Supporting Co-Planning Between General and Special Education Teachers in Secondary Schools

Abstract

One of the main challenges in co-teaching is implementing co-planning, and teams often struggle with fragmented planning and a lack of consistency. To address these issues, a co-planning tool developed in collaboration with general and special education teachers at the secondary level in Quebec, Canada, is presented in this article. This tool proposes a schematization of co-planning based on three dimensions: (1) instructional and assessment; (2) teaching strategies and learning support; and (3) organizational. Each dimension is first defined, followed by a set of practical guidelines. A vignette illustrates the co-planning process within each dimension. This tool can contribute to developing concrete solutions to improve the co-planning process.

Keywords

secondary (middle school/high school)general and special educators collaboration co-planning co-teaching

According to Friend and Cook (2017), co-teaching is a service delivery option designed to provide specialized support to students with disabilities or other special needs while they remain in general education classrooms. It involves two or more professionals with clearly distinct areas of expertise who work collaboratively to deliver core or supplemental instruction to a diverse group of learners, most often within a single shared instructional setting. This delivery model is particularly valuable in inclusive classrooms, which include a significant presence of students with learning disabilities (Dubé et al., 2020; Tremblay, 2023). Co-teaching offers the possibility of providing specialized services to a larger number of students at the same time, which improves learning conditions (Vembye et al., 2024; Zimmerman et al., 2023). Particularly, co-teaching offers significant benefits for students with learning difficulties, including greater skill gains in core content areas, and enhanced instructional differentiation (Tremblay, 2023). Although general and special education teachers increasingly implement co-teaching in general education classrooms, schools have not yet widely adopted this service delivery model (Boily et al., 2024; Ruberto & Beaulieu, in press; Ruberto et al., in press). This article introduces a tool developed to support co-teaching practices, with a particular emphasis on co-planning between general and special education teachers in secondary schools.

The implementation of co-teaching requires adequate planning between the special education teacher and the general education teacher. However, the implementation of this co-planning represents one of the most significant challenges for co-teachers (Alsarawi, 2019; Pratt et al., 2017; Strogilos et al., 2023). In fact, various studies highlighted that the lack of time devoted to co-planning remains a central obstacle (Boily, Ouellet, & Thériault, 2023; Ruberto, Beaulieu, et al., 2025; Ruberto & Boily, 2026), likely due to excessive workloads for both general and special education teachers (Bettini et al., 2017), which would explain why they find it difficult to meet for co-planning. Insufficient time for co-planning also has a negative impact on the quality of co-teaching (Strogilos et al., 2023). Several researchers have mentioned that co-planning is necessary to avoid random teaching (Murawski, 2012; Pratt et al., 2017). Moreover, tensions related to the sharing of responsibilities and role clarity complicate co-planning (Boily, Boily, & Ruberto, 2023). Special education teachers in co-teaching contexts may feel ineffective or relegated to subordinate positions and their specific expertise is not always fully mobilized (Lyon et al., 2021; Nápoles, 2024).

These findings related to co-planning seem even more true at the secondary level, given that the work context differs from that at the primary level. Some authors refer to a fragmented structure in secondary schools (Brady, 2008). The division of learning areas into separate departments (e.g., English, mathematics) leads to a natural separation between members of the school team, in addition to the separation that already exists between teaching cycles. This fragmented structure encourages certain teachers to create subgroups for collaboration and intervention based on their subject areas (Leithwood, 2008). However, these subject-based groupings may limit collaboration between teachers who do not share the same specialty (Leithwood, 2008). Since students interact with teachers from a variety of disciplinary fields, collaboration and intervention between teachers from different areas of learning can only be beneficial in improving the consistency of interventions, specifically for students with learning disabilities. In elementary school, teachers are generally trained to teach all subjects in the curriculum, while in secondary school, teachers have a disciplinary specialty (e.g., English, social studies). These circumstances can make it difficult for special education teachers to be experts in all subjects, as their initial training is more similar to that of elementary school teachers than to the subject-specific training of secondary school teachers (Ruberto & Beaulieu, in press; Ruberto, Beaulieu, et al., 2025).

