Abstract
Inclusion rates for students with disabilities in general education settings have increased nationwide. To further extend this progress, schools, districts, and educational service agencies in rural areas have sought ways to improve their own inclusion metrics. This article describes a technical assistance arrangement that was initiated between a rural educational service agency and a local university. In this article, we provide details of the collaboration and the steps that were implemented to successfully improve inclusion rates and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Detailed descriptions of the two major project stages are provided. Summaries of data collected from special educator and general educator surveys are included. Additionally, this article discusses educator training delivered, collaboration opportunities provided, and administrative supports incorporated into efforts to increase inclusion in a meaningful way for students in five target schools. A summary of what worked and what still needs improvement is also provided.
Keywords
Many researchers and practitioners have advocated for students with disabilities to more fully participate in general education classes with their nondisabled peers (e.g., Agran et al., 2019; Banerjee et al., 2016; Ryndak et al., 2014; Wehmeyer et al., 2016). Since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), inclusion in general education classrooms for students receiving special education services has continued to increase (Hussar et al., 2020). Yet, there is certainly room for improvement. When all students receiving special education services under IDEA Part B are considered nationally, only 63% are currently spending 80% or more of their day in general education classrooms (Hussar et al., 2020). This metric has increased only marginally from the 2007 inclusion rate of 57% and the trend toward increasing has been slowing, especially for students in secondary settings (Williamson et al., 2019). The most recent data indicate that nearly 37% of students are not included in general education classrooms for more than 80% of their school day.
Moreover, current data do not reflect precisely how inclusion is practiced in schools. There is extreme variance in the models of inclusion and co-teaching that are currently being implemented (e.g., McLeskey et al., 2012; Williamson et al., 2019). Additionally, the definition of inclusion has evolved over the decades. The modern definition was established as the concept of least restrictive environment (LRE) and codified through the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA, 1975). The most current language for LRE is found in IDEA (2004) and establishes that children with disabilities must be educated with their nondisabled peers to the greatest extent possible. Yet, simply placing children with disabilities in general education classes does not guarantee their access to the standards-based curriculum received by their nondisabled peers.
Additionally, there is disagreement regarding the interpretation of how LRE and inclusion are applied in practice (Crockett, 2014; McLeskey et al., 2012; Williamson et al., 2019). For example, LRE has been described as a placement, on a continuum of options, that provides access for select students to the general education curriculum and that provides opportunities for social interactions with peers (McLeskey et al., 2012). Others have insisted that LRE is an all-or-nothing proposition where all children, no matter the severity of their disability or intensity of educational needs, should be placed in general education classrooms (Wehmeyer et al., 2016). Furthermore, IDEA (2004) provides little guidance on a precise definition of LRE and, thus, inclusion. For the purposes of this article, inclusion will be defined as a model where students are educated in general education settings with full access to the general education curriculum while receiving all necessary support for learning and socialization.
Historically, evolving inclusionary practices have resulted from both case law and federal mandates. Right-to-education cases in the 1970s underscored the assumption that students with disabilities should learn together with their nondisabled peers (Crockett, 2014). Consequently, EAHCA (1975) mandated that students with disabilities must receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, a mandate that was again supported in IDEA (2004). Most recently, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) strengthened the LRE requisite by mandating that students with disabilities have access to the same achievement standards as their non-disabled peers. As a result of these mandates, there has been a successive increase in the implementation of the LRE requirement for students with disabilities (Williamson et al., 2019) causing schools and districts to experience additional pressure to improve inclusionary practices.
Yet, rural schools and districts may not be fully equipped to increase inclusionary practices as they face additional obstacles to inclusion that may not be present in more urban districts (Collins & Ludlow, 2018). For example, rural districts often have a higher percentage of teachers with no previous experience (Miller, 2012). Additionally, Miller (2012) reports that rural districts have a higher percentage of experienced teachers that transfer to more urban school districts as a result of geographic and professional isolation, lower salaries, and higher poverty rates.
Two trends have recently been observed that may soon affect the ability of rural schools to fully support inclusionary practices for their students. A reverse in the declining trend in rural population and a reduction in rural poverty rates have recently been observed (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2018). In short, rural populations are experiencing an upturn as a result of increasing rates of migration to rural communities rather than families leaving rural areas for more urban settings. These trends in increasing population and reduced poverty can eventually translate into increasing student populations, which may add additional pressure to rural schools whose resources are often limited (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Consequently, uniquely rural issues coupled with pressure to increase inclusion have caused some rural school districts to reach out for support for increasing inclusion.
