University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

(USC Thesis Other)

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTER’S CHANGE MODEL 1
USE OF KOTTER’S CHANGE MODEL BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
IN THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN K-6 ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

by

Maricecy Hernandez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Maricecy Hernandez

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my niece, Jaymee Emma
Hernandez. You are the reason I have committed my career to inclusive education. The
memory of you fuels my passion for helping all students gain equal access to an inclusive
education and a better quality of life.
I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my son, my husband, my parents and
extended family. Your encouragement throughout this process has been invaluable. I
want to thank you for your love and support throughout the doctoral program.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 3

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita.
Thank you for your support and guidance throughout the doctoral program. A special
thanks to Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Mike Escalante for serving on my dissertation
committee and for their continuous encouragement.
I would like to thank my USC colleagues for their continued support and
encouragement throughout the doctoral program.
Lastly, I would like to thank the principals who took the time to allow me to
interview them and participated in this study.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 13
Significance of the Study 13
Limitations and Delimitations 14
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Study 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
History of Disabled Person Treatment 16
Eugenics Movement 17
Sterilization and Institutionalization 18
Disability Movement 19
Oppression and Exclusion 21
Disabilities in Schools: Special Education 22
Inclusive Practice 23
Inclusion 24
Benefits of Inclusion 24
Teacher Resistance to Inclusive Education 25
Leadership for Inclusive Education 28
Implementation 29
Change Model 31
Figure 1. Kotter’s eight-step change model 33
Summary 35
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Design 37
Participants and Setting 38
Instrument and Protocol 40
Data Collection Protocols 41
Data Analysis 42
Ethical Considerations 42
Summary 43
Chapter Four: Findings 44
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants 45
Demographics of Participants School Sites 47
Flower Elementary School 48
Rawling Elementary 49
Robinson Elementary 50
Brooke Elementary 51
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 5

Sycamore Elementary 52
Research Questions 53
Purpose of the Study 53
Coding Data 54
Findings from the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey 54
Findings from Interviews 56
Research Question One 56
Research Question Two 64
Research Questions Three 66
Ancillary Findings 68
Analysis 69
Collaboration 70
Training, Experience and Previous Knowledge 71
Short-Term Wins 73
Summary 73
Chapter Five: Conlusion and Implications 74
Purpose of the Study 74
Research Questions 74
Methodology 75
Results and Findings 76
Research Question 1 76
Research Question 2 78
Research Question 3 79
Ancillary Findings 79
Implications of Study 80
Recommendation for Future Research 80
Concluding Remarks 81
References 82
Appendix A: Informed Consent 91
Appendix B: Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey 93
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 95

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Participants 45
Table 2: 2014-2015 Flower Student Enrollment by Group 49
Table 3: 2014-2015 Rawling Student Enrollment by Group 50
Table 4: 2014-2015 Robinson Student Enrollment by Group 51
Table 5: 2014-2015 Brooke Student Enrollment by Group 52
Table 6: 2014-2015 Sycamore Student Enrollment by Group 53
Table 7: Responses to Quality Indicator of and Inclusive Environment Survey 56
Table 8: Principal use of Kotter’s Eight-Step Change Model 64

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 7

Abstract
Implementation of inclusive practice is the responsibility of school site principals.
As school leaders, principals set the tone and expectations of a school’s approach to
curriculum, equity, and inclusion. This places principals in a pivotal role in changing
school climate and shifting special education programs from a special day class to the
general education setting.
This study explored the process used by principals when implementing inclusive
education for students with disabilities. This study specifically looked at the use of
Kotter’s change model in the implementation process in K-6 public elementary schools in
Orange County, California. Results showed that although principals could not identify
the change model used by name, they did identify several of Kotter’s eight steps. This
study validates the need for principals to have prior knowledge, experience and training
in special education to facilitate the implementation of inclusive education. Lastly, this
study identifies the need for formal tools to evaluate these programs’ success.
Recommendations include, further research on principal’s perspective of
implementing education for students with disabilities, a study of special education
courses imbedded in preparation programs in colleges and universities for school
administrators and to expand research o the use of Kotter’s eight step change model in
educational settings. Studying the implementation process may offer information to
principals on how to create supportive environments when implementing inclusive
education to provide equity for all students.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 8

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Students with disabilities have typically received their education in segregated
special day classes. However, the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and new special education legislation brought about change in the
way the education system views and educates students with disabilities. These students
have a legal right to attend regular classes and receive an appropriate education in the
least restrictive environment (IDEA, 2004).
Principal leadership is deemed crucial and the key component to the effectiveness
and successful implementation of inclusive education (Patreese, 1997). This study
specifically focused on the change models utilized by principals to gain teacher buy-in
and support when implementing an inclusion program. In the literature, inclusion is
defined in many ways. For the purpose of this study, inclusion is defined by Idol (1997)
“as a student with special learning and or behavioral needs is educated full time in the
general education program” (p. 4). Inclusive schools are defined as “schools where all
students are educated in general education programs” (Idol, 1997, p. 4).
Background of the Problem
The educational problem addressed in this study is the importance of principal
leadership and how it affects implementation of an inclusive education program in K-6
settings. This problem is important to address because the National Education
Association reports that in the last 10 years, there has been a 30% increase in the number
of special education students. As the number of students diagnosed with a disability
increases the need for inclusive education becomes more important in order to meet the
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 9

least restrictive environment in IDEA reauthorized in 2004 (California Department of
Education, 2009).
Students with disabilities have received the majority of their educational services
in a separate special day class (SDC) or school for decades (Hamre-Nietupski, Dvorsky,
& McKee, 1999). It is only in the past 40 years that the idea of inclusion became relevant.
Legislation such as PL 94-142 and IDEA changed the lives of all children with
disabilities in that it enabled them to attend and be integrated into public school and made
segregation or exclusion based on ability is no longer acceptable (Silverstein, 2000).
Although the passage of these laws increased the opportunities for education and rights of
people with special needs, they do not mandate that students with disabilities be placed in
general education; they only encourages consideration or appropriate placement in a
general education setting (Wolfe & Hall, 2003).
Legislation alone cannot nurture the systematic social transformations needed to
disrupt the dominant narratives of exclusion and separation. These narratives continue to
place people with disabilities as outsiders and in segregated homogenous classrooms (Do
& Geist, 2000). The problem with self-contained special education is that students with
moderate to severe disabilities will not learn, in segregated settings, how to function in a
non-disabled world (Shapiro, 1999), setting them up for failure or to rely on the help of
others.
It is noted that people with disabilities of working age remain less likely to be
employed and more likely to live in poverty than able-bodied individuals (Harter, Scott,
Novak, Leeman, & Morris, 2006). The National Association of State Boards of Education
(1992) reported that only 13.4% of youth with disabilities live independently after
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 10

leaving high school. Less than half of all youth with disabilities are employed after
having been out of school one to two years. In fact, once students with moderate to severe
disabilities leave school, they are more likely to be excluded from further education,
employment or training (Salt, 2010).
The principle of inclusion itself is not disputed (Norwich, 2007); the problem is
its implementation. Problems such as teacher training, perception and acceptance need to
be addressed to successfully support students with disabilities in inclusive environments.
Lack of inclusion opportunities further marginalizes them by keeping them segregated in
self-contained classrooms. This thinking focuses on the deficits within the students rather
than within the learning environment, leading to low expectations (Ho, 2004).
Although research provides evidence to support positive outcomes of inclusive
education for both students with disabilities and their typically developing peers there
continues to be resistance. This demonstrates that the problem is not with any of the
students, but with educators, administrators, educational systems and society as a whole.
Statement of the Problem
This study examined the change models used by elementary principals when
implementing an inclusive education program in K-6 schools. It is noted in the literature
that the idea of inclusion is not disputed, but its implementation is (Norwich, 2007). This
leaves the responsibility of creating effective inclusion programming up to educators who
lack training, experience and knowledge. In fact, teachers report feeling inadequate in
teaching children with disabilities due to lack of training, support and resources (Yang &
Rusli, 2012).
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 11

General education teachers are resistant to the full inclusion model due to the
increased responsibility for instruction and educational outcomes of students with
disabilities (Cook, 2001). This resistance affects teachers’ attitudes, which have an
impact on students’ educational experiences and opportunities in the general education
classroom (Cook, 2001). This suggests that a general education teacher’s resistance to
full inclusion will be reflected in the way they interact and teach students with
disabilities. Cook (2001) found that teachers’ attitudes and toward expectations of
students depend on the severity or obviousness of the students’ disabilities. This often
lead to inappropriate educational interactions. Lack of support and staff were also noted
as related to teachers’ resistance to inclusion (Sparks, 2009).
Inclusion does not benefit only students with disabilities; it is beneficial
for general education students as well. Peltier (1997) noted five major benefits of
inclusion for general education students: (1) reduced fear of human differences
accompanied by increased comfort and awareness; (2) growth in social cognition; (3)
improvement in self-concepts; (4) development of personal principles and (5) warm and
caring friendships. Exposure to students with disabilities allows their able-bodied peers a
different perspective of disability through the counternarrative of students with differing
abilities.
This new shift in education changed the way teachers have taught, creating a gap
in knowledge. This shift in education created a need for principals to lead in new and
innovative educational practices. It is noted that the leadership behavior of the principal is
viewed as pivotal in promoting effective acceptance and implementation of school-wide
change (Hall & Hord, 1987; Kersten & Sloan, 1985). In fact, studies have shown that the
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 12

successful implementation of innovation and change in schools is related to principals’
leadership behaviors (Bowers, 1990). This leads to the assumption that these leadership
behaviors may influence the way in which inclusion is accepted and implemented by
teachers and staff.
What is not known is the process elementary school principals use to create and
implement inclusive education. There is limited research delineating the best way to
implement inclusion, leaving principals to blindly create programs without specific
guidelines. This makes it difficult for districts to evaluate the success of inclusive
programming, as there is no systematic, uniform way to implement it.
This study focused on how principal leadership effects the implementation of an
inclusive education program in a K-6 urban school in Southern California by examining
the change models principals used. The focus was on change progress during the
transition from traditional education to inclusive education emphasizing the role principal
leadership plays in the process.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the importance of principal leadership
in the implementation of inclusive education programs in K-6 school settings. This study
primarily examined three factors. The first was the role of elementary school principals’
leadership in implementing inclusive educational programs in K-6 elementary schools.
The second was the change model used during implementation. The third was how
principals evaluated their programs’ effectiveness.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 13

