Imagining a Better Future for All Students: Implementing a Co-Teaching Model in Junior High

Abstract

Schools across the United States are being pressed to engage in increased practices of inclusion. Co-teaching is one model that many schools employ to meet this goal. This paper examines one school’s journey toward a co-teaching model to understand the roles administrators and teachers play in the success of implementation and how students are affected by the change. This paper is an instrumental case study of one junior high school’s decision to change from a direct instruction model to co-teaching. Interviews were conducted with the principal and five teachers involved in this change. Through these interviews we learned that participants considered the process to be well supported and successful. Yet, even with this general outlook, there were still challenges to address including less than optimal teaching teams and questions about meeting all student needs. Overall, this paper shows that through thoughtful and deliberate practice schools can shift to a more inclusive environment that is both socially and academically positive for all students.

1. Introduction

Including students with disabilities in the general education classroom has increased steadily within the United States over the last three decades (Connor et al. 2025). Legislation mandates inclusion to the maximum extent possible (Least Restrictive Environment; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004). Co-teaching is one method for successful inclusion, with emerging evidence demonstrating effectiveness and challenges associated with implementation (Barron and Friend 2025; Bundock et al. 2023; Harkki et al. 2021; Iacono et al. 2023; Kokko et al. 2021; Rexroat-Frazier and Chamberlin 2019). In a co-teaching model, two teachers, often a general and special educator, share the responsibility for a classroom, including planning, lesson delivery, classroom management, and assessment (Iacono et al. 2023). Implementation requires that building administrators set up the conditions and provide ongoing support for co-teaching. Our objective is to examine the interaction between teachers and their principal as they navigate the process of implementing co-teaching within a junior high school.

1.1. Review of the Literature

As school districts attempt to “close the gap” of outcomes between many marginalized student populations (e.g., race, social economic status) and the predominant population, the largest marginalized group, those receiving special education, does not receive strong attention in this area (Keefe 2022). Meanwhile, teachers in special education are struggling with burnout due to high caseloads and a lack of support (Lee and Garwood 2025), and general educators express that they are unprepared to help students with disabilities with both content and behavior (Westling 2010). An underutilized strategy for potential gap-closing and teacher retention is co-teaching. Recent studies determine that successful co-teaching improves student outcomes (Barron and Friend 2025; Bundock et al. 2023; Butler and Nasser 2020; Iacono et al. 2023). Butler and Nasser (2020) found that students with special needs who were part of co-taught and inclusive classrooms “closed the gap” with higher reading scores. Bundock et al. (2023) demonstrated more content improvement when sixth to ninth grade students, in both general and special education, increased math scores in co-taught classrooms. In a review of 21 studies examining co-teaching, Iacono et al. (2023) found improved student outcomes in increased engagement, better content learning, and including students with disabilities more effectively with peers.

The literature on co-teaching outlines not only improved student outcomes but also the potential positive benefits and challenges for the teachers involved (Barron and Friend 2025; Iacono et al. 2023; Rytivaara et al. 2019; Solis et al. 2012). Teachers report that they learn from their co-teacher; general education teachers learn behavior management and accommodations, while special educators learn content (Bundock et al. 2023). Researchers have identified components of successful co-teaching (Bundock et al. 2023; Rexroat-Frazier and Chamberlin 2019; Pearl et al. 2012). Some of the necessary ingredients for successful implementation identified are professional development (Pearl et al. 2012), common planning time (Kokko et al. 2021), and equality in the classroom (Rexroat-Frazier and Chamberlin 2019; Rytivaara et al. 2019). Personal and professional challenges for teachers include a lack of time and training, finding a suitable partner, lack of support, and unclear roles (Harkki et al. 2021; Kokko et al. 2021; Scruggs et al. 2007).

The implementation of co-teaching does not happen without administrative support from some level. DeMatthews et al. (2020) identified a set of principals engaged in inclusive practices in their schools. They focused on the preparation and background of those principals to explain this bend toward inclusion. The majority of research on building principals and special education is not strong. White et al. (2021) note that, while principals are supportive of inclusionary practices and models like co-teaching, they continue to report a lack of expertise to help support such instructional innovations. Principals not feeling prepared or capable of leading in special education is very concerning considering the importance of the role. Grissom et al. (2021) and Leithwood et al. (2004) found that the principal is the second most impactful in-school factor on student academic performance. This is disconcerting, as Barron and Friend (2025) in a recent review of the literature on co-teaching found a lack of administrative support as a barrier to the successful implementation of co-teaching. A review by Billingsley and Bettini (2019) found similar results, with multiple studies correlating administrative support and special educator retention. So, while the literature shows the importance of an effective principal, it also shows that principals feel unprepared to lead programming for some of the most academically needy students in their schools.

