Co-Teaching Models: A Guide for Educators and Leaders

Co-Teaching Models & Strategies: The Complete Guide for Educators

What Is Co-Teaching?

Co-teaching is two or more professionals sharing responsibility for the same group of students, in the same space, at the same time. The foundational definition comes from Cook and Friend (1995): co-teaching is “two or more professionals delivering substantive instruction to a diverse group of students in a single physical space.” Friend and Barron (2016) later extended this, emphasizing that co-teaching involves “shared instructional responsibility” — not simply shared physical presence, but shared ownership of planning, instruction, assessment, and the outcomes that follow.

That distinction matters. One teacher standing at the front while the other sits at the back is not co-teaching. It is parallel existence. Genuine co-teaching requires mutual instructional authority.

Why does this matter now? Because the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) provision of IDEA demands that students with disabilities learn alongside their peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Co-teaching is how schools meet that obligation without lowering expectations. It is also how they address equity gaps that persist when students are pulled out for services and losing instructional time with their general education peers.

As Rhoads and Karge (2025) write, “Co-teaching is a gateway toward increasing equity and inclusion within schools” (p. 180). It is not the only gateway, but it is one of the most practical — and one of the most underused when done poorly.

The evidence is clear about the alternative: when co-teaching collapses into a one-teacher-does-everything arrangement, both educators lose. The general education teacher loses a thought partner. The special education teacher loses instructional authority. And students lose access to the differentiated, real-time support that co-teaching, done well, uniquely provides.

The Co-Teaching Strategies Framework

In Co-Teaching Evolved (Rhoads & Karge, 2025, Solution Tree), we present a 3-Stage, 11-Strategy framework designed to give co-teachers a progression — not a menu. The distinction between a “co-teaching strategy” and a “co-teaching model” is intentional. A model implies a static structure you adopt and replicate. A strategy implies a deliberate, context-responsive choice you make based on the lesson, the students, and the partnership’s developmental stage. We prefer “co-teaching strategy” because it captures the professional judgment involved. You don’t implement a model; you select a strategy.

The framework organizes 11 strategies across three stages of increasing interdependence:

Stage 1: Supportive Strategies

These three strategies are entry points. They require coordination but not deep instructional interdependence. They are necessary — but not sufficient.

• One Teach, One Assist. One teacher leads instruction while the other circulates, offering individual support. The assisting teacher is reactive — helping students who signal need, but not shaping the lesson’s design or delivery.
• One Teach, One Observe. One teacher instructs while the other collects data: behavior frequency, participation patterns, comprehension checks, IEP goal progress. The observer has a clear purpose and records specific indicators — not general impressions.
• One Teach, One Support. One teacher leads while the other provides targeted, pre-planned support: a graphic organizer for a subset of students, a modified text, a visual scaffold. The supporting teacher knows what she will provide before the lesson begins.

A warning: “Too many teachers new to co-teaching get stuck” in Stage 1 (Rhoads & Karge, 2025, p. 50). When partnerships linger here, one teacher — almost always the special educator — becomes a permanent assistant. Resentment forms. Instructional authority erodes. The partnership exists in name only. Stage 1 is a starting point, not a destination. Move through it quickly.

Stage 2: Team Strategies

These four strategies require both teachers to share instructional responsibility actively. Both are visible as teachers. Both have meaningful roles that students can identify.

• Graze-and-Tag. This is the signature strategy of the framework — and the most commonly overlooked in traditional co-teaching resources. The term comes from wrestling, where “grazing” means moving across the mat to find the right position and “tagging” means handing off to a partner at the right moment (Cornal, 2021, p. 35). In the classroom, it works the same way: Teacher A leads an instructional segment while Teacher B observes from the perimeter, then tags in at a planned transition point — extending a concept, reframing an explanation, posing a follow-up question, or modeling a different approach. The tag is seamless because it is co-planned. The grazing is purposeful because Teacher B is reading the room, not waiting passively. Key characteristics: both teachers are active instructional decision-makers even when only one is “on”; transitions are pre-planned, not improvised; the strategy allows for instructional differentiation within a single lesson without breaking the class into groups. Educators who use graze-and-tag consistently report that colleagues “often ask inspiring questions” during tag-in moments that push student thinking further than either teacher expected (Carrillo, 2023).
• Parallel Teaching. The class splits into two groups. Each teacher teaches the same content to half the class, simultaneously. This halves the student-to-teacher ratio and increases individual accountability and participation.
• Station Teaching. The class rotates through learning stations. Each teacher staffs one station; a third may be independent. Students get small-group or individualized instruction at each teacher-led station.
• Alternative Teaching. One teacher works with a small group — for pre-teaching, re-teaching, enrichment, or IEP goal work — while the other teaches the larger group. The small group is temporary and purposeful, not permanent segregation.