Research Questions
1. Do elementary school principals use Kotter’s change model when implementing
an inclusive education program in a K-6 school?
2. What previous knowledge and experience is essential for elementary school
principals to implement a successful inclusion program?
3. How is the success of an inclusive education program evaluated by the elementary
school principal?
It is hypothesized by the researcher that for an elementary principal to create and
implement an effective inclusion program they must follow a form of Kotter’s (2006)
eight steps of change. This enables the principals to create and follow a well-thought-out
plan of action to forge the change process. Implementation is a change process because it
is a shift from traditional dual education to inclusive education.
Significance of the Study
The study is significant as it adds to the growing literature on leadership in
inclusive education, particularly focusing on the change models utilized by elementary
principals. As such, K-6 principals, educators and students with disabilities benefit from
the framework provided. In addition, answering the research questions above and
identifying best practices for the implementation of inclusive education organizations
such as schools, schools of education and school districts may yield information useful in
supporting the implementation of inclusive education. Finally, the implications and
recommendations provide information to educators on creating supportive environments
for principals implementing these programs, promoting equity for all students.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 14

Limitations and Delimitations
This study relied on three assumptions. The first was that the range of districts
and participating principals were representative of those in Southern California. The
second was that the change models principals utilized were related to successful
implementation of inclusion programs. The third was that K-6 schools and their educators
were resistant to program implementation.
Definition of Terms
• Co-Teaching: two or more professionals jointly delivering substantive instruction
to a diverse, or blended, group of students in a single physical space (Cook &
Friend, 1995).
• Education Specialist: special education teacher
• IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
• IEP: Individualized Education Plan
• Inclusion: when a student with special learning and or behavioral needs is
educated full time in the general education program (Idol, 1997).
• Inclusive education: schools where all students participate in general education
programs (Idol, 1997).
• Leadership: a process of clarifying the group’s vision and uniting the group in
pursuit of a common vision. A leader maintains stability and the ethical standards
necessary to house healthy conflict, re-evaluation and change
• Least Restrictive Environment: a requirement in federal law that students with
disabilities receive their education, to the maximum extent appropriate, with
nondisabled peers and that special education students are not removed from
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 15

regular classes unless, even with supplemental aids and services, education in
regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily [20 United States Code (U. S. C.)
Sec. 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 Code of Federal Regulations (C. F. R.) Sec. 300. 114.]
• Principal: Administrator of K-6 public school.
• SAI: specialized academic instruction
• SDC: special day class
• TOSA: teacher on special assignment
• UDL: universal design for learning
Organization of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters, with an overview, context, and
purpose of the study in the first chapter. A review of current literature on effective change
models, principal leadership and inclusive education is included in the second chapter.
The methodology for surveying and interviewing principals in Southern California K-6
schools with inclusive education is outlined in Chapter Three, and data are discussed in
Chapter Four. The study concludes in Chapter Five with a discussion of findings,
implications, and recommendations regarding the change models used by participants.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 16

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Disabilities have been looked down on for centuries. In most cases, people with
physical and mental disabilities have been thought of as less than human and ignored by
society. Aristotle noted that the capacity to act from rational deliberation is an essential
element and necessary condition for citizenship (Fitch, 2009). This implied that people
with disabilities lacked the ability to be citizens due to their cognitive deficits, thus
excluding them from society. These exclusionary views were perpetuated for centuries
and led to the marginalization and inhumane treatment of people with disabilities.
In education today, students with disabilities are still segregated in self-contained
SDC. Although on public school campuses, this educational setting still excluded these
students from general education classrooms. This modern-day exclusionary practice
perpetuates marginalization, but can be remedied through inclusive education
programming. This study focused on principal leadership in the implementation of
inclusive education programs on K-6 elementary schools to determine whether the
change models principals utilized helped create a more inclusive environment.
This literature review provides a description of the historical progression of the
disabilities movement and the drafting and passage of laws protecting people with
disabilities. This review provides an in-depth look at the struggles this population had and
continue to face in today’s educational system and society. This information explains the
importance of and reasoning behind the need for inclusive education.
History of Disabled Person Treatment
Medical discourses defined individuals with disabilities by their deficits rather
than by external factors (Allan, 2003). The medical model was criticized for placing
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 17

disabled people under a single metaphysical category which buried personality
(Brisenden, 1986). This thinking led to the eugenics movement, institutionalization, and
sterilization as ways of dealing with people with disabilities. This came about through
associations made among disability, illness, and disease (Oliver, 1989).
Eugenics Movement
The goal of the eugenics movements was to improve the genetic quality of the
human population (Selden, 2010). This was done by manipulating the heredity of the
population, recommendations that the best marry the best, and through constraining the
procreation of those judged inferior by sterilization if needed (Selden, 2010). The idea of
eugenics was meant to cleanse the population of social ills, pauperism, moral laxity and
feeble-mindedness (Selden, 2010). Wiggam (1922) represented this movement by stating
“if you want artists, poets, philosophers, skilled works men and great statesmen, you will
have to give nature a chance and breed them”. Heredity certainly seemed important and
perhaps of greater importance was the idea of “controlling the feeble-minded and the
criminals” who cost Americans money with imprisonment (Selden, 2010).
The eugenics movement focused not only on people with disabilities; it also
encouraged immigration restriction, sterilization, and segregation (Selden, 2010). This
excluded and declared people of color, and with disabilities, unfit for society, creating the
idea of second-class citizens.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 18

Sterilization and Institutionalization
Around the world, people with disabilities were considered inferior and as having
deficits needing correction. Eugenics tried to control groups of people considered
inferior. Supporters of the eugenics movement argued that people with a developmental
disability were the cause of many social problems and needed to be removed from society
(Davis, 2002).
In the early 1900s, 24 states enacted the Eugenics Sterilization Act for confirmed
“idiots, imbeciles and rapists” in state institutions (Laughlin, 1922). This law was re-
examined in 1927 and remained constitutional under careful state safeguards. In his
opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,
[It] is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring
for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who
are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. . . Three generations of imbeciles
are enough. (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
In the United States, doctors advised families to put their relatives with
disabilities into institutions (Unforgotten: Twenty-five Years After Willowbrook, 1972).
It was advertised that these people would spend their lives being cared for and protected.
Even if families wanted to keep their loved ones at home, there were few, if any, services
available in the community to help them. Priest, doctors and families encouraged the
placement of people with disabilities in institutions for the entirety of their lives
(Unforgotten: Twenty-Five Years After Willowbrook, 1972). For the most part,
institutions were the only public service available. Institutions like Willowbrook, located
in Staten Island, New York, were known for inhumane treatment and living conditions.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 19

Senator Robert Kennedy toured the institution in 1965 and proclaimed individuals in the
overcrowded facility were “living in filth and dirt, their clothing in rags, in rooms less
comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo” (New York
State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 596 F. 2d 27, 1979). These
institutions were deliberately built away from cities and towns in the belief that fresh air
and open spaces would be good for the residents. This served to isolate and segregate
people with disabilities even more and continued well into the 1970s.
Disability Movement
The disability movement forged the way for new legislation working toward
equity for people with disabilities. The purpose of the disability movement was to secure
equal opportunities and equal rights for this population (Pfeiffer, 1993). This movement
began in the 1960s and followed the example of the African American Civil Rights and
Women’s Rights Movements (Pfeiffer, 1993). This movement’s initial purpose was to
gain accessible and safe transportation, and independent access to the physical
environment. It expanded to include equal opportunities in independent living,
employment, education, and housing along with freedom from abuse, neglect, and
violations of patients’ rights (Pfeiffer, 1993). It was not until this movement that people
with disabilities began to be heard and awarded basic human rights.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided equal opportunity for employment
within the federal government and in federally funded programs, prohibiting
discrimination based on either physical or mental disability (Fleischer & Zames, 2000).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1975 mandated equal access to public services
and the allocation of money for vocational training (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). In 1975,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 20

the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) guaranteed equal access to
public education (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). This act specified that all children had a
right to education and mandated the full inclusion of children with disabilities into
mainstream education classes, unless a satisfactory level of education could not be
achieved due to the nature of the child’s disability (Fleischer & Zames, 2001).
The year 1990 proved to be triumphant for people with disabilities. Two major
Legislative Acts were passed, IDEA and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
Education for All Handicapped Children was renamed and required that an individualized
education plan (IEP) be designed with parental approval to meet the educational needs of
children with disabilities (Fleischer & Zames, 2001). It also further elaborated and
focused on the rights of parents to be involved in educational decisions affecting their
children. The ADA ensured equal treatment and access to employment opportunities and
public accommodations. It intended to prohibit discrimination based on disability in
employment, services rendered by state and local governments, places of public
accommodation, transportation, and telecommunications services. This legislation
identified the full participation, inclusion, and integration of people with disabilities in all
levels of society (Fleischer & Zames, 2001).