1.2. Research Questions

The combination of general principal unease with leading special education programming and the challenges that co-teaching can present for teachers with administration makes the case discussed in this paper an interesting and potentially important examination of the interactions and perspective of both teachers and principals in the development of a co-teaching model. Specifically, we wanted to address the following research questions:

RQ1:

What were the key decision-making elements for the principal as he introduced and guided the implementation of co-teaching in the building?

RQ2:

How did both general and special educators perceive the implementation process and the impact of co-teaching?

RQ3:

How did all participants (principal and teachers) explain the challenges that were faced in the implementation of co-teaching and how they were addressed?

RQ4:

Do the state student testing results show any change as a result of implementing co-teaching at the school?

2. Materials and Methods

The two researchers on the study are professors in the College of Education at a Midwest state university. One is a professor in educational leadership, and one is a professor of special education. The study was approved by the university IRB and funded by an internal research grant. We employed instrumental case study methods (Stake 2006) to explore the lived experiences of the principal and teachers involved in the transition to co-teaching to better understand the phenomenon of co-teaching within educational systems.

2.1. Participants and Setting

The principal and five teachers from a junior high school in a Midwestern state consented to participate in this study (

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Name	License	Co-Teaching Partner	Current Grade/Subject and Years Teaching
Greg	Principal	n/a	3 years in this position Former teacher and assistant principal
Lauren	Special Education, Mild/Moderate K-12	Sarah	Special Education 7 years
Brandon	Secondary and Middle (grades 4–12) ELA Principal, grades 7–12	Special Educator	7th grade ELA 21 years
Caitlin	Middle Childhood Math and ELA (grades 4–9) K-12 Reading (Master’s level)	Special Educator	7th ELA 8 years
Sarah	Middle Childhood Math and ELA (grades 4–9) Classroom technology (Master’s)	Lauren	8th Grade Math, 16 years
Sally	Special Education Mild/Moderate K-12	8th Grade Math Educator	Special Education 10 years

). Their school serves 643 seventh and eighth graders in a suburban district with a total of 3885 students. The district has multiple PK-4 schools, one middle school serving grades five and six, a junior high serving grades seven and eight, and a single high school serving grades nine through twelve. While working through the co-teaching implementation process, the principal (Greg) was looking for additional insights in leading a change process. This was a part of his own learning in the co-teaching implementation. He reached out to the university for this assistance. Through this communication we learned about the work that was happening within the school and saw an alignment with research we were already conducting. As we moved into the research process at the school, the principal assisted us in identifying the teachers that were involved in the implementation of co-teaching. He was not involved in participant recruitment other than by supplying the names and emails of the co-teaching teams. The teachers had been teaching between 7 and 21 years. Three participating teachers were licensed and teaching in special education (Lauren, Sally, and Catlin) and two teachers were licensed in secondary general education English, language arts (Brandon), and Math (Sarah). The principal had been leading the school for three years. Previously he taught for five years in elementary schools and worked as an assistant principal for nine years in a middle school and high school. He had no prior experience in special education, except an exposure to students with IEPs being included in his classroom.

2.2. Procedure

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews at the school at the end of the school day during the last month of the 2021–22 academic year. We agreed upon all 15 initial teacher questions and 18 initial principal questions ahead of time (Appendix A), with possible follow-up questions for clarification or expansion. Each interview lasted from 45 to 60 min. Two participants were interviewed together (Catlin and Sarah), but they were not a co-teaching pair. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. Transcripts were produced by a paid service and verified by the authors. Within this research design, the use of semi-structured interviews is an appropriate data collection method. These interviews allow participants to describe their lived experiences in their own terms, while still providing enough structure to ensure an alignment with the study’s research questions (Creswell and Poth 2016).

2.3. Data Analysis

Two-cycle coding (Saldaña 2009) was employed during the data analysis phase to systematically interpret the interview transcripts. This approach allowed the researchers to move from initial descriptive categorizations to more refined and conceptual understandings of the data. The first and third authors independently analyzed the transcripts to ensure that multiple perspectives were incorporated into the interpretation, thereby enhancing the reliability of the coding process.