A morning that shows what’s possible. Consider a single morning in a co-taught 5th grade classroom: The period opens with One Teach, One Observe — Teacher A reviews yesterday’s concepts while Teacher B takes participation data on three target students. They transition to Graze-and-Tag for the core lesson — Teacher A introduces the concept, Teacher B tags in to model a different representation. Midway, they shift to Station Teaching for guided practice — three stations, each teacher leading one. They close with Alternative Teaching — Teacher A checks for understanding with the full group while Teacher B pulls four students for targeted re-teaching. Six strategies. One morning. That is what co-teaching looks like when both teachers own the instruction.

Stage 3: Advanced Strategies

These four strategies require the highest level of co-planning, trust, and instructional synchronization. Both teachers are instructionally active simultaneously, and students experience them as interchangeable experts.

• Conversation Teaching. Both teachers engage in a planned instructional dialogue in front of students — modeling discourse, respectfully disagreeing, building on each other’s points. Consider a math example: Mr. J solves a problem using a standard algorithm. Mrs. T solves the same problem using a visual model. They present simultaneously, narrating their thinking, and then compare approaches live. Students see that mathematical reasoning is not a single path. They see the teachers thinking out loud, revising, and valuing multiple representations.
• Role-Play Teaching. Teachers adopt roles within a structured scenario — a historical debate, a scientific inquiry, a social skills sequence — while students observe, analyze, and respond.
• Interactive Teaching. Both teachers circulate simultaneously, engaging students in different ways. One might facilitate a small-group discussion while the other coaches individual students through a problem set. The key is that both are actively teaching and both are making real-time instructional decisions.
• Shared Teaching. Both teachers deliver instruction to the full group, alternating seamlessly within a single segment. There is no “lead” and “support.” There are two instructors, co-constructing the lesson in real time. This is what Rhoads and Karge call “the most dynamic form of teaching” (p. 183).

How to Choose the Right Strategy

Strategy selection is not a matter of preference — it is a matter of purpose. The framework’s staging provides a developmental logic: start with Stage 1 strategies to build coordination, then move through strategies quickly toward Stage 2 and Stage 3. Lingering in Stage 1 beyond the initial weeks of a partnership risks establishing habits that are difficult to break.

A less-is-more mindset guides the decision process: “We recommend co-teaching partnerships use a less-is-more mindset” (Rhoads & Karge, 2025, p. 185). Rather than attempting all 11 strategies, a partnership should identify approximately 3 co-teaching strategies and 5 instructional strategies — a manageable repertoire — and develop fluency with those before expanding.

Consider the context:

• Grade level. Early elementary classrooms, which are more fluid and activity-based, lend themselves to Station and Parallel Teaching. Secondary classrooms, constrained by shorter periods and content-heavy curricula, may rely more on Graze-and-Tag and Conversation Teaching for efficient instructional depth.
• Content area. Mathematics and science benefit from strategies that allow multiple representations (Conversation Teaching, Graze-and-Tag). English language arts and social studies benefit from strategies that support discussion and perspective-taking (Interactive Teaching, Role-Play Teaching).
• Student needs. When a lesson targets specific IEP goals or requires real-time accommodations, Alternative Teaching or Station Teaching may provide the focused interaction time those goals demand.

The decision is not “which strategy is best?” but “which strategy serves this lesson, these students, this partnership — right now?”