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 21

Oppression and Exclusion
Disabilities have historically signified otherness and justified discrimination and
segregation among subordinate groups (Fitch, 2009). Implications of past behavior
developed the idea of second-class citizens and led to the disempowerment of people
with disabilities. Connor (2009) referred to Lorde (1998) and noted that the
fragmentation of individuals contributes to their disempowerment. This can be seen
throughout history in the eugenics movement and in practices of institutionalization and
segregation of people with disabilities. Their deficit or disability was the only attribute
looked at and used to define them, ultimately othering them (Ogbu & Simon, 1998).
Ogbu and Simon’s (1998) cultural ecological theory of minority school
performance focuses on the way minorities are treated or mistreated in education and
how they respond to schooling because of their treatment. When compared to minorities,
people with disabilities have also been denied educational opportunities in terms of
access to resources, treatment in schools, and rewards in employment and wages for
educational accomplishments (Ogbu & Simon, 1998). When applying the cultural
ecological theory to disability and special education, it can be inferred that students with
disabilities are not held to high expectations, yielding low performance and limiting
future independence and employment. Understanding how the hegemonic ability
perspective affects school performance pinpoints the barriers people with disabilities
face. In essence, the disabled are contained by segregation in self-contained classrooms
(Connor, 2009).

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 22

Disabilities in Schools: Special Education
Students with disabilities were often educated in separate schools or not at all
until the desegregation mandate (Fitch, 2009), which encouraged them to attend schools
in their communities. Despite substantial progress and legislation such as IDEA, fully
inclusive education in schools remains elusive, and segregation of students with
disabilities remains the norm rather than the exception (Fitch, 2009). In fact, education is
dominated by, identified with, and geared toward nondisabled people (Johnson, 2006).
Special education is often seen as a singular entity rooted in the option of equality, upheld
by law and supported by well-intended individuals (Connor, 2009).
The segregation of students with disabilities was to have been alleviated with the
passage of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibited discrimination based on
disability in programs run by federal agencies, programs that receive federal financial
assistance, federal employment, and federal contractors’ employment practices. In 1975,
two federal laws were enacted, IDEA and EHA. The EHA established a right to public
education for all children regardless of disability. IDEA is especially important because it
forced states that accept public funds for education to provide special education to
qualifying children (IDEA, 1997). IDEA also requires schools provide individualized
special education for children with qualifying disabilities (IDEA, 1997).
The reauthorization of IDEA further emphasized supporting children with
disabilities in the general curriculum by requiring IEPs to include statements concerning
how the child’s disability affects involvement and progress in the regular curriculum
(IDEA, 1997). These requirements make it crucial for principals and educators to be
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 23

familiar with research, special education law, and service models. (Salisbury &
McGregor, 2005).
Inclusive Practice
Inclusion became part of the critical reform movement to improve the delivery of
services for students with exceptionalities (Tobin, 2007). The idea of inclusion is fairly
new to education and has different definitions depending on researchers, location of
implementation, and implementers. Ryndak, Jackson and Billingsley (1999) asked
authors of relevant literature to submit their definition of inclusion. From all the differing
definitions, seven themes emerged:
(a) placement in natural typical setting; (b) all students together for instruction
and learning; (c) supports and modifications within general education to meet
appropriate learner outcomes; (d) belongingness, equal membership, acceptance,
and being valued; (e) collaborative integrated services by education teams; (f)
systematic philosophy or belief system; and (g) meshing general and special
education into one unified system (p. 102).
This demonstrates that the idea of inclusion is still vague and misunderstood (Ryndak et
al., 1999). A common, universal definition of inclusion needs to be agreed upon or
developed to begin effective best practices to aid teachers in its implementation. For the
purpose of this study, the researcher used Idol’s (1997) definition of inclusive education.
Idol (1997) stated,
In an inclusive setting, all students are educated in general education programs.
Inclusion is when a student with special learning and or behavioral needs is
educated full time in the general education program. Inclusion means that the
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 24

student with special needs is attending the general school program, enrolled in age
appropriate classes 100% of the school day” (p. 77).
Inclusion
Inclusion is more prevalent in today’s educational system as principals’ favorable
attitudes toward the movement influenced school-wide policy implementation (Cook,
Semmel, & Gerber, 1999). Schools are becoming more inclusive to meet the needs of
more diverse students, including those with disabilities (Salisbury, 2006). As a result,
there is emphasis on the importance of improving delivery of services to students with
disabilities, including their placement (Praisener, 2003).
The least restrictive environment mandate of the EHA, IDEA, and their
subsequent reauthorizations in 1997 and 2004 is focused on inclusive practices.
According to Praisener (2003), special education laws directed that students receiving
special education must be educated with their peers without disabilities to the maximum
extent possible and appropriate.
Benefits of Inclusion
Research showed there are many positive benefits of inclusion. Alquraini and Gut
(2012) noted academic, social, and communication benefits for included students with
moderate to severe disabilities. In fact, students with moderate to severe disabilities show
more growth in full inclusion settings that in self-contained classrooms (Holahan &
Costenbader, 2000). This is due to the careful planning of interventions that promote
interactions among children, positive role models in typically developing peers, and
cooperative learning opportunities (Alquraini & Gut, 2012). Academically, students with
moderate to severe disabilities included in general education classrooms also demonstrate
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 25

an increase in progress toward their IEPs; this is attributed to the interaction with typical
peers in a collaborative environment (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).
Inclusion does not benefit only students with disabilities, it has proven to be
beneficial for typically developing general educations students as well. Peltier (1997)
noted five major benefits of inclusion for general education students: (1) reduced fear of
human differences accompanied by increased comfort and awareness; (2) growth in
social cognition; (3) improvement in self-concepts; (4) development of personal
principles and (5) warm and caring friendships. Exposure to students with disabilities
allows their able-bodied peers a different perspective of disability through the
counternarrative of students with differing abilities.
Inclusive education is about responding to diversity; it is about listening to
unfamiliar voices, being open, empowering members and about celebrating difference in
dignified ways (Barton, 1997). Students with disabilities have a legal right to attend
regular classes and receive an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment
(IDEA, 2004).
Teacher Resistance to Inclusive Education
Teachers’ attitudes of attachment, concern, indifference, and rejection have a
direct impact on students’ educational experiences and opportunities (Cook, 2001). In
inclusive programming, the general education teachers are the key to success (Stanovich
& Jordan, 2002), yet many teachers report feeling inadequate in teaching children with
disabilities due to lack of training, support, and resources (Yang & Rusli, 2012).
General education teachers resist the full inclusion model due to the increased
responsibility for the instruction and educational outcomes of students with disabilities
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 26

(Cook, 2001). In fact, it has been noted that teacher attitude has a direct and differential
impact on students’ educational experiences and opportunities (Cook, 2001). This
suggests that a general education teacher’s resistance to full inclusion will be reflected in
the way they interact and teach students with disabilities, negatively affecting their
educational opportunities. Cook (2001) found that teachers tend to form different
attitudes and expectations toward their included students depending on the severity or
obviousness of their disability. This often leads to inappropriate educational interactions.
Cook also found that students with disabilities were overrepresented in teachers’ rejection
nominations, determining that they had given up on these students. Therefore, these
students were unlikely to receive appropriate education interactions and opportunities.
Lack of support and staff were also noted in teachers’ resistance to inclusion (Sparks,
2009).
York et al. (1995) interviewed general education teachers and found that they had
difficulty including students with disabilities in class activities, had problems with
scheduling, reported a lack of time, and had concerns with behavior problems. Research
also noted that pre-service teacher education programs do not adequately prepare teachers
to teach students with varying abilities, making it more difficult to teach in an inclusive
environment (Titone, 2005). Due to teachers feeling unprepared, they lacked confidence
in their abilities to work with students with special needs (Titone, 2005).
Research indicated that, over time, general education teachers believe they need
particular and better proficiency in adapting the curriculum to help students meet the
goals outlined in their IEPs (Titone, 2005). This lack of teacher proficiency and
confidence is a result of poor teacher preparation programs. Titone (2005) noted that this
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 27

problem may stem from the current dual system model where teachers become
certificated in either general education or special education. This creates the idea that
only teachers certified in special education have the appropriate skills and knowledge to
teach students with disabilities, further hindering inclusive education programming. This
increases teacher resistance to inclusive education and pinpoints problems with current
teacher training programs.
Teacher resistance is also due to the many issues special education has in general.
The Council for Exceptional Children (2001) found that issues facing educators and
special education include
ambiguous and competing responsibilities, overwhelming paperwork, inadequate
district and administrative support, significant teacher isolation, insufficient focus
on improved student outcomes, increased demand for well-qualified special
educators, poorly prepared general and special education educators and
fragmented licensing systems (p.4).
This diminishes the quality of services, ultimately affecting inclusion opportunities and
teacher willingness to participate in these programs.
According to Bensimon (2005), minority students, in this case students with
disabilities, have been seen through the lens of student development theories. Institutional
actors, in this case general education teachers, create or perpetuate unequal outcomes for
minority groups due to their beliefs, expectations, values and practices. This hinders the
possibility for reversing inequalities in individual learning that hold the potential for
bringing about self-change (Bensimon, 2005). This is attributed to a deficit frame of
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 28

thinking and demonstrates teacher bias impedes the success of students with disabilities
and perpetuates the dominant narrative perspective.
Leadership for Inclusive Education
In order to create a positive environment conducive to inclusive education,
administrators must first understand that segregation of students with disabilities is
antithetical to basic human rights and has a negative effect on these children (Holahan &
Costenbader, 2000). Therefore, the beliefs and attitudes of principals are key in the
implementation of inclusive school programs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel & Fulmer, 2007).
Taking a supportive role can foster successful inclusion by helping with joint problem
solving, maintaining data, facilitating staff development programs, providing emotional
support, modeling collaborative traits and communication, providing resources, providing
advocacy, providing time for staff to assess program efforts (Alquraini & Gut, 2012).
Focusing on abilities will yield higher expectations, increasing the progress made
by students with differing abilities while discontinuing the use of deficit thinking and the
idea of flawed students (Connor, 2009). This, in turn, will change the underlying norms,
beliefs and principles, bringing about cognitive shifts from diversity to equity (Coburn,
2003). In schools, this entails a change in teachers’ frames of thinking, school climate,
approaches to teaching, discipline and curriculum. For this to occur, principals must
become interculturally competent inclusive leaders and change agents (Davila, 2009).
These cognitive shifts will enable principals to meet the educational needs of children
from diverse backgrounds.
The leadership role of a principal is complex and interrelated (Waldron & Redd,
2011). Principals’ attitudes toward inclusion have a powerful influence on school-wide
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 29

