The Florida School Boards Association
Position on Co-Teaching
Florida
School Boards Association - 1 Ruth H
Melton 1/30/06 - FSBA
Issue Brief: Co-Teaching
BACKGROUND
Co-teaching is a
long standing educational practice that has been used in nearly all of
Florida’s 67
school districts for many years. The term “co-teaching” refers to the
assignment of
two certified teachers to one class of students, with instruction being
provided by both
teachers. Among the many benefits of co-teaching are:
g Co-teaching
permits more individualized assistance and intervention for students.
This is of
particular value in meeting the needs ESE students who are in inclusion
classes, or for
any student who may be struggling in a particular subject area. In
addition,
co-teaching enhances classroom management and discipline. The result
is that a
teacher may focus on the special needs of an individual student without
delaying the
progress of other students in the class.
g Co-teaching
establishes a system that provides support, training, mentoring, and
evaluation of
other teachers. This is of particular value in situations where a new
teacher is
paired with a more experienced teacher, where a high performing
teacher is
paired with a low performing teacher, and where a certified teacher who
is pursuing
certification in a new subject area is paired with a teacher who holds
that
certification.
g Co-teaching is
an important tool in achieving class size reduction goals. This is
particularly
important in school districts having little or no funding available for the
construction of
additional classrooms, or where construction would not be cost
efficient.
According to DOE
figures, 52 of Florida’s 67 counties are using co-teaching as a strategy
in one or more
of these situations. Statewide, there are more than 7,000 classrooms in
Florida that use
co-teaching.
CURRENT
SITUATION
On June 21,
2005, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted a policy declaring that
coteaching
was not an
acceptable approach to meet the requirements of class size reduction.
A July 13, 2005
memo from the DOE provided guidance to implement this new policy. The
memo stated
that, for the 2005-2006 school year, co-teaching would be included in the
calculation of
district class size averages, but the percentage of co-taught classrooms in
each district
could not exceed the percentage of co-taught classrooms in the 2004-2005
school year. The
memo further stated that, beginning in the 2006-2007, co-teaching would
not be used at
all in calculating compliance with the school average class size.
This new policy
and the manner in which it was adopted raise a number of issues and
concerns:
Florida School
Boards Association
2 Ruth H Melton
1/30/06
g Prior to the
adoption of the policy, the SBE and DOE had endorsed co-teaching
as an
appropriate and effective teaching methodology and had praised school
districts for
their use of co-teaching as an efficient means of attaining class size
goals. In
reliance on this, many school districts increased their commitment and
investment in
co-teaching. This sudden prohibition on the use of co-teaching
contradicts the
prior stance of the SBE and DOE and, essentially, “pulls the rug
out” from
under these school districts.
g No prior
notice was given that this policy would be discussed at the June 21, 2005
SBE meeting.
Therefore, interested parties were unprepared and/or unable to
testify before
the SBE on the merits, or lack thereof, of this policy. In addition, this
lack of notice
is a clear departure from rule development procedures set forth in
the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
g The policy is
at odds with several statutory provisions relating to class size
reduction,
including, but not limited to, the following Florida laws:
< Section
1003.03, F.S., lists several implementation options that school districts
must consider in
the effort to meet class size requirements. Section
1003.03(3)(d)
requires school districts to “[u]se methods to maximize use of
instructional
staff, such as changing required teaching loads and scheduling
of planning
periods, deploying district employees that have professional
certification to
the classroom, using adjunct educators, or any other method
not prohibited
by law.” In addition, section 1003.03(3)(l) authorizes school
districts to “[u]se
any other approach not prohibited by law.”
< Section
1010.215, F.S., relates to education funding accountability. Section
1010.215(3)(b)
requires that “[a]ny teacher-to-student ratio or class size
measure required
by law or State Board of Education rule must be computed
by dividing the
number of students in membership at the school by the number
of full-time
equivalent instructional personnel . . . .”
g Most
important, this policy appears to conflict with several provisions set forth
in
the Florida
Constitution relating to class size reduction and school board powers
and duties,
including:
< Article IX,
Section 1(a)(1)-(3) which sets forth the maximum class size
requirements as
determined by the “maximum number of students who are
assigned to each
teacher” in various grade levels. This clearly establishes
that class size
measures are to be determined on a teacher-to-student ratio,
not on a
student-to-classroom ratio as mandated by the new SBE/DOE policy.
< Article IX,
Section 4(b) which invests in local elected school boards the power
to “operate,
control and supervise all free public schools within the school
district.”
Florida School
Boards Association
3 Ruth H Melton
1/30/06
FSBA POSITION
Based upon
concerns driven by these and other issues, the FSBA membership has
adopted its 2006
Legislative Platform which includes, as a legislative priority, the goal of
amending section
1003.03(3), F.S., to add co-teaching to the tool box of options for
achieving class
size reduction.
In addition,
FSBA has been given authority and direction by its general membership, board
of directors,
and executive committee to file a lawsuit against the SBE and DOE to block
the
implementation of the policy prohibiting the use of co-teaching as a class
size reduction
strategy.
However, bills have been filed in both the House and Senate that would
restore
co-teaching as
an acceptable class size reduction tool (HB 203 and SB 668). In addition,
recent
discussions with key legislators indicate that this issue will be resolved
to FSBA’s
satisfaction
during the 2006 regular legislative session. Since litigation may not be
necessary, FSBA
has chosen to delay any legal action until after the conclusion of the
session.
ATTACHMENTS AND
LINKS:
1. July 13, 2005
DOE memo from Linda Champion to district school superintendents that
announces
restrictions on the use of co-teaching as a class size reduction tool and
provides a
county-by-county list of co-taught classrooms.
Memo: http://info.fldoe.org/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-3096/coteachcs.pdf
Attachment:
http://info.fldoe.org/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-3097/coteachcs1.pdf
2. Introductory
memo and draft of the lawsuit prepared on behalf of FSBA and unnamed
school boards
challenging DOE’s authority to prohibit co-teaching as a means to meet
the requirements
of class size reduction.
3. FSBA press
release that outlines FSBA’s objections to the ban of using co-teaching
as a class size
reduction tool and announcing FSBA’s intention to file a lawsuit to
restore
co-teaching as an appropriate tool.
4. FSBA memo announcing FSBA’s
intention to delay filing of the lawsuit.