In this article, I describe a technical assistance arrangement between a local university in the western United States and a rural educational service agency (ESA). An ESA functions as a regional organization that includes several rural school districts. The ESA may support member school districts as an entity that provides a broad range of services and programs to member districts. For instance, school districts may find advantages through pooled resources that result in cost savings and cost-effectiveness for services and programs such as special education support, technology support, data management, grant management, and a range of other areas that may be cost prohibitive for small rural districts to manage or fund individually. ESAs have been established in 45 states that include a total of 553 agencies nationwide (Association of Educational Service Agencies, 2021). There are 21 ESAs in the state described in this article. The specifically described ESA consists of 14 rural school districts. For the purposes of this article, technical assistance is described as the collaboration between a university and an ESA that utilized the expertise of university personnel to attempt to positively affect change in areas that were a concern for the ESA.
Developing Momentum
As inclusion rates have been increasing nationwide (Hussar et al., 2020), additional emphasis on including students with disabilities in general education has filtered down to state departments of education and finally to districts and schools. As the current project was being conceptualized, ESA personnel shared that the state department of education office of special education had recently decided that inclusion for students with disabilities needed to be increased statewide. Only a small amount of progress toward increasing inclusion in the ESA had been accomplished over prior years, and ESA personnel felt that collaborating with the largest teacher preparation university in the state would be the most appropriate partner for achieving the inclusion changes being requested by the state. After several meetings between the university and ESA personnel, a decision was made: The inclusion rate would be measured by the recommended placement in the LRE statement on each child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). This IEP statement provides percentage options for inclusion in general education settings of (a) at least 80%, (b) 40% to 79%, (c) less than 40%, and other more restrictive settings. Initially, the inclusion rate for the ESA was 67%. In other words, 67% of students with disabilities were placed in general education settings at least 80% of the time.
Initial meetings between university faculty and ESA leadership established the plan for increasing inclusion in the ESA. Prior to collaborating with the university, leadership in the ESA had decided that their inclusion goal would be that 80% of students with disabilities would be included in general education classrooms with access to the general education curriculum for 80% or more of the school day within 3 years. For purposes of communicating and promoting change in the ESA, the overall objective was referred to as the 80/80/3 goal. This goal fell within accepted implementation literature which has identified that implementation processes generally take from 2 to 4 years to complete (National Implementation Research Network [NIRN], 2016). The goal was jointly accepted, and plans were developed to collaborate with the ESA to help initialize the changes required to realize their 80/80/3 goal.
Based on planning meetings with ESA personnel, several target objectives were identified for supporting the 80/80/3 goal for students with disabilities. The objectives included to
provide students with disabilities increased access to the general education curriculum;
provide quality education rather than just access to general education classes (e.g., participation and engagement);
support social justice, ensuring the rights of students with disabilities are upheld and supported alongside the rights of general education students;
reduce exclusionary practices (e.g., suspension and expulsion); and
improve summative outcomes for all students
These objectives would be the guiding tenets for achieving the 80/80/3 goal. However, initial steps still needed to be identified.
Formalizing Actions
A decision also was made that several steps needed to take place to formalize the actions needed to achieve the overall goal. Three guidance tools, collaboratively developed with the ESA, included a Conceptual Framework, a Logic Model, and a Project Sequence Model (Lammert et al., 2013).
Conceptual Framework
A Conceptual Framework was developed to articulate the steps necessary to effect the systemic changes required to accomplish the 80/80/3 goal (see Figure 1). A Conceptual Framework is an initial guidance tool that formalizes the expected project outcomes based on implementing specified steps. For this project, steps included (a) the need for stakeholder buy-in, (b) the need for professional development, and (c) collaboration between the university and the ESA.
Conceptual framework.
Logic Model
To further aid in developing a vision for achieving the 80/80/3 goal a Logic Model was developed (see Figure 2). The Logic Model included guidance for four major areas: (a) resources and inputs, (b) activities, (c) outcomes, and (d) impacts. One of the most important reasons for developing the Logic Model was to help university and ESA personnel identify their specific roles in the process. University roles included supporting ways to communicate the vision and goal of the project to superintendents, principals, general educators, and special educators. University personnel also agreed to provide technical assistance in the form of data collection and analysis. Consultation was also provided to the ESA to steer the project and identify structural and functional change opportunities (e.g., policies, scheduling, resource allocation, and personnel roles) within schools.
Logic model.
Project Sequence Model
To accomplish the 80/80/3 goal, systemic change was deemed necessary. University and ESA personnel decided that a more formal process was necessary to move forward. The NIRN (2016) has described a process for establishing meaningful changes in programs and systems through executing and evaluating implementation practices. Implementation science is a relatively new field of study that is based on the notion that meaningful and systemic changes are brought about through intentional research-based actions (Fixsen et al., 2005). Bringing about systemic change is a multifaceted process that includes specific recursive stages that can guide implementation efforts (Metz & Bartley, 2012). The implementation process for systemic change also requires unique elements to sustain desired changes. Yet, sustainability is not a final stage; rather, the elements to sustain are embedded within the stages through full implementation (Metz & Bartley, 2012; NIRN, 2016). Note that stages of implementation may overlap as one stage may still be in process as another stage is introduced (i.e., activities from one stage may not be completed before the next stage is implemented; Metz & Bartley, 2012).
