students with the requisite levels of compassion or consideration. In the United States, litigation resulted in systemic and regulatory reforms, which had the general effect of increasing the types and amounts of teaching and educational resources available to students with disabilities and learning variances. It was during this period that educational philosophy shifted toward integrating special-needs students in regular learning environments to the maximum possible extent.

Despite these efforts, dissatisfactory outcomes persisted among special-needs students. By the 1990s, educators and policymakers agreed that ambitious reforms were needed to address these achievement gaps. In the United States, this resulted in regulatory reforms at both the federal and state levels, which had the general effect of dramatically raising academic performance expectations for special-needs learners. To meet these elevated standards, new guidelines were introduced to mandate that students with disabilities and learning variances be matched with teachers with rigorous and concentrated special education training. In this sense, emerging approaches to ICT reflected the philosophical and pedagogical foundations of the team-teaching model of the 1950s. Educators also determined that special-needs students should be integrated into regular learning environments in the absence of convincing empirical evidence suggesting a need to place them in a segregated classroom.

With these overhauls in place, ICT emerged as a preferred model for mixed classroom environments combining students with and without disabilities. Beginning in the 1990s and accelerating in the 2000s, teacher training institutions began to offer specialized ICT programs for emerging educators. As a result, the number of schools using ICT models in their classrooms began to significantly increase.

Overview

In the United States, ICT classrooms are based on what the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and other educational professionals call functional grouping requirements. These requirements derive from legal regulations compelling the classroom grouping of students with disabilities with similar learning variances to the greatest possible degree. Functional groupings cover four specific areas: (1) academic achievement deficits; (2) learning disabilities or functional performance deficits; (3) social deficits; and (4) special management needs or physical development deficits. Thus, ICT models strive to group students with academic achievement deficits together, to be instructed by a specially trained teacher; the same is true of students in each of the other three need areas.

To establish a special-needs student’s eligibility for placement in an ICT classroom, school officials conduct individualized case assessments. In making this determination, educators consider a range of factors including whether the ICT classroom matches the student’s learning needs, whether other special-needs students in the classroom share the same disability or variance, and whether the ICT classroom is more likely to benefit or hinder the student’s academic and social progress. Special-needs students requiring disproportionate amounts of individualized attention, students likely to disrupt lessons and activities, and students requiring significant curriculum modifications are not usually recommended for placement in ICT classrooms.

At the UFT notes, state regulations do not place maximum limits on the number of students without disabilities who can participate in ICT classroom learning. However, there are limits on the proportion of special-needs students an ICT classroom can contain. The first such limit stipulates that the number of special-needs learners cannot exceed the number of other learners in the classroom. This ensures the integration of students with disabilities into a regular learning environment. The second limit states that special-needs learners cannot account for more than 40 percent of the total number of students in the classroom, meaning that an ICT classroom can host a maximum of twelve special-needs learners regardless of its overall size.

ICT classrooms function the same way as standard general education classrooms. They follow the same curriculum, the same learning schedules and calendars, and adhere to the same Common Core teaching and testing standards that apply to all K–12 classrooms in the United States. At the same time, they mitigate the stigma attached to segregated special-needs education, potentially improving both social and educational outcomes for students with disabilities. ICT models also foster positive and inclusive interactivity and introduce diversity and sensitivity to interpersonal differences in learning environments.

Since ICT’s introduction in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, educators have observed a tangible set of advantages and drawbacks associated with the practice. Benefits extend to both students with and without disabilities. Students with disabilities in ICT classrooms display improved performance on standardized tests while bridging social gaps and developing more effective communication skills. With respect to their individualized education programs (IEPs), students with disabilities also tend to reach more of their goals and succeed at higher-level goals with greater frequency. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that they emerge from ICT classrooms better-prepared for post-institutional life and adulthood. Pedagogy experts state that ICT classrooms help students without disabilities build deeper, more inclusive capacities for forming friendships while boosting their self-esteem and sensitivity to interpersonal differences.

Other benefits of ICT classrooms extend to all students. They feature relatively low student-to-teacher ratios, making it easier for both classes of learners to receive individual attention and develop positive relationships with their instructors. ICT classrooms also tend to spend more time on activities related to practice, curriculum review, and feedback. This helps students without disabilities who are lagging behind their peers bridge achievement gaps and build greater levels of self-confidence.

However, some of the dynamics that generate benefits are also the source of certain noted drawbacks of ICT educational models. One such example extends to the low student-to-teacher ratios found in ICT classrooms. While educators do not outwardly identify the special-needs learners in an ICT classroom, students typically know which of their peers align with which learning group. Observers report students without disabilities sometimes dislike being grouped alongside those with disabilities in group activities, often because they believe the placement is a consequence of their own underachievement. Along similar lines, classroom management can pose challenges for ICT teachers, particularly since students with and without disabilities frequently need differing structural and disciplinary interventions. This can make it very challenging for educators to establish and enforce a common set of rules and behavioral guidelines for all students without distinguishing between or explicitly identifying those belonging to one group or the other.

While ICT is associated with improved academic performance outcomes for learners with special needs, some educators believe those improvements come at a cost for students without disabilities. Unless lessons and activities are carefully planned and managed, ICT can result in an educational pacing lag for students without disabilities. This becomes more likely if the classroom integrates students with intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities alongside pupils without disabilities.