During the first cycle of coding, we engaged in open coding to identify emergent codes that naturally arose from the participants’ responses (Creswell and Poth 2016). This inductive process involved examining the data line by line to capture key phrases, ideas, and concepts that reflected participants’ experiences and perspectives. These initial codes served to categorize and describe the data in a broad and inclusive manner, allowing us to remain open to unexpected patterns or themes that might not have been anticipated before data collection.

Following this initial stage, we entered the second cycle of coding, which involved focused coding to refine and condense the preliminary codes into a more manageable and coherent set. This process entailed grouping related codes together and identifying central categories that captured the essence of the participants’ shared experiences.

After completing our independent analyses, the authors collaboratively compared their coding results to discuss similarities, differences, and interpretations. This iterative process of dialog and reflection allowed us to challenge assumptions, clarify meanings, and build consensus around the identified themes. Through ongoing discussion and refinement, we reached a point of saturation where no new codes or themes emerged, indicating that the data had been thoroughly examined and consistently interpreted.

The use of two-cycle coding not only provided a structured framework for analyzing qualitative data but also ensured rigor and transparency in the analytic process. By integrating independent coding, collaborative discussion, and iterative refinement, we were able to produce findings that were both credible and richly grounded in the participants’ voices.

3. Results

The findings show a consistency between teachers and the principal in how the school moved to a co-teaching model. As a group, they reported transitioning to this new model in a slow and deliberate way that included multiple opportunities for professional development and feedback loops. The data also demonstrated a shared responsiveness to that feedback. The following themes were identified as important in describing this phenomenon of implementing co-teaching.

3.1. Key Decision-Making Elements to Implement Co-Teaching

In exploring the first research question, we found two themes that reflect Greg’s approach to leading this change. First, we see his recognition that a change is needed to protect and preserve the special education teachers. The second theme for this question shows that Greg engaged with the process of change not as a process to not only obtain an outcome. He and the teachers worked together to determine how to improve the experience for students and teachers and to create a more inclusive environment.

3.1.1. Need for Change

Greg realized during his first year at the school that there was a critical need for change. He related that, “…in evaluating the landscape, I recognized immediately my [special educators] were pulling their hair out. I mean they were high stress. They were all over the place. It was constant issues, it was just non-stop… I mean within that first semester I was there going… something’s gotta change here you know?” He recognized that this stress in his special education staff was partially related to the structure the school was using to deliver special education services.

At the time, the school was using a case load model. In this model, a special education teacher had a set of students, and the teachers were responsible for managing the students’ individual education plans (IEPs) and providing those students with accommodations and modifications contained in their IEP. This meant that, as students moved through the seven-period day, the special education teachers would need to provide support in multiple classrooms throughout the school. In addition, the school was using direct instruction for several students. So, beyond providing support in the general education classrooms, the special education teachers were also teaching students directly. It did not take Greg long to come to the realization that this model was not sustainable for the special education teachers. The direct instruction component was also being questioned, as the school was moving towards more inclusive practices. In conversations with teachers, the district special education director, and school counselors, Greg started setting the stage for moving away from this model and towards a new model for special education delivery. In this stage of the process, we started to see the second theme start to develop.

3.1.2. Collaborative Process to Develop a New Model

Greg did not want to push change down to his teachers. He felt that this needed to be a collaborative process for the whole administration/faculty team so that everyone felt heard and that they were a part of the change. Greg engaged in his own learning process to better understand what good co-teaching looked like and needed to be successful. He also looked to bring others along in the learning process. Greg knew that another junior high in the area had used a co-teaching model for several years. He reached out to that principal to look for some opportunities for additional learning. The first stage in this collaboration was a visit by Greg and his special education director to the neighboring school. They met with administrators and teachers and made classroom observations to really see co-teaching in action. Greg then arranged an opportunity for his teachers and the neighboring district teachers to have an interaction. This meeting allowed for open and honest interactions between the teachers and allowed for the learning to continue beyond reading and discussing. As Greg and his teachers continued to discuss the idea of moving to a co-teaching model, he sensed it was time to decide. He held a meeting where he laid out the rationale and the process of co-teaching, and then he did something that is rare in education settings. He left the choice in the faculty’s hands. They would choose whether to implement it or not, and, if so, who their partner would be. Greg noted, “I was sitting there going, ‘This isn’t going to happen…’” He knew he could not force the change, even though he felt it was the right move for the school and the students. He asked the teachers to consider, if they would be willing to engage in co-teaching, who they could see themselves working with. He asked them to think about it, talk with each other, and let him know if they were willing to try it. In his interview, Greg confessed that he was hoping for one or two pairs that were willing to pilot the idea. But, he reported, “…wouldn’t you know, literally almost every single person, once they found that person, came back to me and was like, ‘Hey, we’d be willing to, if we could get together and we could do this, we’d do it. We’re interested. We’ll try it out and go from there.’” Once the teams were created and the co-teaching model was started, Greg continued to listen to his teachers and provide learning opportunities. He provided training before the year started and ongoing listening sessions: “…that was something we had to figure out [how it would really look] and you know, I leveraged the experience of my director of special ed. I leveraged the experience of my counselors and those teachers right in that environment, say Hi, how can this happen, what can it look like?”.