One of the last stages, Full Implementation, occurs when new processes and procedures have become standard practices. Stakeholders identify their strengths while learning from their mistakes. Evaluation plays an essential role in this stage as the fidelity of implementation is examined and adjustments are made using data-based decisions (Fixsen et al., 2018). The final stages of the implementation process include innovation and sustainability.
To conceptualize and guide the project implementation for the ESA, a graphic model was developed (see Figure 3). The Project Sequence Model identified four major stages: Exploration, Installation, Initial Implementation, and Full Implementation (NIRN, 2016). Sub-steps for each major implementation stage are also identified in the model. We now describe action steps taken during the Exploration, Installation, and Initial Implementation stages.
Project sequence model.
Project Stages
Exploration Stage
Exploration was the first implementation stage. The purpose of this stage is to examine the goodness of fit for stakeholders (NIRN, 2016). Essentially, exploration includes assessing whether potential changes meet the needs of stakeholders and whether implementation is ultimately feasible. The goals of the Exploration stage for the ESA included identifying the need for change, examining the changes necessary to meet the need, and deciding to move forward to the next stage of implementation (Fixsen et al., 2018; Metz & Bartley, 2012).
During the Exploration stage for the ESA, data were gathered from stakeholders to assess their perceptions of inclusion in their schools and districts. Data were also gathered relative to special and general educator buy-in relative to the 80/80/3 goal. Assessment at this stage took a more global view to further understand areas of support and resistance for the goal. Data were collected from district superintendents, school administrators, special education teachers, and general education teachers.
The Conceptual Framework, Logic Model, and Project Sequence Model (Lammert et al., 2013) provided guidance for implementing the plans to achieve the 80/80/3 goal for the schools and districts within the ESA. The following sections provide a more focused view of the steps that were taken and data that informed the stages of the project.
Data collection
Data collection was implemented in several modalities, including surveys of both special education and general education teachers, focus groups, and interviews. Providing different input modalities allowed for a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions and feelings. Learning more about perceptions and feelings relative to increasing inclusion at schools provided guidance as the project progressed.
Special educator survey
A paper questionnaire was distributed to all district representatives at an annual regional ESA meeting. The special educator survey and focus group provided data allowing for better insight into their perceptions regarding inclusion in their schools. Fifty-five (81%) of the 68 special education teachers working in the ESA participated in a survey to help guide the work toward achieving the 80/80/3 goal. Two analyses were completed, a statistical analysis of the quantitative questions and a thematic qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions. The full results of these analyses are beyond the scope of this article, but a summary will be provided. The intention of this article is to describe an overview of the data results and how the results guided the ESA and the researcher in supporting teachers and administrators toward increasing inclusion and achieving the 80/80/3 goal.
Survey quantitative indicators
The quantitative survey results indicated that special educators felt most strongly that inclusion was a good idea that provided students with opportunities to develop friendships with typically developing peers, to have better role models, and to receive a better education in general education classrooms. Yet, special educators did not feel that all children should be included in the general education classroom for the entire school day.
Quantitative results also indicated that special education teachers were concerned they did not have adequate time to effectively implement inclusion. Special educators also indicated that they needed extra support and resources to implement inclusion successfully.
The majority of special educators reported highly concerned about three other major topics. Their survey responses indicated that most special educators felt that general education teachers did not genuinely support the idea of inclusion. Special educators’ responses also strongly indicated that paraprofessionals and general educators needed additional training and professional development to work in inclusive classrooms. Special educators also shared that inclusion in their school was not a result of stakeholder input.
Survey qualitative indicators
Three open-ended questions provided qualitative data responses. Some of the open-ended responses were quite informative. Question 1 asked respondents about their feelings about the supports available for inclusion at their school. Thematic analysis of the data was completed following the guidelines provided by Miles et al. (2014). The results revealed four themes for supports: Collaboration (communication, teams, professional relationships), Support (administrative support, ESA support, principal support), Paraeducators (availability, support in classes), and Training (for general educators).
The second query resulted in respondents’ impressions of the obstacles to inclusion that exist at their school. Four themes were identified: Training (need for), Time (for collaboration, planning, co-teaching, student schedules), Attitudes (general educators’ negative attitudes toward inclusion), and Administrative Support.
Question 3 queried what needs to happen before inclusion can be increased at their school. Four themes emerged: Training (for general educators and paraprofessionals), Administrative Support (changing expectations, time, scheduling, resources), Team Approach (relationship building, collaboration), and Culture Shift (not “yours” and “mine” but ours, attitude toward students with disabilities, buy-in from stakeholders [especially administration]). These data were used to guide decisions for stakeholder professional development topics and improve buy-in from stakeholders.
