Restructuring a Co-Taught Science Period Without Losing Pacing
Mr. Ellis (general education) and Ms. Park (special education) co-teach 7th-grade science: 32 students, 9 with IEPs, 2 with 504 plans, and 4 English learners at WIDA levels 2-3. Their 52-minute period runs 20 minutes of slide lecture, 15 minutes of a worksheet, and 10 minutes of clean-up plus an exit ticket. Ms. Park spends most of the period circulating and redirecting; her log shows 14 redirections to three students in a single period. For three weeks, exit tickets show the same 11 students - all 9 with IEPs plus 2 English learners - scoring below 50%, while the class median is 84%. Mr. Ellis argues the pace cannot slow because there are 22 units to cover before the state test. Ms. Park wants to restructure the period. Their administrator, observing in two weeks, has said she expects to see "both teachers actively teaching." Neither teacher has more than one 45-minute planning period per week, and they share it.
1. Which co-teaching arrangement should they adopt, and how do the data support that choice over keeping one teacher in front and one assisting?
Read the worked answer
The exit-ticket pattern is the decisive evidence: the same 11 students are failing while the class median is 84%. That is not a class-wide pacing problem; it is a small group of students not getting processing time, language support, or checking while a 20-minute lecture runs. Ms. Park's 14 redirections in one period indicate her current role is triage, not instruction - so the one-teach, one-assist model is already shown to be insufficient.
Station teaching (two or three stations rotating over 18-20 minutes, 2-3 days per week) fits the constraints: it halves or thirds group size, gives both teachers a named instructional role (satisfying the administrator's expectation without performative team teaching), and lets one station carry explicit vocabulary and sentence frames for the English learners. Parallel teaching is a reasonable substitute when both teachers must deliver identical content and the goal is simply smaller groups. Neither model requires more time; stations replace the worksheet segment rather than adding to it. The team should state this rationale in terms of the disaggregated data, not preference, so the change survives scrutiny.
2. Mr. Ellis is worried about covering 22 units. How can the restructure protect pacing?
Read the worked answer
Address the coverage concern directly rather than dismissing it. The restructure is a substitution, not an addition: the 15-minute worksheet becomes 15-18 minutes of stations using the same content and the same objective, so no instructional minutes are added to the calendar. Protections to build in: keep the opening segment but trim it to 10-12 minutes and insert two quick checks for understanding so the lecture does not run long; pre-teach five high-frequency terms with visuals at the start of each unit; reserve whole-group lecture-plus-review days for lower-density units or for the week before a benchmark; and post the unit calendar with the state-test window protected so the pacing decision is visible to both teachers.
Agree on a review point: after four weeks, compare the class median and the target students' exit tickets. If the median holds and the target group rises, the pacing objection is empirically answered. If the median drops, reduce stations to two days per week rather than abandoning the model.
3. What data should the pair collect to judge whether the restructure works, and what decision rule should they set?
Read the worked answer
Disaggregate the existing exit tickets by IEP, 504, English learner, and general education so improvement in the target 11 is visible and not masked by the class median. Add three low-effort measures: redirections per student per period (baseline is 14 in one period; target a 50% reduction), percent of station tasks completed, and a two-question student survey on whether they could explain the day's concept. Note which station each target student attended so the data can distinguish a model effect from a teacher effect.
Set the rule in advance: at four weeks, if the target 11 average at least 70% on exit tickets and redirections fall by half while the class median stays at or above 80%, continue and begin fading scaffolds at the vocabulary station. If exit tickets do not move, change the station tasks or add explicit strategy instruction rather than reverting automatically - the baseline data already show the current arrangement is not working for these students. Share the plan with the administrator so the observation focuses on both teachers' instructional roles, not on who is at the board.