These two themes show how a committed and focused building leader plays a critical role in building more inclusive practices in a school. We will next explore the experiences of some of the teachers involved in this school’s move toward a co-teaching model.

3.2. Teachers’ Perspectives on Implementation and Impact

The interviews with teachers helped us address the second research question that focused on their experience in the implementation of co-teaching and the impact of the change. Our analysis yielded three themes related to this question. We noted teachers reporting administrative support in the implementation process. Several teachers reported a positive experience in the co-teaching process, as well as there being a positive benefit for students.

3.2.1. Strong Support from Administration

All teachers reported feeling supported by their principal as they journeyed through co-teaching in the first couple of years. Caitlin noted how Greg worked to make sure structural changes were made to help teachers and co-teaching be successful. She noted, “Biggest thing that’s been helpful to us is having that common planning time, and then also the consistency in the schedule.” Teachers also stated that Greg made himself available to listen to concerns and acted on those concerns by providing resources and his perspective from an evidence-based practice lens. Lauren noted Greg’s involvement in helping with a student with regular behavior issues. She stated, “…I’m really appreciative of his willingness to do some extra work, some extra research to help us, or let us try new things that we have to think outside the box all the time for some of our behavior students. So letting us try different things is really helpful, too.” Brandon also expressed that he felt Greg “… shows confidence that he believes that I know what I am doing. And then, at the same time, he has confidence in knowing that when I don’t feel like I know what I’m doing, that I’m going to speak up and say ‘Something’s not right here. Something’s not working. I’m struggling with this.’” Lauren also indicated that she feels support from the special education director as well, and often goes to her for help when juggling inclusion and IEP goals. As the teachers were implementing the co-teaching model, they understood there were positive outcomes for them as teachers.

3.2.2. Positive Change for Teachers with Shared Responsibilities

Four teachers, both special and general educators, reported that they feel a strong compatibility with their partner and that the benefits outweigh the challenges; they appreciated having another person to share the load, stretching and expanding their own learning and teaching skills. They implemented co-teaching each week by ensuring that they use their common planning time and by being flexible in the classroom with students. Sally stated, “So our personalities meshed really well, our organization, everything goes together. She wants to plan ahead, I want to plan ahead, and that all makes a huge difference.” Brandon brings in the basic idea of two adults in the room, “…no matter what, even before co-teaching, just having another body in the room, somebody that can chip in and knows where the lesson is and where the help is needed.” Finally, Caitlin noted that it was impactful for her co-teacher to work with a broader group of students. She stated, “I think it’s nice for her to be with a different group of kids. She has the opportunity to connect with them.” These teacher benefits were clearly important to the success of the co-teaching implementation. This benefit alone would not be enough if there was not also a benefit for students.

3.2.3. Benefits for Students

All participants identified benefits for students, both social and academic. Lauren talks about how this is good for both the teachers and the students, “There’s two expert teachers for us, so we can provide more instruction to each of our students. We’re hitting, [other teacher] and I get to talk to every single one of our students every day.” Then, she goes on to discuss how it socially and academically benefits the students with special needs: “Exposure to the content with their peers. All the hands-on activities that they get to do in the gen ed classroom. I know as they get older, they get more… I don’t know how to say it. They are worried about being labeled.” Sally also mentions both the social and the academic benefits: “I think they really, especially at this level, like being with all of their peers. So they get to see that, they get to hear some of the content maybe they wouldn’t have.” Caitlin observed that students like having the co-teacher: “It’s cool that the kids like miss having the co-teacher in the room. They’re like, ‘Oh, we don’t have Mrs. xxxx with us.’” She also noted that the academic benefits, such as providing different groupings and getting the content to all students as needed, were important. “So if we are introducing something for the first time, we typically try to do it together, so then all the kids are getting the same information. We’d hate for them to be taught something slightly different when it’s the first time we’re teaching it. If it’s a more challenging text… It could also be based off the behavior. We had some pretty rowdy classes this year, so if splitting them in half and doing the exact same thing in two different rooms helped, we would do that. If it was content that they struggled with, sometimes we would do smaller groups.”