Special educator focus group
A special educator focus group was also conducted with 14 teachers from across the ESA. Ten questions were asked that addressed the climate of inclusion in participants’ schools. Similar responses to the survey open-ended questions indicated that general educators had substantial concerns regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Special educators elaborated on their perceptions of general educators’ viewpoints when they provided these statements: There is so much concern [from general educators] about the testing; They say, if these kids are in here [general education classroom] distracting us for even a minute from our goal of getting everybody’s test score up; just get them out of here.
“They [general educators] don’t see us [special educators] as a resource”; “We have a huge number of paras, but they’re not trained”; “We are not allowed to collaborate; they [general educators] go off in their cores and we are off as the sped group”; “everyone has to be on the same page; mutual understanding; not always in agreement, but able to understand where we are all coming from.”
General educator survey
A general educator survey was also distributed. Note that the questionnaire was the same for both special educators and general educators; however, the general educator survey was distributed both electronically and with a paper copy as there was not an ESA-wide meeting in which to distribute the questionnaire. The ESA sent an internet link to superintendents with hopes of having it distributed electronically to principals and ultimately to the 1,600 general educators in ESA school districts. We were unable to document the total number of email survey requests sent by principals. It is likely that very few of the ESA general educators received an email request to participate in the survey. As a result, only 11 general educators responded to the electronic survey. The survey was also given to 18 general educators at a professional development meeting who completed a paper copy of the questionnaire. The survey had a low response rate totaling 27 respondents. We believe that this low response rate was based on our need to rely on the superintendents and principals to distribute the survey. In contrast, the special education survey yielded more responses as it was distributed at an annual meeting for ESA special educators. As a result of the low participation rate of general educators, comparison of survey results from special educators and general educators is substantially limited.
Survey quantitative indicators
The survey results indicated that general educators who responded to the survey did not feel as positively (59.2%) that inclusion is a good idea when compared with special educators (91.0%). It should be noted that general educators responded more positively (25.9%) than special educators (14.5%) when asked if they felt that students with disabilities would receive a better education in the special education classroom. General educators (59.2%) showed differences from their special education colleagues (92.7%) regarding the potential for developing friendships with nondisabled peers. General educators indicated that they were less confident that friendships with nondisabled peers would result from increased inclusion. Additionally, general educators (51.8%) did not feel as strongly as special educators (96.4%) that they needed the training to work with students with disabilities.
Survey qualitative indicators
Three open-ended questions were included in the general educator survey. The first open-ended question asked respondents about their feelings related to the supports available for inclusion at their school. A thematic analysis was also performed on these data (Miles et al., 2014). Three themes emerged related to current supports available in their schools. The available supports included a resource room, paraeducator support, and teachers. The second open-ended question asked respondents to state their impressions of the obstacles to inclusion that exist at their school. According to the results of Question 2 regarding obstacles, general educators indicated that there is a distinct need for training and professional development. Additionally, they feel that there is a lack of personnel and staff to support inclusive classrooms in their schools. General educators also mentioned that the attitudes of special educators were an obstacle to inclusion; little collaboration exists between special and general educators. Resources, including time and funding, were also a distinct theme. The third open-ended question queried what needs to happen before inclusion can be increased. Response themes indicated that needs included more special educators and paraprofessionals, more professional development, a team approach, and changes to funding for schools.
Principal focus group
A group of three principals also participated in a focus group discussion. These data are less representative than other data collected because of the number of participants; however, these data are impactful. Principals indicated that they were working diligently toward increasing inclusion at their schools. They indicated that supports included paraprofessionals and access to general education curriculum classes for students with disabilities. They indicated that obstacles to inclusion include: “acceptance of inclusion by general education teachers, especially in the case of disruptive students”; “time for planning”; and “small town privacy, in other words what happens at the school is told to friends and relatives.” One issue stated regarding “small town privacy” revolved around inclusive classes where children receiving special education services and special educators were present. For instance, principals each shared that some parents in their schools felt that their nondisabled children should not be taught by special educators. Yet, principals also indicated that they felt that co-teaching is an important model for improving and implementing inclusion. Additionally, principals agreed that changing the mindset of general educators through empowerment is helpful. Principals also stated that professional learning communities (PLCs) may be helpful for improving acceptance of greater inclusion. PLCs have been defined as “a group of professionals working collaboratively towards a shared purpose of improvement in instruction and student learning through dialogue” (Doğan & Adams, 2018, p. 636). One principal stated that “training and a change in the mindset is important for changing expectations.” The principals clearly recognized the importance of training and professional development for teachers and paraeducators.
Data analysis summary
Several potential change areas were identified that corresponded to three major questions from the general and special educator surveys: (a) What supports for inclusion are available at your school? (b) What obstacles for inclusion exist at your school? and (c) What needs to happen before inclusion can be increased at your school? According to the data, supports in place for inclusive practices were some administrative support, some collaboration between special and general educators, some paraprofessionals were available for classroom support, and some, but not enough, professional development trainings were available. Room for improvement was indicated for each of these areas of concern.