Co-Teaching Planning

Co-planning is the engine of co-teaching. Without dedicated co-planning time, co-teaching devolves into coordination at best and confusion at worst. As W. Murawski emphasizes, the relationship between Universal Design for Learning (UDL, CAST, 2011) and co-planning is critical — when both teachers co-plan with UDL principles of engagement, representation, and action and expression in mind, the lesson is designed for accessibility from the start, not retrofitted after.

Essential agreements — documented, revisited commitments between partners — should cover six areas:

1. Instructional roles. Who leads which segments? Who tags in? When?
2. Assessment responsibilities. Who designs formative checks? Who tracks IEP goal data? Who grades what?
3. Communication norms. How do we give each other feedback? When? In what form?
4. Student support protocols. How do we handle behavioral needs? Accommodation delivery? Crisis moments?
5. Planning logistics. When do we meet? What is the agenda? What do we each bring?
6. Partnership health. How do we check in on the working relationship itself?

Communication protocols matter because co-teaching partnerships function — or fail — based on trust. As T. Olsen notes, trust is essential. K. Santos describes the partnership as being “like a marriage” in its need for ongoing, honest communication. These are not soft skills. They are structural prerequisites.

For deeper guidance on building and maintaining partnerships, see Optimizing Co-Teaching Partnerships for Student Success and The Heart of Co-Teaching: Moving from Partner to Partnership.

Co-Teaching and AI

Artificial intelligence tools are not replacements for professional judgment. But they can function as what Rhoads and Karge call a “co-teaching copilot” — accelerating the planning and differentiation work that consumes hours co-teachers do not have.

Practical applications include:

• Co-planning. Generating lesson outlines, differentiation options, and accommodation ideas from a content standard and IEP goal. Principal T. Willis reports that AI tools are especially valuable for getting initial planning drafts started — giving the partnership something concrete to revise together rather than a blank page.
• Differentiation. Producing multiple reading levels of the same text, generating scaffolded problem sets, creating choice boards that address varied readiness levels.
• IEP goal feedback. Using AI to draft, review, or refine IEP goal language, progress monitoring statements, and present-level descriptions. M. Jenkins emphasizes that AI-assisted IEP goal drafting saves time while maintaining individualization — if the teacher provides the student-specific context the tool needs.

The key is that AI handles volume; teachers handle judgment. When T. Marquez says “our students,” she means that the adults in the room — not the algorithms — make the final instructional decisions.

Tools worth exploring include ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, and Khanmigo. Each has different strengths for educational planning and analysis. The best tool is the one your partnership can access consistently and use transparently.

For more, see Amplifying Special Education Teachers’ IEP Workflow with AI Tools and The Best AI Tools So Far to Improve Teacher Planning, Assessment, Instruction, and Feedback.

Co-Teaching and Instructional Coaching

Co-teaching and instructional coaching share a logical structure: both involve professionals working side by side, both require trust, both depend on shared goals. It follows that co-teaching can serve as a primary vehicle for instructional coaching — not as a separate initiative, but as the coaching context itself.

As Rhoads and Karge note, “instructional coaching is key for building capacity” within co-teaching partnerships (p. 175). When a coach co-teaches alongside a teacher, the feedback loop is immediate and grounded in shared experience rather than observation notes alone. The coach sees the dynamic. The teacher sees the modeling. Both learn.

This approach aligns with the Coherence Framework (Fullan & Quinn, 2016), which calls for intentional capacity-building through shared purpose and collaborative practice. When coaching and co-teaching are integrated, capacity-building is not a separate meeting — it is embedded in instruction.

The Collaborative Community of Practice model (with its six elements of shared inquiry, joint planning, reflective dialogue, shared resources, mutual accountability, and collective efficacy) offers a structure for sustaining this work beyond a single coaching cycle.

For further reading, see From the Sidelines to the Shoulder: Using Co-Teaching as the Engine for Instructional Coaching and Instructional Coaching Through Co-Teaching.

Co-Teaching and Special Education

Both teachers in a co-teaching partnership need to understand special education — not just the special educator. When the general education teacher lacks knowledge of IEPs, accommodation logic, and disability-specific instructional implications, the partnership defaults to a split where the special educator owns “those kids” and the general educator owns “the curriculum.” That split is the origin of most co-teaching failures.