policy implementation and influence reform due to their supervisory role relative to
school personnel (Cook et al., 1999). This leads principals to become the driving force in
inclusive school programming implementation. Principals are responsible for creating the
conditions necessary to create change toward inclusion (Salisbury & McGregor, 2005).
The support and leadership of principals has been documented as integral for
successful school change (Fullan, 1991) and successful inclusion (Hasazi, Johnson,
Liggett, & Schattman, 1994). Research indicated that schools with stronger
administrative support and commitment reported servicing more students with
disabilities, including those with significant support needs in general education for a
greater percentage of time (Salisbury, 2006). This may be due to principals having
institutional authority and their function as front line interpreters and implementer of
policy (Lipsky, 1980). As school leaders, principals set the tone and expectations of a
school’s approach to curriculum, equity, and inclusion (Ross & Berger, 2009).
Mandates that require complete compliance in educational services for students
with disabilities dramatically altered the role of administrators (Davidson & Algozzine,
2002). To meet professional obligations and protect the rights of all individuals, public
school administrators must possess a basic understanding of special education school law
and the impact if has on their schools. (Davidson & Algozzine, 2002). Today, principals
must understand laws that govern special education (Davidson & Algozzine, 2002) to
comply with federal mandates.
Implementation
According to Goodland and Lovitt (1993), the decision to develop an inclusive
school depends largely upon leaders’ values and beliefs. Due to their leadership position,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 30

principals’ attitudes can result in increased opportunities for students with
exceptionalities to be truly included in the school community (Tobin, 2007). Inclusive
schools need principals who are familiar with the research literature and know that
inclusive services and supports produce educational benefits for students with and
without disabilities, teacher and families (Salisbury & McGregor, 2005).
Few implementation philosophies appeared in current literature. This is largely
due to school sites being different and requiring site-specific programming to meet their
current students’ needs. So individualized is each school that it is deemed more difficult
to translate the idea of inclusion into actual practice due to site-based ideological
assumptions and organizational and community contexts than it would be with the
technical consideration of inclusive programming (Brotherson, Sheriff, Milburn &
Schertz, 2001). Lack of experience is also noted in the literature as a barrier to successful
inclusion. York and Tundidor (1995) discussed the need to obtain information from
people who fully know and experienced inclusion to create and implement successful
inclusive education programming. As school site administration differs, it difficult to
generalize people’s experiences from site to site.
There is no right or wrong way to implement school-wide inclusion programs.
There is no standardized way in which to implement an inclusive program because all
school site demographics, resources and personnel are different. Special education
research noted a lack of research in the area of implementation; however, there has been a
rise in recommended best practices.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 31

Change Model
According to Fullan (1985), deliberately attempting change is a complex,
dilemma-ridden, technical, sociopolitical process. When it comes to inclusive education,
principals need to create the conditions necessary to create change (Salisbury &
McGregor, 2005). This is especially difficult since inclusive education is complex in that
it necessitates the collaboration of many and requires specialized resources and training
(Council of Exceptional Children, 2001). Change invariably creates conflict (Bolman &
Deal, 2008, and with inclusive education comes a shift in educational practice and
programming at any given school site. Change is a process, and not an event (Fullan,
1985), which transforms individuals and situations (Hall & Loucks, 1977).
In the case of inclusion, change was imposed on the educational system through
IDEA and special education mandates. As school principals oversee the implementation
of special education in a community, it is estimated that they devote between 36% and
58% of their time to special education matters (Stevenson–Jacobson, Jacobson, & Hilton,
2006).
Principals have a number of successful change models to help guide their
decisions and plans toward inclusion. One such evidence-based model is Kotter’s eight-
step change process (The IRIS Center, 2010). The process entails eight stages repeatedly
found in successful change initiatives: (1) creating a sense of urgency; (2) pulling
together a guiding team with the needed skills, credibility, connections and authority to
over things along; (3) creating an uplifting vision and strategy; (4) communicating the
decision and strategy through a combination of words deeds and symbols; (5) removing
obstacles, or empowering people to move ahead; (6) producing visible signs of progress
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 32

through short-term victories; (7) sticking with the process and refusing to quit when
things get tough; and (8) nurturing and shaping a new culture to support the emerging
innovative ways (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Kotter’s eight-step change process is utilized in various inclusion models training
modules (The IRIS Center, 2010). The IRIS Center is an example of this and is a national
center dedicated to improving education outcomes for all children. It especially focuses
on students with disabilities, birth through age 21, through effective evidence-based
practices and interventions (The IRIS Center, 2010). The IRIS Center’s inclusion-training
module is utilized by university teacher preparation programs and educators as an
educational training tool covering effective inclusion implementation. It utilizes and
recommends the use of their modified version of Kotter’s eight-step change model to
facilitate the change needed to successfully implement an inclusive education program.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 33

Figure 1. Kotter’s eight-step change model
Kotter’s eight-step change model was deemed the most appropriate for the
implementation of inclusive practice because it was successful in assisting with and
supporting effective organizational change and recognized as one of the most well-known
approaches to organizational transformation (Mento, Jones, & Dirndorfer, 2002). The
following section presents evidence found in research to justify how a principal may use
each of Kotter’s eight steps in his change model in the implementation of inclusive
practice in a K-6 elementary school setting.
In setting the stage for inclusive practice, Kotter’s eight-step process was
analyzed to fit the implementation of inclusive practice in the following manner. Kotter’s
step one is to create a sense of urgency. This enables others to see the need for change
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 34

and the importance of acting immediately (Kotter, 2006). In the case of inclusive
practice, the sense of urgency is created by IDEA, delineating the importance of having
students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. Step two is to pull together
a guiding team, who, with their leadership skills, credibility, communication ability,
authority, and analytical skills, will create a sense of urgency (Kotter, 2006). In an
elementary school setting, the guiding team may differ due to staffing and student need.
Step three entails creating a vision where a strategy for change is determined. A team will
determine and clearly delineate how the future of the school will be different from the
past and how to make that a reality (Kotter, 2006).
For the development of inclusive practice, it must be determined how the school
will eliminate the SDC model, what inclusive education will look like and what needs to
be done in order to make the shift successfully, research found that the placement of
students in segregated classrooms has not been effective for students from diverse
backgrounds (Artiles, 1998). Focus must shift to an inclusive educational environment
proven to increase academic performance for students with and without disabilities
(Causton-Theorharis & Theoharis, 2008).
Step four, communicating the vision (Kotter, 2006) is crucial in obtaining teacher
and staff buy-in. This can be done by engaging teachers and staff in dialogue about the
potential impact of the change in vision and what skills they need to feel effective in
these new roles (Gorran Farkas, 2012). Step five, enabling action, requires the
empowerment of the rest of the teachers and staff to act on the vision (Gorran Farkas,
2012). This can be one in many ways and should be thought out by the guiding team and
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 35

principal. It is imperative that the principal provide teachers and staff the resources
needed to successfully implement the new structure of inclusive practice.
Step six, ensuring short-term wins, increases teacher and staff motivation (Kotter,
2006). This will help keep the momentum toward achieving inclusive education. Step
seven, improve and expand, serves as the evaluation and reflection portion of the change
process. It is also a good time to remind teachers and staff why they are doing what they
are doing (Kotter, 2006). A focus on the positive changes that came from the work done
thus far will increase their confidence in the change process (Gorran Farkas, 2012).
Lastly, step eight, anchoring the change, involves making the new approaches part of the
institutional structure (Kotter, 2006).
Summary
The literature indicated that inclusion is not only a best practice in education but
also mandated by federal law. Despite teacher resistance, research confirmed there are
benefits for both students with disabilities and their typically developing peers. This
propels the principal’s responsibility to implement inclusive education programs. For
these programs to work, principals need to be familiar with the research and know that
inclusive services and supports produce educational benefits for all students, teachers,
and families (Salisbury & McGregor, 2005).
In the overall process of school inclusion, principals play a key role in building a
school culture promoting inclusion (Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014) aided by their
leadership position. This makes it apparent that the implementation of inclusive
educational programs requires visionary leadership from principals (Lipsky & Gartner,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 36

2008). Principal leadership is essential (Quigney, 1996) in utilizing a number of change
models to guide their decisions and plans toward inclusive education programming.
For the purpose of this study, the focus was on how K-6 elementary school
principals implemented inclusion programs and what the change model they utilized to
facilitate and streamline the process. The following presents a review of methods used.
Chapter Three also covers the study’s design, participants, setting, instrumentation, data
collection process, and data analysis information.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 37