In addition to these differences in disciplinary preparation, teacher education programs—both general and special education—typically offer limited formal training in co-teaching models or evidence-based co-planning processes. Prior research highlighted that many teachers enter co-teaching arrangements without shared methodological guidelines, explicit protocols, or opportunities to practice collaborative planning during their preparation (e.g., Scruggs et al., 2007). The lack of specific training and protocols to support co-planning often leaves co-teachers without the tools to overcome these difficulties, which can reduce pedagogical consistency and lead to fragmented planning (Pettit, 2017). Although several authors pointed out that co-planning represents a significant challenge in the implementation of co-teaching (Bettini et al., 2017), few studies have focused on finding concrete solutions to improve the co-planning process (Alsarawi, 2019). Therefore, further research is necessary to develop collaborative tools to enrich and structure the co-planning process (Dubé et al., 2020; Pettit, 2017).

Development of a Tool to Support the Co-Planning Process

To create a tool supporting the implementation of co-planning, collaborative research was conducted with a school service center in Quebec, Canada, involving two dyads composed of a general education teacher and a special education teacher (Ruberto & Boily, 2026; Ruberto, Boily, et al., 2025). The objective of this research was to identify the dimensions to consider in the co-planning process at the secondary school level. These dimensions are based on theoretical proposals by Tremblay (2023) and Granger and Moreau (2020), which structured the reflection in the research project.

Building on this theoretical grounding, participants engaged in a structured reflective activity aimed at examining how the different phases of co-planning intersect in practice. This reflection consisted of collaboratively producing conceptual representations on large sheets of paper, illustrating their understanding of the phases proposed by Tremblay (2023) and Granger and Moreau (2020) and how these phases unfold in their own co-teaching experiences. The research team collected and analyzed these representations to generate a new schematization illustrating the interrelationships between concepts and sub-concepts in an explicit and coherent manner. Based on these insights, and with the aim of leveraging the complementary expertise of general and special education teachers, a new tool was developed to provide explicit guidance for co-planning. Figure 1 shows this schematization which contains three sections: the instructional and assessment dimension, the teaching strategies and learning support dimension, and the organizational dimension. The term “dimension” was selected over terms such as “steps” or “phases,” which imply a certain sequentiality. The use of the term “dimensions” seems more appropriate to illustrate the co-planning process, which is perceived as an iterative and dynamic approach. The following sections describe these different dimensions in order to identify guidelines to facilitate the implementation of the co-planning process. For each dimension, a vignette featuring general education teacher Ms. Taylor and special education teacher Ms. Morgan is presented to illustrate the co-planning process.

Figure 1.

Guidelines for co-planning between teachers and special education teachers in secondary education.

Instructional and Assessment Dimension

The instructional and assessment dimension brings together the aspects that co-teachers need to consider in terms of learning objectives and assessment methods that enable them to measure the achievement of these objectives. In the literature, the instructional and assessment aspects are generally addressed separately (Granger & Moreau, 2020; Tremblay, 2023). However, the terms instructional and assessment are considered jointly to highlight the interdependence between these two ideas and to illustrate the co-planning process in a more concrete and operational way. This idea of combining these two aspects ensures greater consistency between the learning intention and the methods used to assess if that intention is achieved. Strengthening the connection between these two dimensions could help address the inconsistencies and fragmented planning often observed in co-teaching contexts (Pettit, 2017). In the following section, the steps of the co-planning process are outlined in alignment with the instructional and assessment dimensions.

Step 1: Consider the Learning Intention

Co-teachers must first consider their learning intentions (see Table 1). These intentions are particularly important because they allow co-teachers and students to know where to direct their efforts. To determine this learning intention, co-teachers draw on their knowledge of the curriculum and their expertise in learning, as presented in the vignette below:

Ms. Taylor, a secondary school English teacher, decides to contact her colleague, Ms. Morgan, a special education teacher, to discuss what they could do to support their students in writing. Ms. Taylor raises curriculum cosniderations, and Ms. Morgan shares observations and ideas about students with learning disabilities. Following the discussion, they formulate a learning intention. (See Note).