Obstacles to inclusion were identified as the need for training opportunities for general educators and paraprofessionals relative to inclusion and supporting students with disabilities, time and scheduling for inclusive classes, attitudes of general educators toward increasing inclusion, negative perceptions of special educators toward placing their students in general education classes, and administration support for increasing inclusion.
Several approaches need to change to increase inclusion. A major theme that was consistently mentioned was a culture shift. The culture shift described was multifaceted and included building better relationships between special and general educators for improving rapport, trust, and collaboration. Changing the school culture to more of a team-driven approach was also important to teachers for increasing inclusion. As expected, time and funding were also mentioned as resource areas that were lacking.
Yet, not all teachers were convinced that inclusion for at least 80% of the school day was best for students with disabilities. More general educators (39.81%) indicated that they believed all children should be included in general education classes for at least 80% of the school day when compared with responses from special educators (37.60%). While not all special educators agreed, most supported (86.21%) increasing the percentage of inclusion time at their schools.
Overall, data collected were important for identifying structural and functional change opportunities (e.g., policies, schedules, re-allocation, roles, etc.) and informing support opportunities. Support was frequently mentioned in all data sources, yet usage of the term support was not consistent across respondents. A greater understanding of what teachers mean by support is important for meeting their expectations and needs. Data also informed the need for additional training for special educators, general educators, and paraeducators.
Installation Stage
The Installation Stage involves initiating practical steps and pathways to success. Initial objectives are established while potential roadblocks and limitations are examined. Steps for data collection and implementation procedures should be developed and refined. Resources, both financial and human, must be identified (NIRN, 2016). In fact, developing practitioner competence is an essential element for implementing change with fidelity (Metz & Bartley, 2012).
During the Installation Stage, structural and functional change areas were identified that were deemed necessary for reaching the 80/80/3 goal. Specifically, data indicate that support for developing school schedules to accommodate opportunities for co-teaching was necessary.
Based on data collection and analysis, university and ESA personnel decided to focus initial efforts on five of the 14 schools in the ESA that were identified with the lowest inclusion percentages. This decision allowed the most efficient means for affecting change in inclusion levels. The decision to target only five schools was also based on the ruralness of the schools. These schools were in districts classified by the state Department of Education as rural.
Additional data analysis facilitated identifying target areas of need that could be addressed to further increase stakeholder buy-in. Major areas of need identified included increasing educator awareness of the benefits of inclusive education, promoting co-teaching opportunities, training administrators on effective scheduling for co-teaching, blocking out planning time for co-teacher planning, and ongoing training to insure implementation fidelity at the school, district, and the ESA levels.
Professional development related to the 80/80/3 goal was provided at ESA-wide training during which the goal was introduced to general and special educators. Additionally, these stakeholders participated in interactive sessions that included opportunities for investigation, conversation, and collaboration related to developing a clearer concept of inclusion and how the 80/80/3 goal could be successfully attained. Targeted needs areas were identified that included additional teacher training for both special and general educators relative to inclusion. Schedules for meeting with school administrators were also established to allow for additional ESA support.
Initial Implementation Stage
Next, the Initial Implementation Stage was enacted. During this stage, it is essential to identify opportunities where goals could be most efficiently realized through targeted efforts (Fixsen et al., 2018). Action should be taken to develop and implement initiatives necessary to achieve identified goals.
After data were collected and analyzed, three initial steps took place. First, it was necessary to determine what areas of concern could be affected. What was possible given that the ESA had no direct authority over districts or schools? Three areas of concern were identified for additional focus: teacher training, collaboration, and support.
Second, areas of concern that could be affected by the efforts of ESA and university personnel needed to be prioritized. Training in the form of additional professional development was identified as the priority. Second was the area of collaboration, and the third priority was to demonstrate and provide greater levels of administrative support for increasing inclusion.
Finally, a plan was developed to address the areas of concern that it was believed could be affected. Of greatest concern was the need indicated for additional professional development for both general and special educators. As a result, a series of professional development topics were identified that would be delivered over the course of the next school year. Collaboration was also a main concern for both general and special educators.
The possibility of paraprofessional training was also discussed. However, there were several obstacles that resulted in a decision to defer paraprofessional training to a later time. The primary obstacle that postponed paraprofessional training was the lack of funding for after-school salaries. In other words, paraprofessionals could not be asked to stay after school for training without providing remuneration, and funds for this purpose were not generally available.
Educator training
Training and coaching were essential features during the Implementation Stage. A series of professional development sessions were delivered to special and general educators in target schools. Teacher participants in each school ranged from 11 teachers to more than 30 depending on the size of the staff. Ongoing and future training needs were also identified and provided. Training topics were informed by the surveys and focus groups. Topics were chosen for the opportunities to fill in knowledge gaps or gaps in understanding about inclusive education.