3.3. Challenges

The third research question explored how participants experienced challenges in the implementation of co-teaching. While the overall experience of the implementation was positive, no change process is without challenges, and this school was not an exception.

3.3.1. Worry About Communication, Trust, and Parity

The principal and all teachers reported moments of hesitation or lack of trust. Greg indicated that, after the meeting where he laid out the rationale and choice, he was worried if the faculty would decide to move forward. Brandon felt that he was still responsible for all content and basically had to teach the special educator the content. Brandon also felt that it was unfair to ask the special educator to do so much by co-teaching in two classrooms: “…the best we could do is I believe we did was One Assist, One Assist, One Teach, kind of a model. And due to the split that he was kind of put in, the schedule tends to be the biggest issue with all of this. Like in his situation, he was asked to be a co-teacher not just to me, but also with the math teacher.” Sally was worried she was not pulling her weight, but was also afraid to talk about it with her co-teacher. Caitlin said her biggest challenge is “calling out” her co-teacher when something needs to change. Sarah mentioned that a goal for next year was filling a role she did not receive in this first full year of co-teaching: “I got to know them [the students], but they [the special educator] would be the ones that sat down, she would be the one that did that one on one and see truly where they stand. I saw it more through data, and I would like to be the one that actually does the one on one a little bit more.” Greg noted that not all the co-teaching teams were the right fit, and that changes were being planned for the next school year. In addition, the school was hiring additional special education teachers, and Greg had a new consideration for co-teaching pairs to consider in that process. Similarly to the positives, the challenges not only impacted the adults, but also the students.

3.3.2. Concerns About Students Falling Behind and Meeting IEP Goals

Although, overall, teachers felt that all students benefitted from co-teaching, both general and special educators had concerns about the students on IEPs meeting their individual goals, and about students who were consistently behind the grade level work being pushed through. Lauren reported, “So trying to navigate when I’m going to hit these goals, and how I’m going to do that, when you’re in that inclusive setting, you don’t want to just, ‘Okay, we need to work on two-step equations.’ Well, nobody else is working on two-step equations.” Greg also noted this challenge. He noted that IEP goals and assessment plans had been written for a direct instruction environment. The teachers were struggling to implement those goals and assessments in the more inclusive environment.

3.3.3. Other Less Prevalent Themes

Other issues that were not as universal as the two above still were mentioned by 2–3 people during the interviews. These include a loss of identity as a special educator, the common planning time not being what it should be, special education paperwork, and one that applies to our examination of the interaction between leadership and faculty: mixed messages from administration.

3.4. Student State Testing Results

The final research question explored the relationship between the co-teaching model implementation and any changes in student results on state testing. These aggregated results cannot give any definitive correlation or results, but they can potentially shed some light on student response to co-teaching. The interviews took place at the end of the 2021–22 school year, the first year students were back in the classroom full time after the COVID pandemic, possibly affecting the testing results that year.

For the seventh graders in the building, the total percentage of students who scored proficient, accomplished, or advanced in reading and math testing dropped slightly from 74.1% in 2021 to 70.8% in 2022. However, it jumped up in 2023 to 79.2% and continued that trend in 2024, increasing to 81.1%. The increase is more apparent when students with disabilities were disaggregated. In 2022, the first full year of co-teaching, 53.85% seventh grade students with disabilities scored proficient or higher in state testing, an increase from 52.05% in 2021. The increase continued for this population in 2023, with 61.46% scoring proficient or above and students scoring advanced (the highest category) for the first time in three years. The number declined in 2024 to 54.9%, possibly due to leadership changes during 2023–24.

Eighth graders showed similar results in trends. The full student body results show that 71.6% of students scored proficient or above in 2022, a decrease from 73.5% in 2021. Yet in 2023 the students scored 76.9% proficient and above, and in 2024 they scored 77.1% proficient and above, with more than 20% scoring at advanced in both those years. The students in special education scored 29.51% proficient and above in 2022, an increase from 23.02% in 2021. The positive trend continued through 2023, with 34.97% scoring at proficient or above, dropping slightly in 2024 to 31.65%. As we can see from these numbers, the students receiving special education services may feel the effect of co-teaching more quickly than the other students in the building.