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In order for inclusive education to work, principals need to create the conditions
necessary to create change (Salisbury & McGregor, 2005). Changing from the traditional
school setting to that of an inclusive school takes a principal who is familiar with the
research and knows that inclusive services and supports produce educational benefits for
all students (Salisbury & McGregor, 2005). For this reason, the focus herein was on
principals’ experiences with change and inclusive education implementation process.
Literature found that principal leadership is crucial in the implementation of
inclusive education programs. For this reason, the researcher focused on principal
leadership. This study aimed to determine whether the participating K-6 elementary
school principals utilized steps in Kotter’s change model. To obtain this information, the
researcher utilized a mixed-methods approach to provide a concise account of events.
Steps used in the implementation of inclusive education programs were determined via
questionnaire and one-on-one interviews.
This chapter delineates the study’s design, participants, instrument and protocol,
and data collection process. An in-depth account of the study’s processes and of data
analysis is provided in the data analysis section.
Design
The methodology utilized in this research included quantitative data from surveys
administered during interviews and qualitative data from open-ended questions during
interviews gathered from elementary school principals. The quantitative data were
collected via Lipsky and Gartner’s (2008) Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment
Survey (Appendix A). This survey provides evaluation information for each school’s
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 38

implementation of inclusive programming. This evaluation tool provided a current
description of participating principals’ demographics, time in position, and years of
experience. The qualitative data collected during interviews allowed further exploration
of the principals’ practices, experience with students with disabilities, knowledge of
inclusive practice, description of implementation process and change models used to
implement their inclusive education programs.
The mixed-methods approach to triangulate the findings was an important step in
checking for consistency of findings between the existing literature and data from the
survey and interviews. This mixed-methods approach has been used to maximize the
strength of quantitative research in providing descriptive information from a large
population together with the strength of qualitative research in providing and in-depth
exploration of the underlying meanings that participants give to the data (Creswell,
2014). Fullan’s (1991) perspectives and research on change models and the key roles
principals play in the process were applied as a method of connecting the findings within
these larger aspects.
Participants and Setting
Participants were K-6 elementary school principals in urban districts located in
Southern California. The participating K-6 elementary school principals were selected
utilizing the following selection criteria: (1) principal’s school must be located in
Southern California, and (2) participant must have an inclusive education program for
students with disabilities. Principals were the focus of this study because they facilitate
and are responsible for inclusive education on a school campus along with compliance
with special education mandates and IEPs. The researcher determined that their direct
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 39

interaction with general education teachers, education specialists, the inclusion classroom
setting and the program as a whole makes them ideal participants. Principals were
identified as appropriate for interviews because they are among the key stakeholders in
the inclusive programming at any school (Salisbury, 2006). This was a purposeful,
convenience sample (Maxwell, 2013). A purposeful sample involves participants or sites
that will best help in understanding the research problem and research questions
(Creswell, 2014). A convenience sample is commonly used in the field of education due
to the principal participants being volunteers who expressed a willingness to participate
(McEwan &McEwan, 2003).
The Southern California K-6 elementary school principals interviewed were
selected utilizing the selection criteria mentioned above. Two initial methods were used
to identify participants. First, an introduction and participation request letter was sent out
to principals at 10 K-6 elementary schools with inclusive education programs.
Participation letter responses were returned in self-addressed envelopes. In the second
approach, the researcher made personal contacts with special education district
administrators and principals from schools where successful inclusion programs had been
implemented. These administrators and principals were asked to recommend other
principals whom they thought might have experience and an interest in the questions
posed by the study. Referred principals were contacted by telephone and email. After a
principal agreed to participate in the study, a follow-up email was sent to describe the
study and outline its purpose. Participants agreed to have their interview and
questionnaire responses used in the study with the understanding that confidentiality was
assured.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 40

Instrument and Protocol
Lipsky and Gartner’s (2008) Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment
Survey was used to gather data determining whether each principal’s inclusive education
program was effective and had the fundamental characteristics noted in the survey. The
survey was given to all principals who responded to the introduction along with
participation letters mailed out by the researcher. Once an effective inclusive
environment was determined via their responses, the principals were asked to participate
in one-on-one interviews. Lipsky and Gartner’s survey was adapted to and administered
via Surveymonkey.com. This questionnaire was designed as a cross sectional survey to
collect inferential/descriptive data which might report descriptive statistics. In alignment
with Creswell’s (2014) recommendations for creating survey instruments, the
questionnaire included questions previously field-tested by Lipsky and Gartner’s
research, adding to its validity.
Qualitative data collection was enhanced through 30-minute, open-ended
interviews conducted using a semi-structured, open-ended interview protocol (Appendix
B). This type of interview protocol has been recommended for situations in which single
interview sessions take place within a fixed timeframe, enabling the researcher and
participant to stay focused and the data to be more easily analyzed (Creswell, 2014). The
semi-structured interview approach provided the principal’s perspectives and allowed
identification of differences and similarities in the principal’s experiences and responses.
The interview protocol was divided into three sections. In the first section,
participants’ general background information was elicited. Questions were asked to
determine the type of special education services provided at their schools and their
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 41

professional preparation along with their previous experience with inclusive education.
The second section was designed to address the change models they used when
implementing the inclusive education program. The third section addressed inclusive
program evaluation.
Interview question probes were included to ensure a full discussion of the topics,
and the complete interview protocol was field-tested to ensure questions alignment and
effectiveness in gathering complete data in reference to the research questions. Interview
questions were piloted with three elementary school principals to obtain feedback on the
questions’ clarity and comprehensiveness in terms of the intent of the study along with
strategies to obtain the desired information. Feedback from this pilot group was used to
develop the final version of the interview protocol.
Data Collection Protocols
The research was conducted using a descriptive design. The descriptive design is
used when a researcher wants to describe specific behavior as it occurs in the
environment (Creswell, 2014). In this study, the researcher aimed to describe how
elementary school principals implement inclusive education programs in a K-6 setting. A
cross sectional questionnaire was administered to K-6 elementary principal participants.
Interviews were conducted to obtain more in-depth accounts into the implementation of
inclusive education programs in K-6 elementary schools.
All interviews were conducted on a one-on-one basis and by the researcher to
ensure consistency and integrity of the data. All interviews were recorded for future
reference. Interview recordings were used to analyze and pinpoint common themes that
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 42

aided in answering the research questions. The principals’ responses were analyzed in
depth using the constant comparative method.
Data Analysis
Interview data were captured and transcribed by the researcher. All interview
respondents’ accounts were typed at the time of the interview. This minimized the time
spend physically writing out the respondents’ responses and allowed for a more
professional interview experience. After interviews, researcher reviewed the data and
identified emergent themes.
Principal’s responses were analyzed through a constant comparative method
consistent with qualitative research methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Principal’s
responses were read and key components were identified. Components identified by more
than one principal formed general themes which were coded into open codes, axial codes
and selective codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These steps were the first individual
attempts to reduce the data into the most important and interesting aspects (Marshall &
Rossman, 1989).
Ethical Considerations
For this study, only verbal consent was obtained from interview respondents.
Gaining access to their sites was not necessary due to interviews being conducted after
the instructional day. No student confidential information was obtained or discussed.
Principal identity was protected and not used on data documentation. Pseudonyms were
utilized to preserve anonymity and confidentiality. Data and interview information was
coded to reduce researcher bias and assumptions.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 43

Summary
The data collected through this study allowed the researcher to provide a more
concise idea of the change models used by principals to implement successful inclusion
programs in urban K-6 elementary schools. These data will aid and provide valuable
knowledge to the field of special education and inclusive education for students with
disabilities.
The following chapter presents the results of this study. Chapter Four provides in-
depth accounts of principals’ experiences implementing inclusive education. The findings
are reported along with the change models used to aid in the success of the process.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 44

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the importance of principal leadership
in the implementation of inclusive education programs in K-6 elementary school settings
through three factors. The primary factor was the role of elementary school principals’
leadership in the implementation of inclusive educational programs. The second was a
determination of the change models they used to implement the programs. The third was
their methods for evaluating the effectiveness of their programs.
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected. Understanding the barriers
that elementary schools encountered during implementation may provide information for
other principals who will implement inclusive programming in the future.
Quantitative data were collected through the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive
Environment Survey (Lipsky & Gartner, 2008) which was distributed to 20 principals at
elementary schools with inclusive education programs for students with disabilities. The
principals selected for interviews oversaw inclusive education programs and did not
indicate any items in the “not implemented” section of the questionnaire. Eleven surveys
were answered, providing a 55% response rate. Six had no items in the “not
implemented” section of questionnaire. Five of them were available for face-to-face
interviews.
A mixed-method approach was used to combine data from the survey and
interviews. Qualitative data were gathered using one-on-one interviews with the five
principals, herein referred to by pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality. A semi-structured
approach was used during interviews. The semi-structured protocol allowed the
researcher the flexibility to probe and ask follow-up/clarification questions. The
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 45

interview protocol captured the behavior and feelings that could not be obtained through
observation (Merriam, 2009). Data were then interpreted, analyzed, and triangulated to
yield findings.
Demographics of Survey and Interview Participants
Participants’ years in education ranged from 17 to 34. All five principals obtained
a multiple subject teaching credential and taught in a general education classroom for
over 10 years. Only one obtained a special education credential and had previous
experience teaching in that field. All principals’ schools had an inclusive education
program for students with disabilities with varied support staff and student populations.
Table 1 below delineates the participant’s demographics.
Table 1
Participants
Participant Years in
the school
as principal
Years in
education
Previous
positions
Teaching
credential
Year of
inclusion
program
Flower
Principal
18 28 Special
Education
Teacher SDC,
General
Education
Teacher,
Reading
Intervention
Teacher,
Assistant
Principal,
Principal
Special
Education
Credential,
Multiple
Subject,
Administrative
Credential
2
Rawling
Principal
2 17 General
Education
Teacher,
GATE teacher,
principal
Multiple
Subject,
Administrative
Credential
4

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 46

Table 1, continued
Robinson
Principal
4 34 General
Education
Teacher,
TOSA,
Principal
Multiple
Subject,
Administrative
Credential
4
Brooke
Principal
6 24 General
education
teacher, para
educator,
substitute
teacher
principal,
director of
special
program
Multiple
Subject,
Administrative
Credential
3
Sycamore
Principal
8 22 General
education
teacher,
principal
Multiple
Subject,
Administrative
Credential
4

