Coaching Special Education Teachers in Inclusive Settings

For special education teachers operating in inclusive classrooms, a systemic challenge frequently arises during the observation and coaching cycle: they are often evaluated by general education administrators or peer coaches who lack specialized training in special education methodologies (Gilmour & Jones, 2020). This gap in pedagogical alignment can lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of effective instructional delivery. Commonly used general education observation rubrics tend to prioritize constructivist, student-led learning approaches, which can inadvertently penalize special educators who are skillfully utilizing the explicit, systematic instruction necessary for students with specific learning differences (Jones & Brownell, 2014). Consequently, the nuances of highly specialized scaffolds—such as integrating home language assets through cross-linguistic instruction or utilizing structured literacy methodologies—are frequently overlooked or misinterpreted as overly teacher-directed.

To bridge this paradigm gap, there must be a deliberate mindset shift in how school leadership approaches coaching. The focus must transition away from basic compliance monitoring—such as simply checking if Individualized Education Program (IEP) service minutes are being met—and move toward authentic instructional partnership and pedagogical growth. When coaches approach observations with an understanding of evidence-based special education practices, they empower special educators to fully utilize their expertise rather than reducing them to the role of a general education assistant (Johnson et al., 2020).

Effective coaching of special education teachers in general education environments requires observers to adopt a lens that values neurodiversity-affirming practices, recognizes the complex parity of co-teaching, and understands how to seamlessly integrate discreet progress monitoring into universal instruction. By embracing this framework, coaches can provide the targeted, actionable feedback necessary to elevate inclusive practices and support the holistic growth of both the educator and their diverse learners.

Moving Beyond "One Teach, One Assist"

In many inclusive classrooms, the default co-teaching model is "One Teach, One Assist," where the general educator delivers the primary instruction while the special educator circulates to manage behavior or provide proximity support. While this model requires the least amount of co-planning, it frequently underutilizes the special educator’s expertise in structured literacy, cognitive scaffolding, and data analysis (Friend, 2019). When non-special education coaches observe this dynamic, they may inadvertently validate a system that relegates the special education teacher to the role of a paraprofessional.

Coaches must actively look for and encourage models that demonstrate true instructional parity. Parity does not necessarily mean both teachers are speaking equally; rather, it means both professionals share ownership of the physical space, lesson design, and student outcomes (Murawski & Lochner, 2011).

One of the most effective ways to establish this parity is through the lens of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). When special educators are given the agency to co-plan, they can embed vital accommodations directly into Tier 1 instruction. For example, rather than pulling a small group aside for a specialized vocabulary review, the special educator might lead a whole-class morphology breakdown or introduce cross-linguistic connections (such as Spanish-English cognates) that benefit all learners, particularly emerging bilinguals. By normalizing these neurodiversity-affirming practices, the stigma of individualized support is removed, and the special educator's role is elevated (CAST, 2018).

Coaching "Look-Fors" for Instructional Parity

When observing a co-taught classroom, administrators and coaches should look for the following indicators of effective collaboration:

• Proactive vs. Reactive Scaffolding: Evidence that visual aids, graphic organizers, and assistive technologies are built into the lesson from the start, rather than provided only after a student struggles.

• Shared Authority: Students direct their academic and behavioral questions to both teachers equally, demonstrating that both adults are viewed as content authorities.

The Coaching Conversation: Addressing "One Teach, One Assist"

When a coach observes an over-reliance on this model, the conversation must be framed around maximizing the special educator's specialized toolkit.

Coach: "During the lesson today, I noticed that the general education teacher led the primary direct instruction for about 30 minutes, while you circulated to redirect focus and assist with the guided notes. How did that structure allow you to capture data on the specific reading comprehension goals for your caseload?"

SPED Teacher: "It was difficult to get hard data today. I was mostly doing proximity control and making sure they were keeping up with the pacing of the lecture."

Coach: "You bring such a deep understanding of evidence-based reading methodologies and UDL to this partnership. As you co-plan for next week, how might we shift from 'One Teach, One Assist' to a 'Station Teaching' or 'Team Teaching' model? I would love to see you lead a segment where you embed your morphology and structured literacy scaffolds directly into the core lesson, allowing you to gather concrete data while elevating the instruction for the whole room."

Deep Dive: Mastering the Parallel Teaching Model

To truly move beyond assisting, teams often implement the Parallel Teaching Model. This occurs when the class is divided in half, and both teachers instruct their respective groups simultaneously, teaching the same core content. For inclusive classrooms, this model is a powerhouse—it halves the student-to-teacher ratio and exponentially increases opportunities for students to respond.

However, when observed by someone without a special education background, the nuanced scaffolding happening in the special educator's group can be easily missed.

• Destigmatizing Support: Because all students are in a small group, specialized instructional strategies become universally designed. It completely removes the stigma of the "SPED table."

• Strategic Grouping: Groups should be heterogeneous and fluid. For example, during a literacy block, the special educator might lead their half of the room using structured literacy strategies—such as explicitly unpacking the morphology of complex vocabulary—to access the exact same grade-level text the general educator is teaching to the other half.

The Coaching Conversation: Setting the Stage for Parallel Teaching

Pre-Observation Script

Coach: "I see you and your co-teacher are using the parallel teaching model for Tuesday's lesson. To help me focus my observation, how did you decide to divide the groups for this specific content?"