Trainings for general educators were provided at school-level professional development trainings. Most of the trainings included both general educators and special educators. Three main foci were identified for the training. The first focus was to provide general educators with deeper insights into the special education process and their roles in service delivery for children with disabilities. In other words, What might inclusion look like for me and my students? This portion of the meetings allowed teachers to spend time spend time reflecting on topics such as why many teachers refer to different students and student groups as “my students” and “your students.” Conversations between the general and special educators helped them to rationalize that students in their school were all “their students.” The second focus during professional development meetings was on providing overviews of laws that govern special education and some of the requirements of the law relative to their roles in teaching children with disabilities. This set of professional development trainings was designed to help general educators have a better understanding of their roles in delivering special education services within the framework of current legislation. Special educators found the second section of the meeting to be an important review of the laws under which they serve students with disabilities. The third focus of the professional development sessions was on some of the rationales for inclusion for all students based on evidence in the literature (e.g., Choi et al., 2017; Cosier et al., 2018; Lombardi et al., 2013; Sermier Dessemontet & Bless, 2013). This third series of trainings helped make connections for educators by demonstrating the benefits of inclusion for all students, not just those receiving special education services.
In collaboration with university personnel, ESA personnel developed a coaching protocol. The protocol consisted of a walkthrough form to provide feedback for teachers who were co-teaching. Coaching was provided by ESA personnel. General educator and special educator dyads received coaching from ESA personnel through a series of classroom observations during classroom instruction. Teachers from each teacher group indicated that the coaching process helped them more fully understand their co-teaching roles and how they could work more collaboratively together.
Collaboration opportunities
One issue that became evident through the analysis of the data was a need for a substantial culture shift in schools regarding the roles of special and general educators in serving students with disabilities. Time was spent with educators to work on building greater rapport, trust, and willingness for collaboration. Some general educators were, in fact, surprised to know that special educators could be seen as support resources for questions and issues related to supporting students receiving special education services. Initially, general educators were reluctant to use special educators as resources. Yet, when they were made aware of support that was available for them, general educators shared that they planned to include special educators in more of their decision-making and discussions.
A concern that kept arising was the fact that teachers frequently used the same language to describe their relationship with students in their schools. Some of the students are “mine” and other students are “yours.” Yet, the vernacular used was not the actual issue. Teachers fully believed that they had exclusivity relative to the students they served. General educators felt that students without disabilities were theirs as fervently as special educators felt that students with disabilities were their own. Special educators were often very protective of students receiving special education services and often indicated that they were concerned about letting their students increase their own autonomy. In fact, some special educators expressed that they were fearful about students needing them when the special educators were not in the classroom with them for support. Eventually, helping teachers become more comfortable with the concept that both general and special educators shared responsibility for all students in the school in providing a path to improving inclusion opportunities for students with disabilities.
To further address the need for increasing collaboration between general and special educators, PLCs were established at five target schools that had been identified as having the most potential for improving their inclusionary practices. Each PLC met monthly or when the assistant director of special education at the ESA was free to drive to the participating schools. As with most rural settings, proximity often plays a substantial role in timing and access. PLCs at some of the furthest schools from the ESA office met less frequently.
Administrative support
Administrators’ buy-in was essential for advancing the 80/80/3 goal at the five schools identified for initially increasing inclusion in the ESA. Both general and special educators provided feedback that supports from administrators would be essential for achieving the goal. Subsequently, administrators were included in meetings, trainings, and teacher professional development trainings. For example, one school principal used the information from a professional development session with a scheduling topic to build consensus between teachers. A proposed schedule was created on a large whiteboard. This schedule was shared at a teacher meeting and input was solicited. The initial presentation of the proposed schedule was met with a degree of measured resistance from the teachers. Yet, when the principal asked for feedback and suggestions, the mood shifted. Nearly every teacher provided specific input related to schedule improvements that maintained the integrity of the schedule while adjusting for individual teacher schedules. By the end of the meeting, a working schedule had been created by all stakeholders. ESA and university personnel present at the meeting noted that the attitudes and demeanors of the teachers regarding increasing inclusion and co-teaching had substantially improved.
Collaboration at PLCs also included school administrators. ESA personnel made sure that school administrators were included in PLC meetings whenever possible. One teacher made an important point regarding collaboration and school administrators. She said, “Collaboration wasn’t even a discussion until ESA invited our principal to our PLCs. When our principal started going to those PLCs, it started becoming special; so, I feel like we are starting to get somewhere.”
Educator accountability
Accountability and testing were areas of great concern, especially to general educators. State legislators and the state department of education placed a strong emphasis on measuring student progress through annual standardized testing. Legislation requiring that a full 50% of educator evaluations and 50% of principal evaluations be based on the progress of their students was enacted in 2010 and fully implemented in 2015 (Colorado Senate Bill 10-191, 2010). As a result, general educators stated in professional development trainings that they were concerned about including students with disabilities in their classes whose progress might be less than students without disabilities. In other words, general educators were concerned that lower standardized assessment performances of students receiving special education services placed in their classes would negatively impact their own professional evaluations. This topic was addressed directly in professional development trainings from the perspective that students who were struggling could show greater progress than some students who already had a firm grasp on the content and were already receiving higher test scores. Yet, accountability and testing concerns were areas in which ESA and university personnel felt that there was not much progress made overall. General educators shared that they remained concerned about assessment scores on their annual evaluations.