Table 1.

Vignette Illustrating the Instructional and Assessment Dimension (Step 1).

Question	Example
What is the learning intention?	Helping students recognize and use a variety of text organizers, thereby promoting greater consistency in the structure of their texts.

Step 2: Consider the Students’ Needs

Once co-teachers have determined the intention, it is important to consider the students’ needs to carefully select the content and how to grade within a teaching sequence (see Table 2). This breakdown of content can require consideration of various factors, including students’ prior knowledge, the difficulties they experience, and potential didactic obstacles that may cause misunderstandings (Tremblay, 2023):

Ms. Taylor recently asked the students to write a text describing a day in the life of their hero. She then asked Ms. Morgan to help her analyze the students’ texts in detail. As a special education teacher, Ms. Morgan can conduct fine-grained analyses to identify students’ needs. The data analysis enabled them to identify the main difficulties and, consequently, to break down the learning intention in a way that supports step-by-step learning. Ms. Taylor’s in-depth knowledge of disciplinary content, combined with Ms. Morgan’s skill to segment instructional content into finely micro-graduated steps, significantly enriches the co-planning process.

Table 2.

Vignette Illustrating the Instructional and Assessment Dimension (Step 2).

Questions	Examples
What do students already know?	The students can use some frequently used text organizers (e.g., addition of new information) in the right context.
What difficulties do they encounter?	Some students used text organizers such as “first,” “second,” and “third” mechanically, without corresponding to a logical progression in their texts. Some students with learning disabilities reused the same text organizers that made the text monotonous to read.
What obstacles can be anticipated?	Difficulties in understanding the meaning of the four different types of text organizers for students with learning disabilities. Difficulties in transferring the use of text organizers in an authentic context.
How can we break down the content within the teaching sequence?	(1) Teach the four different types of text organizers: spatial indication, temporal indication, introduction of order, and addition of new information. (2) Learn to recognize and categorize text organizers within short texts. Then, practice the use of text organizers orally. (3) Practice identifying the right text organizer to use in a short text. (4) Write a text in pairs using text organizers. (5) Write a text individually using text organizers.

Step 3: Identify Assessment Methods

Co-teachers identify assessment methods by targeting ways to monitor students’ progress (see Table 3). They also determine assessment criteria to guide the interpretation of the collected data. In addition, co-teachers must address feedback during learning to monitor and support students’ progress toward the targeted learning intention. This feedback aims to provide students with information at different points in the teaching sequence to support their learning and autonomy:

After identifying the learning intentions and students’ needs, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan turn their attention to assessment methods. Ms. Taylor draws on her expertise in disciplinary content to define specific criteria to evaluate students’ progress, while Ms. Morgan leverages her knowledge of progress monitoring to design a descriptive assessment grid.

Table 3.

Vignette Illustrating the Instructional and Assessment Dimension (Step 3).

Questions	Examples
How can students’ progress be monitored?	Through observation, conversation, and analysis of students’ production.
How can students’ progress be interpreted? (assessment criteria)	The student recognizes text organizers by type; The student uses a variety of text organizers in a text produced independently.
How can feedback be provided during the learning process?	We will use the grid to guide feedback, ensure consistency, and provide specific, targeted feedback that addresses individual students’ needs.

Teaching Strategies and Learning Support Dimension

The teaching strategies and learning support dimension concerns the choice of teaching methods that help the learning of all students, as well as students with learning disabilities (Tremblay, 2023). The literature shows that teaching strategies and learning support are generally treated separately. However, combining these ideas seems to facilitate early consideration of diversity, which aligns with the principles of inclusive education. The Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (CSÉ, 2017) recommended that co-teachers adopt a holistic view of student diversity to design learning situations that address all students’ needs, regardless of abilities or challenges. For these reasons, combining the teaching strategies and learning support dimension seems essential to ensure inclusive and equitable learning conditions while optimizing the co-planning process.