Flower Principal had been in education for 28 years and held a multiple subject
teaching credential, specialist instruction credential in special education, a bilingual
certificate and an administrative services credential. The principal previously taught in a
special education severely handicapped SDC classroom setting and an elementary general
education classroom and served as a reading intervention teacher. Flower Principal had
been in administration for 19 years: one year as an assistant principal and 18 as principal,
all at the elementary level.
Rawling Principal had been in education for 17 years and held a multiple subject
teaching credential and an administrative services credential. Rawling Principal
previously taught general education and advanced placement classes at the elementary,
intermediate and high school level. Rawling Principal had been in administration for over
10 years at the elementary, intermediate, and high school levels.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 47

Robinson Principal had been in education for 34 years and held a multiple subject
credential and an administrative credential. The principal previously taught at the
elementary school level for 26 years and served as a teacher on special assignment
(TOSA) focused on focused on coaching teachers in reading strategies. Robinson
Principal had been in administration for the last eight years at Robinson Elementary.
Brooke Principal had been in education for 24 years and held a multiple subject
teaching credential, a bilingual, cross-cultural, language and academic development
certificate and an administrative services credential. The principal previously served as a
teacher’s assistant, substitute teacher and taught at the elementary school level for 4
years. After becoming director of programming, Brooke Principal became an
administrator and had been principal at Brooke Elementary for 6 years.
Sycamore Principal had been in education for 22 years and held a multiple subject
teaching credential, bilingual, cross-cultural, language and academic development
certificate and an administrative services credential. Sycamore Principal taught in an
elementary school setting for 14 years and has been in administration at the elementary
school level for the past eight years.
Demographics of Participants School Sites
Participants’ schools were located in Orange County in Southern California.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2016), during the 2014–2015
academic term, 15% of students ages 6 to 21 in the county were diagnosed with a
disability and received special education services. Of that 15%, 61.2% were in a regular
school and participated in a general education classroom for 80% or more of their day.
Only 3% were in a separate school for students with disabilities.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 48

Flower Elementary School
At the time of this study, Flower Elementary was a K-6 elementary school was
part of a large district in which approximately 12% of students received special education
services (California Department of Education, 2013). The school’s administrative team
consisted of the school principal, an assistant principal, and a TOSA. Flower Elementary
had 43 fully credentialed teachers, one full-time school psychologist, one full-time
speech and language pathologist and one part-time school psychologist. The school
offered special education services for students with special needs ranging from
mild/moderate to moderate/severe and Autism. Special education staff consisted of five
mild/moderate education specialists and two moderate/severe Autism specific education
specialists, six full-time student support paraprofessionals, and six part-time student
support paraprofessionals.
Flower Elementary’s student population was 1,126, and 94.4% of them were
Hispanic/Latino. Of the 1,126 students, 97.1 % qualified for and received free or
reduced-price lunch. Flower Elementary’s students with disabilities made for 8.7%. of
enrollment. The school was in the second year of inclusive practice implementation.
Although no specific school-wide definition was created for inclusive programming, the
principal reported that it began as a district recommendation.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 49

Table 2
2014-2015 Flower Student Enrollment by Group
Group Percentage of Total Enrollment
American Indian or Alaska Native 0. 1%
Asian 4. 1%
Hispanic or Latino 94. 4
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 97. 1%
English Learners 75%
Student with Disabilities 8. 7%
Foster Youth 0%
Total Enrollment 1,126

Rawling Elementary
Rawling Elementary was a K-6 elementary within a small district where
approximately 9.2% of students received special education services (California
Department of Education, 2013). The school’s administrative team consisted of the
principal and a coordinator. They oversaw had 15 fully credentialed teachers and special
education services for students with special needs in the mild to moderate range. Special
education staff consisted of one mild/moderate education specialist, a part-time speech
and language pathologist, a part-time school psychologist and five student support
paraprofessionals.
Rawling Elementary’s student population was 376 and Whites made for 42% of
enrollment. Of the 376 students, 8% qualified for and received free or reduced-price
lunch. Eight percent of enrollment consisted of students with disabilities. The school was
in year four of inclusive practice implementation. Although no specific school-wide
definition was created for their inclusive programming, the principal reported that
inclusive practice began as a district directive.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 50

Table 3
2014-2015 Rawling Student Enrollment by Group
Group Percentage of Total Enrollment
Black or African American 2. 1%
Asian 30. 1%
Filipino 2. 4%
Hispanic or Latino 16%
White 42%
Two or more races 6. 1%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 8%
English Learners 9%
Student with Disabilities 8%
Total Enrollment 376

Robinson Elementary
Robinson Elementary was part of a small district where approximately 9.2% of
students receive special education services (California Department of Education, 2013).
The principal was the sole administrator. The school employed 25 fully credentialed
teachers and offered special education services for students with special needs ranging
from mild/moderate to moderate/severe. Special education staff consisted of one
mild/moderate education specialist, a speech and language pathologist who worked 80%
of full time, a school psychologist employed for 20% of full time, one full-time student
support paraprofessional and four part-time student support paraprofessionals.
Robinson Elementary’s student population was 679, and 32.1% of students were
Hispanic/Latino. Of the 679 students, 24.7% qualified for and received free or reduced-
price lunch. Enrollment included students with disabilities at a rate of 6.8%. The school
was in its fourth year of inclusive practice implementation. Although no specific school-
wide definition was created for their inclusive programming, the principal reported that
inclusive practice began as a district directive.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 51

Table 4
2014-2015 Robinson Student Enrollment by Group
Group Percentage of Total Enrollment
Black or African American 6.6%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4%
Asian 19.4%
Filipino 3.5%
Hispanic or Latino 32.1%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.1%
White 32%
Two or more races 2.8%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 24.7%
English Learners 16.2%
Student with Disabilities 6.8%
Foster Youth 0.1%
Total Enrollment 679

Brooke Elementary
Brooke Elementary was part of a small district where approximately 12.3% of
students received special education services (California Department of Education, 2013).
The administrative team consisted of the principal and a TOSA. Brooke Elementary had
19 fully credentialed teachers and offered special education services for students with
special needs in the mild to moderate and moderate to severe range. Special education
staff consisted of two mild/moderate education specialists, two moderate/severe
education specialists, two full-time and one half-time speech and language pathologists,
one school psychologist and 12 part-time student support paraprofessionals.
Brooke Elementary has a student population of 476, and 59.3%, of students are
Hispanic/Latino. Of the 476 students, 65.9% qualify for and receive free or reduced-price
lunch. Brooke Elementary’s enrollment included 13.9% students with disabilities. The
school was in the third year of inclusive practice implementation. Although no specific
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 52

school-wide definition was created for the inclusive programming, the principal reported
that the school had always had inclusive practice programming depending on students’
needs. It had been in the prior three years that there had been a push for more inclusive
programming.
Table 5
2014-2015 Brooke Student Enrollment by Group
Group Percentage of Total Enrollment
Black or African American 2. 4%
Asian 8. 2%
Filipino 2. 1%
Hispanic or Latino 59. 3%
White 22. 1%
Two or more races 5. 2%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 65. 9%
English Learners 40. 7%
Student with Disabilities 13. 9%
Total Enrollment 476

Sycamore Elementary
Sycamore Elementary was part of a small district where approximately 9.2% of
students receive special education services (California Department of Education, 2013)
The principal was the only administrator. The school had 20 fully credentialed teachers
and offered special education services for students with special needs in the mild to
moderate range. Special education staff consisted of one mild/moderate education
specialist, three speech and language pathologists, four psychologists, and three student
support paraprofessionals.
Sycamore Elementary’s student population consisted of 572 students, and 94.2%
were Hispanic/Latino. Of the 572 students, 93.2 % qualified for and received free or
reduced-price lunch. Students with disabilities made up 4.4% of enrollment. The school
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 53

was in the fourth year of inclusive practice implementation. Although no specific school-
wide definition was created for the inclusive programming, the principal reported that
inclusive practice began as a district directive.
Table 6
2014-2015 Sycamore Student Enrollment by Group
Group Percentage of Total Enrollment
Black or African American . 5%
Asian 1. 6%
Filipino 1%
Hispanic or Latino 94. 2%
White 1. 4%
Two or more races 5. 2%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 93. 2%
English Learners 74. 3%
Student with Disabilities 4. 4%
Total Enrollment 572

Research Questions
The findings in this study have been guided by the following research questions:
1. Do elementary school principals use Kotter’s change model when implementing
an inclusive education program in a K-6 school?
2. What previous knowledge and experience is essential for elementary school
principals to implement a successful inclusion program?
3. How is the success of an inclusive education program evaluated by the elementary
school principal?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the importance of principal leadership
in the implementation of inclusive education programs in K-6 elementary school settings
through three factors. The primary factor was the role of elementary school principals’
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 54

leadership in the implementation of inclusive educational programs. The second was a
determination of the change models they used to implement the programs. The third was
their methods for evaluating the effectiveness of their programs. Recognizing the barriers
a principal may face when implementing inclusive programming for students with
disabilities may better prepare other principals for successful implementation in the
future.
Coding Data
The analysis theory utilized for the interpretation of this study was the constant
comparative method. The goal of Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparative
method is to generate theories that explain how an aspect of the social world works. For
this study, the constant comparative method helped with coding and categorizing key
points through open coding, axial coding, and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
During data analysis, the researcher consolidated and interpreted participants’
responses to interview questions (Merriam, 2009). The first step in analyzing interview
data was to reread interview transcripts and listen to the interview tapes (Maxwell, 2013).
Recurring themes were coded to identify emerging categories (Merriam, 2009). Finalized
categories and subcategories created axial codes which were connected to the literature.
Once all data were coded, formal analysis was conducted to construct the findings
directly tied to the research questions.
Findings from the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey
The Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey was used to determine
whether the principals’ schools provided an inclusive environment for students with
disabilities. The quality indicators of an inclusive environment can be utilized to review
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 55

progress and monitor implementation (Lipsky & Gartner, 2012). It was an appropriate
tool to identify a successful inclusion program.
Flower. On the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey, Flower
Principal marked no action items in the “not yet implemented” section, 10 items in the
“partially implemented” area, 11 items in the “fully implemented” section, and one item
in the “not applicable” section.
Rawling. On the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey, Rawling
Principal marked no action items in the “not yet implemented” section, four items in the
“partially implemented” section, 17 items in the “fully implemented” section, and one
item in the “not applicable” section.
Robinson. On the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey,
Robinson Principal marked no action items in the “not yet implemented” section, one
items in the “partially implemented” section, 20 items in the “fully implemented” section,
and one item in the “not applicable” section.
Brooke. On the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey, Brooke
Principal marked no action items in the “not yet implemented” section, 12 items in the
“partially implemented” section, and 10 items in the “fully implemented” section. Brooke
Elementary was the only school in this study that still had an SDC on campus.
Sycamore. On the Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey,
Sycamore Principal marked no action items in the “not yet implemented” section, 11
items in the “partially implemented” section, 10 items in the “fully implemented” section
and one item in the “not applicable” section.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 56