Progress on the 80/80/3 Goal
Recall that the technical assistance support provided by university personnel was intended to help the ESA achieve their goal of increasing inclusion and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities to 80% of the school day for 80% of students over 3 years. Thus, the 80/80/3 goal was conceptualized. See the Project Sequence Model in Figure 3 for a detailed sequence of the project steps.
What Worked?
A number of elements contributed to the improvement in the inclusion of students receiving special education services in general education classrooms. The professional development sessions introduced a distinct set of advantages for all students that the educators had not previously realized. Educators were able to see that children with disabilities belonged in general education classrooms for most of the day, not only because it is mandated by law, but because children generally learn better together rather than separated into groups defined by labels (e.g., Barrett et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2017; Szumski et al., 2017). Additionally, through the professional development trainings and spending additional time with special educators, many general educators came to see their special education colleagues as a professional resource. General educators expressed to university and ESA personnel that they discovered that their special education counterparts were valuable assets for supporting all students across the spectrum of student abilities.
Progress toward the 80/80/3 goal was also attributed to another factor. Embedded within the professional development sessions was a key concept that resonated with special educators and seemed to make a substantial contribution toward the attainment of the 80/80/3 goal. The concept was simple, yet powerful. Educators were asked to consider a very modest adjustment in how they developed the Recommended Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment and Educational Environment sections of the IEP. Rather than relying on the placement option used for the prior IEP, the team needed to consider a placement in general education class at least 80% of the time as a first option. This small change in procedure seemed to help change the mindset of team members who crafted student IEPs. Special educators on the IEP team had been in a habit of simply reusing the Recommended Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment and Educational Environment sections of the IEP so that if a child had been recommended for placement in general education classes for 40% to 79% of the time on the prior IEP, the recommendation did not often change. Students continued to be recommended at the 40% to 79% level of inclusion year after year. The professional development trainings emphasized a very simple, yet critical, point. In every case, the LRE option for placement in general education class for at least 80% of the time should always be the first choice. More restrictive placement choices needed to be fully and completely justified by data and IEP team recommendations.
School administrators’ buy-in was also an important contributing factor to the improvement in the inclusivity throughout the ESA. Much of the support from administrators came as a result of attending the PLC meetings while interacting with ESA personnel and both special and general educators. Eventually, school administrators began inviting university and ESA to their schools to provide additional professional development training and technical assistance. An example of technical assistance would be providing guidance and support for developing school schedules that allowed special and general educator schedules to coincide more smoothly while allowing students with disabilities to participate in general education classrooms to the greatest degree possible.
Essentially, stakeholder buy-in from general educators, special educators, and school administrators was the largest influence on gaining ground toward achieving the 80/80/3 goal. Each stakeholder group needed to grapple with their own specific issues for changing the percentage of students with disabilities served in general education classrooms.
What Else Changed?
We took a more focused approach toward achieving the 80/80/3 goal in the third school year. Essentially, we worked more closely with individual schools that either requested or required support for improving inclusion in their school. We also found that, as acceptance of improving inclusion grew, there was an increased interest in co-teaching as reflected in requests for additional consulting and professional development meetings with the principals and teachers at individual schools. One district requested direct technical assistance from university personnel to help guide their implementation of increased inclusion coupled with creating a co-teaching model developed to meet the specific needs of their schools. The school principal in the district reported he directly attributed their 20% increase in overall state test scores to receiving additional consultation on increasing inclusion and implementing an effective co-teaching model in the school. Additionally, the ESA hired an inclusion coach. The duties of the inclusion coach were to interact on a more consistent basis with schools to more fully support the implementation of co-teaching and related areas. The inclusion coach utilized a consultative model where input was provided to schools at least monthly and as needed when requested.
What Still Needs Improvement?
Creating systemic change is an ongoing challenge. Stakeholders must clearly understand the benefits of implementing increased levels of inclusion (Fixsen et al., 2018). Elements that affect inclusion levels can shift suddenly. For example, personnel changes can have a large impact on how inclusion is implemented at the school level. School administrator turnover can fully change the goals of a given school (Bartanen et al., 2019; Henry & Redding, 2020). New school administrators’ understanding of the challenges and benefits of inclusion may differ greatly from those of their predecessors. Additionally, new stakeholders as a result of teacher turnover may substantially affect the willingness of colleagues to collaborate as new teachers may have not been provided with the background knowledge needed to have full buy-in to increase levels of inclusion. If co-teaching has been implemented in a school, teacher turnover may directly affect the effectiveness of co-teaching teams in inclusive classrooms. Each co-teaching dyad needs time working together to fully understand how to best collaborate in their teaching efforts.