Step 1: Select Teaching Methods

To reflect the teaching strategies and learning support dimension, co-teachers must first consider the teaching methods they wish to use (see Table 4). More specifically, this involves reflecting on the teaching strategies and learning activities that co-teachers plan to implement:

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan start by identifying the teaching strategies they intend to implement. They select explicit instruction as the most appropriate approach. To support this, they design a progressive teaching sequence that includes modeling, guided practice, and independent work. Both co-teachers collaborated oncollaboratively carried out this planning exercise, leveraging their interdependent expertise.

Table 4.

Vignette Illustrating the Teaching Strategies and Learning Support Dimension (Step 1).

Questions	Examples
What teaching strategies are planned?	Explicit instruction will be used through modeling (M), guided practice (GP), and independent practice (IP).
What learning activities are planned?	Activity 1 (M): Starter. Analyzing their text about the hero. Activity 2 (M): What are text organizers? Interactive presentation on types of text organizers Activity 3 (GP): Mix and Match. Activity involving associating and classifying text organizers already identified in a short text excerpt. Activity 4 (GP): Text Detective: Spot the Organizers! Activity to identify text organizers in various texts and associate them with the correct type. Activity 5 (GP): Fix the flow. Activity involving finding the incorrect text organizers within a short text and replace them Activity 6 (GP): Picture this. Activity involving the production of a speech including text organizers based on a series of sequential images Activity 7 (GP): Co-writing activity. Co-writing activity involving a short descriptive text including the four types of text organizers based on a wordless picture book Activity 8 (IP): Link It Like a Pro. Individual production of a text including a variety of text organizers

Questions

Examples

What teaching strategies are planned?

Explicit instruction will be used through modeling (M), guided practice (GP), and independent practice (IP).

What learning activities are planned?

Activity 1 (M): Starter. Analyzing their text about the hero.
Activity 2 (M): What are text organizers? Interactive presentation on types of text organizers
Activity 3 (GP): Mix and Match. Activity involving associating and classifying text organizers already identified in a short text excerpt.
Activity 4 (GP): Text Detective: Spot the Organizers! Activity to identify text organizers in various texts and associate them with the correct type.
Activity 5 (GP): Fix the flow. Activity involving finding the incorrect text organizers within a short text and replace them
Activity 6 (GP): Picture this. Activity involving the production of a speech including text organizers based on a series of sequential images
Activity 7 (GP): Co-writing activity. Co-writing activity involving a short descriptive text including the four types of text organizers based on a wordless picture book
Activity 8 (IP): Link It Like a Pro. Individual production of a text including a variety of text organizers

Step 2: Plan Differentiated Instruction

Co-planning teaching strategies and learning support also allows consideration of differentiated instruction (see Table 5). To do this, co-teachers consider the needs of all students to identify ways to adjust the level of task difficulty. They can also consider diversifying the teaching methods used by differentiating learning environments, content, processes, and products (Tomlinson, 2017). Co-teachers must also work together to determine the adaptative measures that students with more persistent difficulties need, as well as strategies to intensify the interventions they provide to these students:

To meet the different needs of the students in the group, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan considered diversifying the teaching methods they could use. The co-teachers wanted to ensure that students would use different modes of representation and expression (e.g., visual, oral, written) throughout the sequence. Also, Ms. Morgan, given her expertise in special education and differentiated instruction, suggests adaptive measures for students with learning disabilities or for some students who still need additional support.

Table 5.

Vignette Illustrating the Teaching Strategies and Learning Support Dimension (Step 2).

Questions	Examples
How can the degree of difficulty of the task be adjusted according to the characteristics of the students in the group without changing expectations?	A bank of text organizers will be added to support student learning (Activities 6, 7, 8). During the co-writing exercise of the short text, students with motor difficulties will be able to contribute orally (Activity 6). When it comes to writing the text independently, students who need support with structure may receive planning templates (Activity 8).
How can teaching methods be diversified according to the characteristics of the students in the group?	Focus on an interactive presentation and peer learning rather than a lecture to encourage student participation. Co-writing activity allows students to compare their ideas and perceptions about text organizers. Students can choose from the options available to them (e.g., themes to write about, a wordless picture).
What adaptive measures will be put in place?	For activities involving reading, a peer can read the texts for students who have difficulty with word recognition. For the individual writing task, students who have access to assistive measures may use them (e.g., word prediction).
What are the means of intensifying interventions?	Following this universal teaching sequence, it will be possible to identify students who need more intensive support. Co-teachers can plan a sequence of intensive interventions as needed to support these students.