Topic Today

In the United States, ICT has become increasingly specialized in the twenty-first century, with educators adopting multiple specific models of delivering differentiated classroom instruction to mixed student groups. Six particular models have gained increasing levels of mainstream attention, with each offering various benefits while carrying particular limitations. These models include team teaching, parallel teaching, station teaching, alternative teaching, teacher-assistant structures, and teacher-observer structures.

Contemporary approaches to team teaching are rooted in the original iteration of the concept as it was initially developed in the 1950s. However, current team teaching practices have evolved to include more dynamic features, allowing each teacher to complement and supplement the other’s leadership in a fluid and spontaneous manner. The model allows both teachers to maintain an active classroom presence, but it also takes longer for each teacher to build rapport with individual students.

Parallel teaching divides the class into two groups, with each of the two teachers leading one of the groups. Teachers then present instructional materials to their respective groups, teaching students in both groups the same lesson. Adherents say it is an effective method for teaching students particularly difficult material, since the smaller group sizes facilitate deeper and more comprehensive individual interactions. It also allows educators to group together students with similar learning styles and abilities, increasing the likelihood of the students engaging with the material productively. However, it can create a tiered classroom structure, potentially alienating students from one another. This becomes more likely when students are grouped according to their disabled or nondisabled status.

Station teaching also divides a class into smaller groups for the purposes of delivering a lesson but uses at least three groups instead of the two groups used in parallel teaching. Each group then proceeds through a series of “stations,” where a teacher explains the lesson. The stations all feature the same lesson and the same material but present the information differently. Station teaching is an efficient and engaging way to address the varied learning needs of a mixed student group but requires significantly higher levels of planning and preparation. This can be taxing in school environments where resources are limited and teachers are already under significant time constraints.

Alternative teaching assigns one teacher to a majority of students, and the second teacher to a smaller group. Both teachers deliver the same material, but using differing methods tailored to the distinct needs of their student groups. The model offers flexibility; students with advanced capabilities in a certain area can receive enriched instruction in a smaller group while the others engage with the lesson at a standard pace. Alternately, students who are particularly challenged by the lesson or concept can work through the material at a slower, more thorough pace. The method allows teachers to assist students with individual learning needs without explicitly identifying them to the entire class but also requires more intensive analysis of each learner’s profile to ensure their proper group placement.

The teacher-assistant and teacher-observer methods both relegate one teacher to primary instructional duty and the other to educational support duty. In the teacher-assistant model, one teacher delivers the lesson while the other circulates through the classroom to provide individualized assistance to students who need it. The teacher-observer method places one teacher fully in charge of lesson delivery and student interactions, while the second teacher collects data and records observations for use in determining how to proceed with future instruction and identifying the distinct learning needs unique to each class member.

One of the largest social populations in the United States is persons with a disability. In 2023, this totaled more than 8 million American schoolchildren. Almost two-thirds of children with a disability are now instructed in general education classrooms. A significant benefit of ICT programs is that they can reduce stigma for children with a disability who historically were separated in schools from other students. This lent to socialized beliefs that valued people only on physical capabilities and deemed people with a disability as in need of repair. ICT programs are consistent with the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1974) that mandates that the least restrictive environment be made possible for children with a disability.

About the Author

Jim Greene holds bachelor’s degrees in English and film production and an MFA in creative writing from the University of Southern California. Now based in Europe, he has more than twenty years’ experience as a professional writer specializing in the student reference and consumer information segments.

Bibliography

ICSD Communications. (2024, January 30). Inclusive learning: The success of integrated co-teaching in ELA at Fall Creek Elementary. Ithaca City School District. www.ithacacityschools.org/article/1434018

Growing Inclusivity for Vibrant Engagement. (2024). Integrated co-teaching (ICT) classrooms. teachwithgive.org/resource/integrated-co-teaching-ict-classrooms

Beninghof, Anne M. (2012). Co-Teaching That Works: Structures and Strategies for Maximizing Student Learning. John Wiley & Sons.

Fattig, Melinda L. and Maureen Tormey Taylor. (2017). Co-Teaching in the Differentiated Classroom: Successful Collaboration, Lesson Design, and Classroom Management, Grades 5–12. 2007.

Friend, Marilyn, et al. (2010). Co-Teaching: An Illustration of the Complexity of Collaboration in Special Education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, Vol. 20 (2010), pp. 9–27.

Honigsfeld, Andrea and Maria G. Dove. (2020). Co-Teaching for English Learners: Evidence-Based Practices and Research-Informed Outcomes. IAP.

Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT). (2021). United Federation of Teachers. www.uft.org/teaching/students-disabilities/integrated-co-teaching-ict.

Jones, Nathan and Marcus A. Winters. (2020). Are Two Teachers Better Than One? The Effect of Co-Teaching on Students With and Without Disabilities. Boston University Wheelock College of Education and Human Development. wheelockpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Co-Teaching‗WP2020-1‗FINAL.pdf.

Morin, Amanda. (2021). 6 Models of Co-Teaching. Understood. www.understood.org/articles/en/6-models-of-co-teaching.

Peery, Angela. (2019). The Co-Teacher’s Playbook: What it Takes to Make Co-Teaching Work for Everyone. Corwin Press.