In essence, initial professional development is necessary to build consensus for making change, but ongoing professional development is necessary for maintaining stakeholder buy-in and systemic change. Additionally, ongoing data collection should be part of a feedback loop that provides administrators and teachers with evidence of the impacts of inclusive education in their schools. Maintaining the data collection feedback loop can also be difficult if a school experiences turnover of either administrators or teachers (Tran, 2017).
One of the initial project objectives included examining changes in exclusionary practices for students with disabilities as a result of increasing inclusion. Members of the ESA and university team decided that the topic was beyond the scope of the 80/80/3 initiative and that changes in exclusionary practices could be reviewed at a later time. Exclusionary practices include out-of-school or in-school suspension and expulsion. Current literature indicates that students with disabilities are more likely to be subjected to exclusionary practices (e.g., Bal et al., 2019; Gage et al., 2019; Krezmien et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2014). Moreover, students with disabilities are more likely to have negative impacts on their educational progress as a result of exclusionary practices (e.g., Anderson, 2020; Anderson et al., 2019; Lacoe & Steinberg, 2019; Noltemeyer et al., 2015). More information is needed on how increasing the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings may affect exclusionary practices.
Conclusion
The percentage of students with disabilities included in general education settings has increased in recent years in the United States (Hussar et al., 2020). Efforts at the local level, including rural areas, have helped drive national changes in inclusion levels. This article examined the focused collaborative efforts of a rural ESA and a local university to improve the inclusion rate for ESA schools. Positive change was realized over the 3 years of project implementation. The ESA schools have made substantial progress toward their 80/80/3 goal since the implementation of the technical assistance project. Initially, the ESA inclusion rate was found to be 67%. After the collaborative efforts of the ESA and the local university were implemented, the inclusion rate for the ESA rose to nearly 77%. These results surpassed the inclusion rate for the United States, which is currently at 63%. Note that the inclusion rate described in this article relates to the five schools that were the focus of the initial implementation plan. While the full 80/80/3 goal was not realized, we felt that the progress that was made toward achieving the goal was substantial and important.
Five objectives were identified by the ESA and university personnel team. Two objectives included providing students with disabilities increased access to general education curriculum and providing quality education rather than just access to general education classes (e.g., participation, engagement, etc.). These objectives were partially met through progress made toward achieving the 80/80/3 goal and classroom observations made using the coaching protocol. The coaching protocol provided a feedback loop in which general and special educator co-teachers were provided explicit feedback from ESA personnel. Observers found that co-teaching dyads were increasingly working together to provide more better access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities while increasing engagement in the learning process for all students. The third objective, supporting social justice while ensuring the rights of students with disabilities are upheld and supported alongside the rights of general education students, was partially met. While it became clear through anecdotal observations that social justice for students with disabilities was being encouraged through a more equitable approach to educating all students, specific data were not collected or reported during the period of this project. ESA personnel also expected that the fourth objective, reduced exclusionary practices (e.g., suspension, expulsion), would be a byproduct of increasing inclusion for students with disabilities in the target schools. However, a direct correlation between improving inclusionary practices was not observed. The final objective, improving summative outcomes for all students, was partially reached. Three of the five target schools in the ESA showed improved scores on state standardized assessments. The scores improved incrementally by 3% and 4.6% for overall assessment scores.
Perhaps one of the most important outcomes of the collaboration between the ESA and university personnel was the opportunity to make lasting changes for both students and teachers. It was felt by project members that the most positive and sustainable change was shifting the mindset of IEP team members to consider the 80% LRE option on the IEP as the first choice in all circumstances. More restrictive LRE placements must be fully supported by student data. This mindset shift was made possible through professional development and coaching provided through this project.
Opportunities for change during this project were realized through a multifaceted collaborative approach for improving inclusion rates and access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Yet, continued support is necessary to continue to grow the inclusion percentage while improving the outcomes for all children.
NOTE: Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light issues that may present major setbacks in maintaining the inclusion progress that has been accomplished both nationwide and as a result of the collaboration between the ESA and university personnel. Many rural families do not have access to or cannot afford reliable internet services, thus affecting the ability of students to participate in online instruction (Kormos, 2018). Major questions have arisen around how special education services can be provided through online teaching. What services can be reasonably provided? How are service hours tracked? How can annual and triennial evaluations be completed? These are just a small sample of the potential issues and questions that have most recently affected how students are taught and assessed. Applying an approach to increasing inclusion, as described in this article, may benefit students with disabilities by increasing the time that they spend in inclusive settings with access to the general education curriculum, especially during unique situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The approach described here formalizes the process for including stakeholders while keeping in mind the needs of individual students. As we move forward toward providing inclusive opportunities for more students, we need to keep in mind that progress can be fleeting if not supported at all levels by policymakers, administrators, general educators, and special educators.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