Organizational Dimension

The organizational dimension includes resource and behavior management, the choice of co-teaching models, and the distribution of roles among co-teachers. According to Tremblay (2023), the structural phase addresses the choice of co-teaching models. However, certain aspects of classroom management and the distribution of roles are closely linked to the implementation of co-teaching models. As such, it was deemed relevant to integrate these different aspects into a single dimension, referred to here as organizational.

We use the following co-teaching models: (1) One teaching, one observing; (2) One teaching, one assisting; (3) Parallel teaching; (4) Teaming; (5) Alternative teaching; (6) Station teaching; (7) Teaming support; (8) Alternative support (Dubé et al., 2019; Friend & Cook, 2017; Tremblay, 2023). Table 6 presents these models.

Table 6.

Co-Teaching Models.

Models	Description
One teaching, one observing	One person takes charge of leading the session with the group, while the other observes the students.
One teaching, one assisting	One person takes charge of leading the session with the group, while the other person provides support to certain students, depending on their needs.
Parallel teaching	The class is divided in two, with each person taking charge of one half. The content taught is the same, but the teaching methods may vary.
Teaming	Co-teachers take charge of leading the session with the group, but the different roles (observation, support, classroom management, intervention) are frequently swapped during the lesson.
Alternative teaching	One person takes charge of leading the session with most of the class, while the other person works with a subgroup of students, either to review content, explore it in greater depth, or provide individualized instruction.
Station teaching	Co-teachers each lead a station. Students rotate through the stations according to a predetermined schedule.
Teaming support	Co-teachers provide support and feedback to students as they complete a learning activity.
Alternative support	Co-teachers provide support during learning activities carried out in small groups.

Currently, the predominant model is one teaching, one assisting (Strogilos et al., 2023). However, this approach may not be the most effective for leveraging the specific and complementary expertise of both teachers (Vembye et al., 2024). Other models, such as station teaching or parallel teaching, would be more effective in promoting individualized teaching that offers multiple opportunities for practice and feedback (Friend & Cook, 2017; Lyon et al., 2021). However, these models require a clear division of work, since each person is responsible for planning and teaching a portion of the content (Friend & Cook, 2017; Tremblay, 2023). In addition, implementing these models requires changes in resource and behavior management (e.g., classroom layout). To facilitate the introduction of these models, co-teachers would therefore benefit from considering all these aspects during the co-planning process.

Step 1: Consider Resources and Behavior Management

As for the operationalization of this dimension, co-teachers must first consider resource and behavior management (see Table 7). More specifically, this is when co-teachers determine the number and duration of co-teaching sessions required to achieve the learning intentions, as well as the material resources required for their implementation:

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan must also consider the organizational dimension of the sequence. In total, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan planned five 75-minute sessions. They select the materials that need to be prepared for each activity.

Table 7.

Vignette Illustrating the Organizational Dimension (Step 1).

Questions	Examples
How many co-teaching sessions should we plan to achieve our goal? How long will the sessions last?	Five sessions of 75 minutes • Session 1: Activities 1, 2,3 • Session 2: Activities 4,5,6 • Session 3: Activity 7 • Sessions 4 and 5: Activity 8
What materials need to be prepared?	Activity 1: Texts previously produced by the students. Activity 2: Interactive presentation. Activity 3: Variety of texts (e.g., books, magazine articles). Activity 4: Four different colored markers representing each type of text organizer. A dozen printed text passages. Activity 5: Short printed texts containing errors Activity 6: Collection of sequential images Activity 7: Wordless picture books. Activity 8: Pen, paper, reference books
What expected behaviors should we teach?	• Listen attentively to both teachers and follow instructions promptly to maintain an effective learning environment. • Show respect for both co-teachers • Actively seek help when needed
How will the classroom be arranged?	Session 2: Workshops will be held at three classroom stations: a central island of grouped desks and two stations at the front and back, with materials available at each. Session 4: The class will be divided into two groups, one facing the front and the other facing the back of the classroom.