Table 7
Responses to Quality Indicator of and Inclusive Environment Survey
Principal Not Yet
Implemented
Partially
Implemented
Fully
Implemented
Not
Applicable
Flower 0 10 11 1
Rawling 0 4 17 1
Robinson 0 1 20 1
Brooke 0 12 10 0
Sycamore 0 11 10 1

Findings from Interviews
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “Do elementary school principals use Kotter’s
change model when implementing an inclusive education program in a K-6 public
elementary school?” All five principals were unable to identify by name the change
model utilized by their district or self when implementing the inclusive practice program.
When presented with Kotter’s (2006) eight-step change model visual, they identified the
steps utilized during implementation. The researcher further analyzed the data to identify
steps principals may not have acknowledged when asked directly.
Step one of Kotter’s (2006) change model is establishing a sense of urgency.
Three principals noted that establishing a sense of urgency was a principal focus
reinforced by the school district’s administration as well. Three noted that the sense of
urgency was created by the school district. This provided a sense of urgency in helping
administrators begin the process of implementing inclusive programing for their special
education students in and out of SDC. The sense of urgency from the district illustrated a
push in complying with the least restrictive environment mandated by the EHA.
Robinson Principal noted that the implementation of inclusive programming was a
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 57

district initiative that the assistant superintendent of special education introduced and
noted,
They pulled us together, along with the superintendent, and showed us what our
numbers were and how far off we were in over identifying certain races, genders,
and how out of compliance we were as far as creating isolated classroom spaces
and not including our students as much as they were capable, therefore
underserving them.
Sycamore Principal noted, “Any inclusion in this district is district driven. It’s not a site
decision.”
Flower Principal and Brooke Principal were the two principals whose decision to
implement inclusive education programming was not district-driven. Principals’
favorable attitudes toward the movement of inclusion influenced school-wide policy
implementation (Cook et al., 1999). Flower Principal noted that the district recommended
more inclusive service minutes and were looking for volunteers to pilot a program.
Flower Principal volunteered and noted, “I don’t know why I didn’t do it sooner. If we
are not being inclusive, we [are] excluding students…As a former special education
teacher I can’t believe I didn’t think of this sooner.” Principal Brooke, on the other hand,
stated that the school always had inclusive programming at some level, but it was very
individualized to the student needs. Principal Brooke stated, “We’ve had more parents
want full inclusion which lead to the expansion and having us look for more opportunities
that they could be included in with the general education class.” In this case, the sense of
urgency was established by the principals and not by their school district. Rawling
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 58

Principal commented that the sense of urgency was originally district-driven and noted,
“my school knew we had to comply with the district directive.”
Step two of Kotter’s (2006) change model is forming a guiding team. Three
principals noted having or forming a guiding team. Two principals noted having district
personnel to support the initial implementation process, but they were not part of an
established team. Sycamore Principal noted that everything related to the inclusive
practice program was top-down from the district.
Flower Principal mentioned, “my team initially consisted of the district special
education curriculum specialist, the special education program coordinator, my assistant
principal and special education teachers but has changed with time.” Flower Principal
noted that the current forming team evolved as new staff and programs entered the
school. The team, at the time of this study, consisted of site staff: assistant principal,
school psychologist, education specialist, and the inclusive practice leadership team
(IPLT). The IPLT consisted of special education staff and general education teachers who
co-taught and had students who received special education services in their classrooms.
Robinson Principal stated that the team also initially consisted of district personnel who
guided them through the implementation process and came to consist of site-specific staff
and a district inclusion TOSA. Brooke Principal stated, “my team consists of the district
special education coordinator, inclusion TOSA, SAI teacher and myself.”
Step three of Kotter’s (2006) change model is to create a vision. Four principals
noted creating a vision when interviewed. Rawling Principal said the vision was that
everyone was included. Rawling Principal stated,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 59

It has become infectious, and the culture of the school has changed. Their needed
to be a definite culture shift. I felt that my role in all of this is to help connect my
K-6 with my special education team and setting up opportunities for them to learn
from one another. He idea is how can we better serve our inclusion students in the
classroom.
Robinson Principal noted, “part of it was my enthusiasm and again creating that common
vision of all students learn.” Imbedding the vision of “all students learn” in lesson
planning, workshop design, staff development and became a focus in everyday life.
Robinson Principal noted, “It helped, that I was constantly saying the message.”
Sycamore Principal relayed that the vision was created by the district and disseminated to
the school sites. There was a definite vision or mandated inclusion but Sycamore
Principal played no role in its creation. Brooke Principal noted, “We talked about how we
envision it working, what we envision it looking like for kids and were able to come
together and kind of create that vision together.” Flower Principal did not mention the
creation of a vision.
Step four of Kotter’s (2006) change model is communicating the vision. Four
principals noted communicating the vision when interviewed. Flower Principal noted that
the vision was communicated verbally to the staff:
I reinforced the idea that we were working toward becoming a more inclusive
school to better meet the needs of our special education students. Because I have
been principal at this site for so long, my staff was quick to jump onboard with
the idea.
Rawling Principal communicated the vision by working on the culture of the school:
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 60

I worked on emphasizing the positive, saying things like, “You’re so lucky you
have that student in your class. You have an extra aide. Think of all the things
your other kids have to learn from them.” I also communicated the vision by
having all teachers participate; all teachers have an inclusion student in their
classroom. Communicating that the change was for everyone seemed to change
the conversations that were going on.
Robinson Principal noted,
I think what helped communicate the vision was linking it to growth mindset. We
build it into our school motto of we inspire and motivate lifelong learners in a safe
and organized environment so that everybody’s on the same page. I tried to
normalize[e] risk taking so that teachers felt comfortable experimenting with
different thing[s] in order to find what works for them and their students in this
new inclusive practice environment.
Brooke Principal noted that the vision was communicated with the special education team
onsite. It was noted that because the vision was created with her special education team,
the team and notes that staff “The entire staff was able to communicate that (the vision).”
Sycamore Principal did not mention the creation of a vision when interviewed.
Step five of Kotter’s (2006) change model is enabling action. Four principals
noted enabling action when interviewed. Flower Principal provided moral support,
material needs, access and funding for training, planning and observing. It became
common practice that the staff visit other school sites that have inclusive practice to bring
back ideas, collaborate and expand their depth of knowledge. Flower Principal noted,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 61

I enable action by providing support to my staff. They know I have an open-door
policy and am willing to help solve problems, provide funding for ancillary
materials, and help with any special education issues. My teachers know that I
will support their ideas, and help in any way possible.
Rawling Principal shared that this was an area they are working on and noted, “I feel that
I enable action through support but recognize that I’m working enabling the action.”
Robinson Principal enabled action by going back into the classroom at times:
I’m still a teacher at heart, and so my teachers are required four times a year to
block off time on my schedule where I go into the classrooms and teach their
classroom. I do this so they can go in and observe at the beginning and or coach
each other or and co-plan and co-teach a lesson themselves. And, so, for them to
see that I’m handling all students with all needs and abilities in their classroom, I
can commiserate and/or celebrate, and they’re getting better at their practice. So, I
think that enabling that action is important.
Brooke Principal noted, “I enable action when we work together. We typically will create
something like a protocol or a form or something that kind of helps it translate into an
action.”
Step six of Kotter’s (2006) change model is to ensure short-term wins. Three
principals noted ensuring short-term wins when interviewed. Rawling Principal noted,
I think short-term wins are the biggest thing that I’m trying to impart to them
[teachers]: all the wins that they can take from what this program offers them. My
teachers are starting to really see and notice the wins. They’re even starting to get
empowered as we’re seeing success, and because of course these students are
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 62

being successful. Because this is truly the right place for them...I think the more
we highlight that, the more we’re seeing it that’s really helpful. I would say this is
where I’m really focused right now.
Robinson Principal interpreted short-term wins as student process toward benchmark and
short-term objectives on their IEP goals. Robinson Principal also noted that it is
important to “celebrate that they’re [teachers] getting better at their practice.” Brooke
Principal stated that short-term wins have been in students’ social-emotional
development. There was improvement in how “the kids interact naturally out on the
playground, seeing how the general education students building empathy and shares those
things with my staff during staff collaboration time and it’s just kind of fed on itself.”
Brooke Principal shared that the ensuring of short-term wins propelled the program
forward in gaining teacher buy-in.
Step seven of Kotter’s (2006) change model is to improve and expand. Three
principals noted a focus on improving and expanding their inclusive education program
when interviewed. Flower Principal expressed that this was done through the IPLT
meetings and noted,
As a team, we discuss issues that arise and what we need to do to address and
prevent them in the future. It takes a team to collaborate on ideas and ensure the
best outcome for the student, the general education teacher, and the education
specialist.
Flower Principal also stated that there was a meeting scheduled in the near future to
specifically focus on what the program will look like the following year to provide the
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 63