IEP quick-look forms — concise, one-page summaries of each student’s goals, accommodations, and current progress — give both teachers immediate access to the information they need to plan and instruct responsively. These forms are not a substitute for reading the full IEP, but they make the IEP functional during daily instruction.

The evidence for co-teaching’s impact on student growth is growing. Karge (2023b) found that students in co-taught settings showed faster academic growth than peers in self-contained settings across multiple measures. Dieker (2007) reported similar findings, with co-taught students demonstrating higher engagement and more consistent progress on IEP goals. S. Raybold identifies the critical components that make this work: shared planning time, administrative support, clearly defined roles, and ongoing professional development.

The data from co-taught classrooms is compelling: first-grade students showed fluency growth from the 25th to the 75th percentile in a single trimester. Fifth-grade students moved from the 50th to the 90th percentile in fluency over the same period. These are not marginal gains. They represent the difference between reading below grade level and reading at or above it.

Real-time accommodation delivery is the distinguishing advantage of co-teaching for special education. When both teachers know the accommodations and can deliver them in the moment — without a separate room, a separate schedule, or a separate teacher — students get what they need when they need it. That is not a theory. It is the operational definition of equity in practice.

For more, see Co-Teaching: Equitable and Inclusive Opportunities for Students.

Getting Started

Begin with a self-assessment. Where is the partnership now? Which strategies are already in use? Which stage does the current practice reflect? Honest answers to these questions establish a realistic starting point.

• Start with Stage 1 and Stage 2 strategies. Use One Teach, One Observe to gather data early. Move quickly into Graze-and-Tag, Parallel Teaching, and Station Teaching to build shared instructional rhythm.
• Build the relationship. The following condensed guidance draws from 14 suggestions in Co-Teaching Evolved for building partnership trust and communication:
• Establish regular co-planning time and protect it.
• Create essential agreements across the six areas listed above.
• Name the partnership — refer to it as “our classroom,” “our students” — not “my class” and “your kids.”
• Observe each other teaching independently before co-teaching.
• Debrief after every co-taught lesson, even briefly.
• Schedule a formal check-in every two to three weeks.
• Visit other co-taught classrooms together.
• Celebrate small wins — a successful tag-in, a student breakthrough, a smooth station rotation.
• Address conflict directly and early.
• Share — do not divide — grading and assessment duties.
• Learn each other’s professional strengths and constraints.
• Communicate with families as a team.
• Seek coaching or mentorship for the partnership, not just for individual practice.
• Revisit essential agreements at the start of each term.

The frameworks that support this work are complementary. UDL (CAST, 2011) ensures the lesson design addresses learner variability from the outset. TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) ensures technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge are integrated — not treated as separate domains. The Coherence Framework (Fullan & Quinn, 2016) keeps the school-level conditions aligned. And the Collaborative Community of Practice model sustains professional learning beyond initial implementation.

Next steps:

• Read the book. Co-Teaching Evolved: Strategies and Tools for the Modern Classroom by Matt Rhoads and Rebecca Karge (Solution Tree, 2025) provides the full framework, detailed strategy guides, planning templates, and practitioner voices. Available at /books/.
• Explore consulting. Dr. Rhoads works with schools and districts to implement the Co-Teaching Evolved framework through on-site and virtual professional development. Learn more at /consulting-services/.
• Book a speaking engagement. For keynotes, workshops, and conference sessions on co-teaching strategies and AI integration, visit /speaking/.
• Watch the webinar. Innovative Co-Teaching Strategies and Tools for the Modern Classroom — available at /webinar-innovative-co-teaching-strategies-and-tools-for-the-modern-classroom/.

Common Barriers and Challenges

The adjustment: I now ask pairs to split shared prep in half. First 11 minutes: instructional planning, and the IEP conversation is not allowed. Second 11 minutes: IEP coordination, and lesson planning is not allowed. It sounds rigid, and it is. It also works, because it forces both teachers to be present for the part that isn’t theirs.

The lesson: If one teacher plans and the other shows up, that’s not co-teaching. Essential Agreements Section 1 exists because this pattern is invisible to everyone except the person experiencing it.