Step 2: Choose the Co-Teaching Models

At the same time, co-teachers must consider the preferred co-teaching models (see Table 8). For example, during a station teaching session, it is important that co-teachers specify the order in which they will conduct the stations, the required materials, the instructions for carrying out the activity, etc. If co-teachers choose a model such as parallel teaching, they can, for example, stand back-to-back in the center of the classroom or face each other at opposite ends of the classroom, depending on their educational objectives. In station teaching, co-teachers must determine in advance both the number of stations and the conditions of students’ participation, whether this involves collaborative work at the same table or independent activities:

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan will use a variety of co-teaching models in their teaching sequence. These models allow small group instruction in which both teachers could provide feedback and encourage students to engage in metacognitive thinking.

Table 8.

Vignette Illustrating the Organizational Dimension (Step 2).

Question	Examples
What co-teaching models are being considered?	Session 1: Teaming Session 2: Station teaching Session 3: Parallel teaching Sessions 4 and 5: Teaming support

Step 3: Define the Roles of the Co-Teachers

These organizational choices also affect the distribution of roles among co-teachers (see Table 9). In general, the models make it possible to better define the roles and functions of co-teachers as well as the distribution of their leadership during the co-teaching session. However, it is important to take the time to reflect on this issue to ensure that the presence of both co-teachers is truly leveraged based on their expertise. In a co-teaching context, the special education teacher brings specific expertise in supporting students with learning disabilities, while the general education teacher contributes in-depth knowledge of the subject content:

Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan establish a clear division of their roles during each session.

Table 9.

Vignette Illustrating the Organizational Dimension (Step 3).

Question	Examples
What is the role of the co-teachers?	Session 1 (teaming): Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan are teaching a lesson about the text organizers together in front of all students. Session 2 (station teaching): Three homogeneous subgroups: (1) students who are more comfortable with text organizers, (2) students with moderate difficulties, (3) students with more significant difficulties. Ms. Morgan and Ms. Taylor are both responsible for one station, while the third station is dedicated to independent work. Session 3 (parallel teaching): Two heterogeneous subgroups. Each co-teacher is responsible for leading the activity with one subgroup. Sessions 4 and 5 (teaming support): Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan will circulate around the classroom to offer individualized support.

Question

Examples

What is the role of the co-teachers?

Session 1 (teaming): Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan are teaching a lesson about the text organizers together in front of all students.
Session 2 (station teaching): Three homogeneous subgroups: (1) students who are more comfortable with text organizers, (2) students with moderate difficulties, (3) students with more significant difficulties. Ms. Morgan and Ms. Taylor are both responsible for one station, while the third station is dedicated to independent work.
Session 3 (parallel teaching): Two heterogeneous subgroups. Each co-teacher is responsible for leading the activity with one subgroup.
Sessions 4 and 5 (teaming support): Ms. Taylor and Ms. Morgan will circulate around the classroom to offer individualized support.

Conclusion

Co-teaching is a service-delivery model that enables co-teachers to provide specialized support to a larger number of students at the same time, while improving learning conditions (Nápoles, 2024; Vembye et al., 2024; Zimmerman et al., 2023). This collaborative service delivery model has advantages for school staff and student learning (Scruggs et al., 2007; Vembye et al., 2024). The implementation of co-teaching requires adequate planning between the special education teacher and the general education teacher, but this is a significant challenge due to the lack of time and lack of resources to support the co-planning process (Boily et al., 2024; Ruberto, Beaulieu, et al., 2025; Strogilos et al., 2023). This article aims to contribute to the development of concrete solutions and tools to improve the co-planning process.