4. Discussion

The themes developed from the principal and teacher interviews illustrate the benefits of co-teaching for the faculty and students, including support from administration, shared responsibility and expertise, and social and academic outcomes for students. The challenges identified were no surprise and mirrored similar themes from other studies on co-teaching (Harkki et al. 2021; Kokko et al. 2021; Scruggs et al. 2007), such as feelings of parity with their co-teacher and an inability to bring up issues due to full trust. The teachers also worried about their students on IEPs meeting goals. Greg described how he took a risk in researching co-teaching, then offered this option to teachers instead of requiring it. His ability to listen to his teachers is demonstrated in the comments from the teachers about administration.

4.1. Principal Demonstrates Awareness and Collaboration

From his first year in the principal role, Greg identified that he needed to do something different. He knew that his teachers and students deserved a better experience. He did not allow his lack of personal experience in special education impact his commitment to foster a more manageable work environment for his teachers and a more inclusive school experience for his students. After researching the co-teaching model, he offered the option to the teachers, and then, when they agreed to try it, he provided the training and development necessary to implement it. He continued to support through listening and responding to individual teachers. This process is reflected in both his comments and the teachers’ comments and upholds what Barron and Friend (2025) indicated as important for leadership to support co-teaching.

4.2. Paradoxical Themes

Our interview data yielded some paradoxical themes from teachers and the principal. All teacher participants except one felt that they had a great relationship with their partner and shared the responsibility, yet some also felt that they could not address all issues openly with their partner. Since we interviewed teachers after only their first full year of co-teaching, they may have not yet developed a full confidence in their own abilities as a co-teacher and in the collaboration with their co-teacher. This idea of a “great relationship” but still having reservations about total trust is one that could be addressed with thoughtful professional development time (Pearl et al. 2012).

While all interviewees perceived the implementation process as well-supported and collaborative, two teachers felt that they were still receiving mixed messages from administration, namely the principal and the special education director. These findings mostly align with Kokko et al. (2021), who found that teachers felt positive about sharing the load with a partner and support for co-teaching by administration. Yet other studies reported similar barriers for co-teachers when collaborating and communicating (Bundock et al. 2023; Harkki et al. 2021; Rytivaara et al. 2019). That our teachers reported both positives and challenges in the same two themes of relationships and administrative support merits a deeper examination in future studies. Barron and Friend (2025) recommend that administrators support by helping teachers set goals, coach through issues, and celebrate wins; this may represent the next step for administrators looking to build relationships and help teachers do the same.

4.3. Gains for Students in Special Education During Co-Teaching Implementation

Teachers indicated that they were concerned about meeting their students’ IEP goals, yet the students on IEPs gained in proficiency in reading and math state test scores during the period of co-teaching. This may reflect that not all IEP goals align with reading or math, and that finding time to work on goals not aligned with the academic content of the co-teaching classroom (reading or math) has become more difficult without pull-out time. The next step of co-teaching for the special educator is finding time to address other goals or to address goals not aligned with content in the classroom. This is an area of co-teaching that is not yet addressed in the literature (Barron and Friend 2025).

The student outcomes reported are not a strong indicator of the success or failure of co-teaching, since many factors influence these aggregated data. However, the trend in scores shows that something positive was occurring for those couple of years when the principal we interviewed was present and strongly supported co-teaching. The scores of student receiving special education services are particularly of interest, since they mirror what the teachers reported during interviews, with increases in both math and reading scores. This reflects what Butler and Nasser (2020) found for students receiving special education with improved reading scores and Bundock et al. (2023) found with math scores. The fact that the these students’ scores dropped slightly in 2024 when the leadership changed and the principal left the building may also be an indicator of the impact of co-teaching and support for co-teaching. While these results are not strongly associated, they support the conclusions found by previous studies (Barron and Friend 2025; Bundock et al. 2023; Butler and Nasser 2020) that students are positively affected academically when co-teaching is properly implemented.

4.4. Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusions

The limitations to our study include a small number of interviewees and no specific student data. Having two participants interview together was another limitation that might have im-pacted the responses both in the fullness and direction of responses compared to if the interviews had been individual. Revisiting the principal and teachers to explore their thoughts after more time in the model would be helpful, as well as interviewing central administration. Since leadership changed during the intervening time, discovering the new principal’s and the teacher’s perceptions again would be telling. Looking at teacher retention during this time could also provide important data. Pairing the timing with more specific student outcomes would yield information about the effectiveness of the co-teaching model on actual student results. A novel addition could be interviewing students as well. Other more detailed examinations of how to support co-teaching as administrators are another important area of research.

This study adds to the scant literature demonstrating that co-teaching can offer a potentially successful way to implement special education and inclusion within schools with careful implementation.