SPED Teacher: [Explains the grouping strategy and the specific scaffolds they will use for their half of the room.]

Coach: "Excellent. While you are delivering that content, what specific IEP goals or executive functioning skills will you be progress monitoring, and what system will you be using to capture that data?"

Post-Observation Script

Coach: "During the parallel teaching block, I noticed you were able to get almost 100% participation from your group. I also saw you actively tracking data on your clipboard during the guided practice. How did the students perform on the specific decoding goals you were monitoring?"

SPED Teacher: [Shares the data and student outcomes.]

Coach: "That targeted support was clearly effective. As we look at next week's lesson plans, how can we collaborate to ensure some of those explicit vocabulary and morphology scaffolds you used are integrated into the Tier 1 instruction for the entire class?"

Demystifying Progress Monitoring in General Education

A primary responsibility of the special educator is tracking progress on specific IEP goals. To the untrained eye, this data collection can be invisible. Coaches must recognize how special educators execute "discreet assessment" without disrupting the universal lesson flow.

• The Invisible Assessment: During a whole-group discussion or parallel teaching block, the special educator might be charting specific behavioral data (e.g., self-advocacy or task initiation) using a clipboard tally or a time-sampling rubric.

• Leveraging Assistive Technology: Progress monitoring does not always require a clipboard. Special educators frequently use technology-integrated supports, such as speech-to-text and text-to-speech applications, to foster student independence. Coaches should recognize that when a student uses speech-to-text to draft an essay, the special educator can analyze the digital output later to measure expressive language goals (Kennedy & Deshler, 2010).

• Parents as Co-Teachers: Effective progress monitoring extends beyond the classroom. High-level special educators translate this discreet data into accessible language to empower families. A coach evaluating a special educator should inquire about how this progress data is used to engage parents as authentic partners in the learning process.

Facilitating and Sustaining the Co-Teaching Partnership

The relationship between a general education and special education teacher is often compared to a professional marriage. When it functions well, it creates a dynamic, inclusive environment. However, when the partnership is strained by a lack of time, unclear expectations, or pedagogical friction, the co-teaching model often regresses into a siloed or hierarchical dynamic (Scruggs et al., 2007).

For non-special education coaches, supporting this dynamic requires stepping outside of the traditional evaluator role and acting as a facilitator of adult learning and relationship building.

Protecting and Structuring Co-Planning Time

The most frequently cited barrier to effective co-teaching is a lack of shared planning time (Pratt, 2014). Without dedicated time to collaborate, special educators are forced to react to the general educator's lesson plans on the fly.

Coaches can support this by:

• Advocating for Master Schedule Changes: Work with building administration to align planning periods for co-teaching pairs.

• Providing Co-Planning Frameworks: Introduce structured protocols that focus the conversation on core content goals, anticipated learning barriers, and the explicit distribution of teaching roles.

• Acting as a Substitute: In creative coaching models, a coach might occasionally cover a class to provide a co-teaching team with an uninterrupted hour to map out a complex unit.

Defining Roles and Navigating Pedagogical Friction

A common source of friction occurs when the general educator inadvertently assumes the role of the "lead" teacher. Coaches can guide teams through an audit of their physical classroom (ensuring shared desk space and whiteboard access) and mediate early-semester conversations where teachers explicitly define their roles regarding parent communication, grading, and behavior management.

Furthermore, general educators may lean heavily into inquiry-based models, while special educators are trained in highly structured, explicit instruction. Coaches can bridge this gap by helping the team integrate both approaches. For instance, a special educator can lead a brief, explicit morphology lesson to pre-teach vocabulary, enabling the entire class to participate more successfully in the general educator's inquiry-based literature discussion.

Conclusion: Elevating Inclusive Partnerships

Coaching special education teachers within general education environments requires a fundamental shift in perspective. When administrators and peer coaches observe these classrooms through a traditional, general-education-only lens, they risk missing the profound, highly specialized work happening just beneath the surface. By moving away from compliance-driven checklists and the limitations of the "One Teach, One Assist" model, coaches can begin to recognize the true value of discreet progress monitoring, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and authentic instructional parity.

True collaboration in an inclusive classroom is not about making the special educator blend into the background; it is about leveraging their expertise in structured literacy, cognitive scaffolding, and neurodiversity-affirming practices to elevate the learning experience for the entire room. When we bridge this paradigm gap, we do more than improve teaching practices—we create truly inclusive environments where all students can thrive without the stigma of isolated intervention.

References

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Friend, M. (2019). Co-teach! Building and sustaining effective classroom partnerships in inclusive schools (3rd ed.). Marilyn Friend, Inc.

Gilmour, A. F., & Jones, N. D. (2020). Policies that define instruction: A systematic review of states’ and districts’ recommendations for evaluating special educators. Educational Researcher, 49(9), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20935384

Johnson, E. S., Crawford, A. R., Moylan, L. A., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Developing an explicit instruction special education teacher observation rubric. The Journal of Special Education, 54(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919854725

Jones, N. D., & Brownell, M. T. (2014). Examining the use of classroom observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413514103

Kennedy, M. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Literacy instruction, technology, and students with learning disabilities: Research we have, research we need. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4), 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300406

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451210378165

Pratt, S. (2014). Achieving symbiosis: Working through challenges found in co-teaching to achieve effective co-teaching relationships. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.02.006

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401