Although the schematization illustrating the co-planning process presented in this article is subject to change, it is consistent with previous work on the subject (Ruberto & Boily, 2026). In our opinion, this proposal currently provides a relevant anchor for better articulating the links between the different dimensions of co-planning, making this process more operational, and promoting a more equitable distribution of roles between co-teachers. More broadly, certain benefits are anticipated from the use of this conceptual proposal. The use of this concrete tool, which can guide co-teachers in the co-planning process, can strengthen interprofessional collaborative practices between general education teachers and special education teachers. This collaboration appears to be essential in a context where a growing number of students with diverse needs are present in general education classrooms. Indeed, studies have shown that teachers do not always feel well prepared to work with students having learning disabilities (Van Garderen et al., 2012). Greater collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers, therefore, helps to facilitate the teachers’ work with these students. However, it should be noted that this collaboration is complex to implement without guidelines. By focusing on an integrated and shared vision, it is possible to hypothesize that general education teachers and special education teachers will be able to cover all dimensions of the co-planning process to ensure consideration of student diversity and true leveraging of collective expertise.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the staff at the Montreal School Service Center who generously agreed to participate in this collaborative research project.

Author’s Note

The vignette is a fictionalized account drawn from research literature, not based on actual people or events the authors observed.

ORCID iDs

Noémia Ruberto

Élisabeth Boily

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alsarawi

(2019). A process, framework, and set of tools for facilitating co-planning among co-teachers. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 15(2), 1–23. https://www.wholeschooling.net/journal/IJWS/article/15/2/pii/S(25)00291-0

Bettini

Jones

Brownell

Conroy

Park

Leite

Crockett

Benedict

(2017). Workload manageability among novice special and general educators: Relationships with emotional exhaustion and career intentions. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517708327

Boily

É.

Ouellet

Thériault

. (2023). Les conditions favorables à la collaboration entre enseignantes et orthopédagogues en contexte d’implantation du modèle de réponse à l’intervention (RàI) au premier cycle du primaire [Favorable conditions for collaboration between classroom teachers and special education teachers in the context of implementing the response to intervention (RTI) model in the early years of elementary school]. Revue canadienne de l’éducation [Canadian Journal of Education], 46(3), 628–661. https://doi.org/10.53967/cje-rce.6027

Boily

É.

Ruberto

Fontaine

Granger

Beaulieu

Baron

M.-P

. (2023). Enjeux liés au rôle et aux fonctions de l’orthopédagogue en milieu scolaire en contexte d’éducation inclusive [Issues related to the role and functions of special education teachers in school settings within the context of inclusive education]. Enfance en difficulté [Childhood and Learning Difficulties], 10, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7202/1108074ar

Boily

É.

Ruberto

Fontaine

Granger

Beaulieu

Baron

M.-P

. (2024). Considérer la diversité des besoins des élèves et les facteurs environnementaux pour une organisation inclusive des services en orthopédagogie [Considering students’ diverse needs and environmental factors for an inclusive organization of special education services]. Revue Éducation Inclusive [Inclusive Education Review], 11, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.7202/1115317ar

Brady

(2008). Working towards a model of secondary school culture. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 73, 1–26. https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/42754

Conseil supérieur de l’éducation. (2017). Pour une école riche de tous ses élèves: S’adapter à la diversité des élèves, de la maternelle à la 5e année du secondaire [For a school enriched by all its students: Adapting diversity from kindergarten to secondary 5]. Gouvernement du Québec. https://www.cse.gouv.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/50-0500-AV-ecole-riche-eleves.pd

Dubé

Cloutier

É.

Dufour

Paviel

M.-J.

(2020). Coenseignement orthopédagogue-enseignante et orthopédagogue-enseignant: L’expérience de trois écoles primaires montréalaises [Co-teaching between special education teachers and classroom teachers: The experience of three Montreal elementary schools]. Éducation et Francophonie [Education and Francophonie], 48(2), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075034ar

Dubé

Dufour

Paviel

M.-J.

