One Teach, One Assist in Seventh-Grade English
Ms. Bhatt co-teaches seventh-grade English with Mr. Cole in four sections of 27–29 students; eight or nine in each section have IEPs. Their model never varies: Mr. Cole lectures and runs discussion while Ms. Bhatt sits at a side table with the students who have IEPs, reads the text aloud to them, restates directions, and scribes their written responses. A paraprofessional is assigned to second period with the instruction to "keep the IEP kids on task." The principal praises the arrangement as "fully inclusive." After ten weeks, the side-table group averages 42% on comprehension quizzes versus 76% for the class, and their writing samples are shorter than they were in September.
1. Analyze what is going wrong instructionally, including the paraprofessional's role.
Read the worked answer
Several problems compound each other.
- It is a separate placement inside one room. Every student with an IEP is removed from grade-level text, discussion, and nondisabled peers for the whole period - the opposite of the least restrictive environment the schedule claims.
- The support eliminates the practice the IEPs require. Reading aloud for students and scribing their answers means they never practice decoding, fluency, or composing. That is a modification of expectations, not an accommodation, and it explains flat comprehension and shrinking writing.
- The paraprofessional cannot be the reading teacher. A para may support, reinforce, and collect data, but certified teachers plan and deliver instruction, make instructional decisions, and direct the para's work. "Keep the IEP kids on task" is not a plan; hovering also builds dependence and stigma.
- The comparison is a program problem, not a student problem. 42% versus 76% measures the side table, not the learners.
2. Redesign one 50-minute lesson using different co-teaching structures.
Read the worked answer
Change the structure, keep the standards.
- Warm-up (8 min), parallel teaching: the class splits into two heterogeneous halves; each teacher preteaches two vocabulary words and models annotation on a short paragraph.
- Station teaching (25 min), three stations: (a) teacher-led close reading of the grade-level text with chunked paragraphs; (b) partner annotation with sentence starters and a graphic organizer; (c) audio-supported rereading plus a short written response with a word bank. Students with IEPs are spread across all three, not clustered at one table.
- Close (10 min), team teaching: whole-group discussion and a grade-level exit ticket.
Accommodations - extended time, graphic organizers, oral response option - are available at every station and offered to anyone who needs them, so no student is singled out.
Why this works: heterogeneous grouping preserves access to grade-level text and peer models, station and parallel teaching increase direct teacher contact for everyone, and scaffolds let students practice the skills rather than have the work done for them.
3. How should Ms. Bhatt respond to the principal and define the paraprofessional's role?
Read the worked answer
With data and a written plan, not an argument about philosophy.
- Write out the para's role for the week: which station, which prompts to use, which data to record, and when to step back. The teachers retain responsibility for instruction, decisions about modifications, and supervision of the para.
- Bring the principal three numbers: the percentage of students with IEPs producing written responses before and after restructuring, on-task behavior during stations, and quiz averages. Improvement is the most persuasive argument.
- Name the risk in plain terms: the current arrangement is difficult to defend if a parent files, because students with IEPs receive no grade-level content and the IEP services are being delivered by an unsupervised para.
- Set a four-week check-in with the principal so the change is framed as an improvement effort with a review date, not a rejection of his praise.