(2019). Quelques pistes pour expérimenter le coenseignement en classe [Exploring approaches to experimenting co-teaching in the classroom]. ADEL (Apprenants en difficulté et littératie). https://adel.uqam.ca/documents-a-telecharger/besoins-diversifies-eleves/guide-coenseignement/

10.

Friend

Cook

(2017). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Pearson.

11.

Granger

Moreau

A. C.

(2020). Coplanifier le rehaussement des compétences en littératie des élèves au secondaire en contexte de coenseignement [Co-planning to enhance secondary students’ literacy skills in a co-teaching context]. Éducation et Francophonie [Education and Francophonie], 48(2), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075036ar

12.

Leithwood

(2008). Working conditions: Experiences of elementary and secondary teachers in Ontario’s public schools. Elementary teachers’ federation of Ontario.

13.

Lyon

Hogan

E. K.

Kearns

D. M.

(2021). Individualizing literacy instruction in co-taught classrooms through a station teaching model. Intervention in School and Clinic, 56(4), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220944376

14.

Murawski

W. W.

(2012). 10 tips for using co-planning time more efficiently. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(4), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204400401

15.

Nápoles

(2024). Co-teaching: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 43(2), 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/87551233231226131

16.

Pettit

S. L.

(2017). Preparing teaching candidates for co-teaching. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin: International Journal for Professional Educators, 83(3), 15–23. https://www.dkg.org/DKGSI/Publications/Publications_Archive_non-member.aspx#Bulletin

17.

Pratt

S. M.

Imbody

S. M.

Wolf

L. D.

Patterson

A. L.

(2017). Co-planning in co-teaching: A practical solution. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659474

18.

Ruberto

Beaulieu

Baran

Maurice

(in press). Tâche de l’orthopédagogue à l’ordre d’enseignement secondaire en fonction du secteur de travail (public ou privé) [Tasks of secondary special education teachers based on their work setting (public or private sector)]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill [McGill Journal of Education].

19.

Ruberto

Beaulieu

Moreau

A. C.

Doré-Turgeon

(2025a). Les pratiques collaboratives d’orthopédagogues travaillant à l’ordre d’enseignement secondaire [Collaborative practices of special education teachers working at the secondary level]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill [McGill Journal of Education], 59(2), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.26443/mje/rsem.v59i2.10139

20.

Ruberto

Beaulieu

(in press). Fonctions et modèles de services déployés par les orthopédagogues du secondaire : soutenir la réussite de tous les élèves [Functions and service delivery models implemented by secondary special education teachers: Supporting the success of all students]. Revue des sciences de l’éducation [Journal of Educational Sciences].

21.

Ruberto

Boily

. (2026). La coplanification entre personnes enseignantes et orthopédagogues: l’importance d’un cadre structurant pour la mixité scolaire et sociale [Co-planning between classroom teachers and special education teachers: The importance of a structuring framework for school and social inclusion]. Éducation et socialisation [Journal of Education and Socialisation], 79, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4000/15zdf

22.

Ruberto

Boily

É.

Bisaillon

Pinard Herkel

F.-O.

(2025). Pistes pour guider la coplanification [Guidelines for co-planning]. Dépôt institutionnel de l’Université du Québec en Outaouais [Institutional Reposit of the University of Québec in Outaouais]. https://di.uqo.ca/id/eprint/1849/

23.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

McDuffie

K. A.

(2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401

24.

Strogilos

King-Sears

M. E.

Tragoulia

Voulagka

Stefanidis

(2023). A meta-synthesis of co-teaching students with and without disabilities. Educational Research Review, 38(100504), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100504

25.

Tomlinson

C. A.

(2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.

26.

Tremblay

(2023). Coenseignement [Co-teaching]. Academia.

27.

Van Garderen

Stormont

Goel

. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21610

28.

Vembye

M. H.

Weiss

Hamilton Bhat

(2024). The effects of co-teaching and related collaborative models of instruction on student achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 94(3), 376–422. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231186588

29.

Zimmerman

K. N.

Chow

J. C.

Majeika

Senter

(2023). Applying co-teaching models to enhance partnerships between teachers and speech-language pathologists. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(3), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221081255