appropriate support and planning time. Robinson Principal shared that they meet monthly
as a team to discuss programming and noted,
It has become seamless to improve and expand due to the collaborative model we
have at the site. We are talking about it all the time. Our program is very open.
We’ve had close to nine different districts come through our schools specifically
to see what’s going on with the program. The transparency and sharing of ideas
has helped so much that we’ve normalized it and that’s who we are.
Brooke Principal shared, “The team decided that we needed to take it to the next level.”
She noted that they expanded into student council. Rawling Principal noted that they had
not reached this step yet.
Step eight of Kotter’s (2006) change model is to anchor the change. Two
principals noted anchoring the change when interviewed. Robinson Principal anchored
the change with the vision statement “we inspire and motivate lifelong learners in a safe
and organized environment.” Robinson Principal reflected on how staff members
reiterate the vision, and that, along with a growth mindset, propels the program forward.
It is believed that the principal’s enthusiasm for the program had an impact and that the
inclusive model would continue at the school long after the principal’s tenure. Brooke
Principal said, “It’s constant. It’s something we are always reflecting on to ensure that we
continue keeping our focus on the benefits. The benefits help us anchor it and ensure that
it keeps happening.” Rawling Principal stated not having reached this step yet.
Table 8 lists each principal and the steps they utilized from Kotter’s change
model. Four steps were identified as most commonly used: step one, establishing a sense
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 64

of urgency; step three, creating a vision; step four, communicating the vision; and step
five, enabling action.
Table 8
Principal’s Use of Kotter’s Eight-Step Change Model
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8
Flower X X X X X
Rawling X X X X X
Robinson X X X X X X X X
Brooke X X X X X X X X
Sycamore X X

Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “What previous knowledge and experience is
essential for elementary school principals to implement a successful inclusion program?”
All principals saw a need for knowledge in special education and training. All obtained a
general education multiple subject credential. One obtained a special education credential
and had previous teaching experience in an SDC moderate to severe program. All noted
that, although they had no professional background in special education, they gained
most of their experience or most of their knowledge through personal experience over
time, on the job. Flower Principal, who had previous special education teaching
experience, noted,
Although I have previous experience, special education has evolved and changed
a lot since I was in the classroom. I think that experience gives me a sense of
understanding and willingness to try out the program. I don’t think I feared the
change as much as other principals may have, I welcomed it because I felt it was
the right thing to do.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 65

Rawling Principal noted,
I taught in the 4, 5, 6 GATE program grades, and the class next door to me was
the SDC 4, 5, 6. She and I became like fast friends within a couple months of me
starting there. We did everything together. So, what we found was we used to
joke that instead of it being like a spectrum of her kids and mine it was like a
circle. They all came together because they were so similar in a lot of ways. If I
was reading a particular novel [in] my class, she did as well. Mine read it
themselves, and I led discussions, and she might read it to hers and lead
discussions a little bit of a different way, but we actually planned a lot of our
instruction together. And, so, I think that probably gave me a really good
perspective on special education.
The principal’s past experiences with special education students were shared with the
team and brought the positive attitude to an otherwise tense situation. The principal
noted, “I wish I had gone back to work on a special education credential but think it may
be something I may be pursued in the future. It seems, as through inclusive practice is the
future for special educating in this district.”
Robinson Principal focused on knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the
general education staff and felt that having known there were gaps in classroom
management would have helped better prepare staff development opportunities before the
actual inclusion occurred. Robinson Principal would have liked to provide teachers with
the parent perspective of inclusive practice because they, too, had reservations about the
process: “Having dialogue with our special needs parents in order to personalize it so that
teachers understand the struggles that the parents are going through and hearing some of
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 66

those fears from the opposite side.” Robinson Principal shared that the only previous
knowledge came from having SDC classes on campus prior to the implementation of
inclusive practice.
Brooke Principal found that previous experiences with early childhood and
preschool were especially helpful with the inclusion of students with moderate to severe
disabilities: “I found that background with early childhood to be really helpful with
supporting classroom instruction in our moderate/severe program.” As director, Brooke
Principal led professional development within the special education preschool classes and
some inclusion pieces within that setting. Within that director role, Brooke Principal
worked with the special needs First 5 Project. Brooke Elementary was a home base for
the district’s Deaf and Hard of Hearing program. Experiences with this program were
also invaluable and helped with understanding special education. Sycamore Principal
expressed,
There’s no training for administrators. It’s all on-the-job training. Your past
experiences is what you’re bringing to the job. I’ve had lots of SDC’s, but
handling that is very different. Yes, you want to start mainstreaming kids, but it’s
different than full inclusion.
Research Questions Three
The third research question asked, “How is the success of an inclusive education
program evaluated by the elementary school principal?” All five principals recognized
that the inclusive programming was successful at their school sites. However, they all
noted that there was no formal evaluation of their program at a site or district level. They
all viewed this as a shortfall and recognized the need for a formal evaluation system as
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 67

their programs grew. The school-wide program evaluation was informal through
observation and anecdotal notes/data taken by inclusion specialists, inclusion TOSAs,
education specialists and or other school staff members. All principals reported that the
individualized student inclusion program was evaluated through IEP goal progress and
attainment along with the increase or decrease of specialized academic instructional
minutes needed.
Flower Principal reported that, as a team, they were working on a school-wide
inclusive practice action plan. This was recently brought by an education specialist onsite
as a way to evaluate where the school was and where all wanted it to be. Flower Principal
noted,
We hope it will help improve our program as well as ensuring that everyone is
working toward a common goal. It will, hopefully, delineate how to evaluate the
program and how to move forward. Currently, we have no formal evaluation
system and the district has not asked for evaluation data yet.
Student progress in the inclusive environment had been informal. Behaviorally, Flower
Principal shared they have more behavioral issues with the general education students
than with the special education students. The number of behavior support plans has
decreased as the SDC classes were disbanded. There was a decrease in the maladaptive
behaviors of the special education students in the general education classroom setting.
Rawling Principal reported continued use of informal evaluation tools and
standardized testing to evaluate student progress. There was no set system to specifically
assess and evaluate the inclusion program itself. Rawling Principal believed that the
inclusion specialist was to evaluate the inclusion program. Rawling Principal noted
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 68

currently “walk[ing] the classrooms every month and collect[ing] anecdotal data on how
students are doing and on what’s working and what’s not.” Rawling Principal described
monthly collaboration meetings with the inclusion specialist and specialized academic
instruction teacher to debrief and determine what the next steps are for the included
students. Evaluation is “informal but ongoing.”
Robinson Principal reported that “we know it’s working because we’re able to
meet IEP goals quicker because we’ve got more minds wrapped around what we think
are best practices for the students.” The principal also shared that they meet as a team
often to review student progress through their ongoing portfolio as well as look at
patterns of behavior. They did not have a program evaluation system in place.
Brooke Principal noted, “They [district] don’t have a formal way of assessing. It’s
just kind of informal through observations and IEP attainment.” Sycamore Principal
noted, “I haven’t heard of any evaluation program, so, I couldn’t say what the district
does to evaluate it. I haven’t sat down and counted goal attainment or anything like that.”
The principal did not mention school site-specific evaluation procedures.
Ancillary Findings
A finding not directly related to the research questions was general education
students’ growth in empathy and understanding of differences. Although not directly
related to the research questions, this growth was noted several times by all principals.
This additional finding is important to the inclusion program due to the impact it has on
program success and connection to previous studies on inclusive practice.
Inclusion does not benefit only students with disabilities: it has proven to be
beneficial for typically developing general educations students as well (Peltier, 1997).
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 69

Sycamore Principal noted, “what I have seen at this school…is the compassion that
comes out from the other kids, how they naturally protect. I think that what the kids get
from this is irreplaceable.” Flower Principal stated, “They take the special education
students under their wing and become more aware of their similarities rather than their
differences.” Rawling Principal shared, “their peers help push them to a higher
level…[and] another benefit is that all our other students are learning about compassion
and differences. Every person on…campus is benefitting from the inclusive practice
model.”
Brooke Principal shared several success stories focused on the growth of the
general education students and notes, “I definitely see more empathy with our general
education students doing just those helping behaviors and being more kindhearted.”
Finally, Robinson Principal noted, “we’re just a kinder, gentler campus. We are more
accepting of everyone. You hear kids encouraging each other whether…they’re
recognizing that everyone has those strengths and weaknesses and everyone is just a little
bit nicer to each other.” The above examples were noted throughout the research on
inclusive practice.
Analysis
The interview data collected in this study offered important principal perspectives
on the implementation of inclusive education. This study offered insight into the steps
utilized for implementation via Kotter’s change model, previous knowledge and
experiences principals felt may have been beneficial in the implementation and
evaluation of inclusive practice programming. Three major themes emerged from the
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 70

interviews: (1) collaboration; (2) training, experience and previous knowledge; and (3)
short-term wins.
Collaboration
Of the three common themes listed above, the most prominent, and noted by all
principals multiple times was the importance of collaboration. During the interviews, all
principals attributed the success of the inclusive practice program to the collaboration and
work of the education specialist, general education teachers, instructional assistants,
TOSA, inclusion specialist, program specialist and special education coordinators.
Brooke Principal noted “it has been successful due to the adult commitment.” In
connection to literature, collaboration gained acceptance in a field where teaching was
regarded as a traditionally solo practice (Lipsky & Gardner, 2012). Flower Principal
noted that the inclusion general education teachers and their education specialist were
scheduled to collaborate and plan for an hour a week. This helped the general education
teacher gain knowledge and feel supported. Four principals noted their education
specialists utilized the push-in model to provide specialized academic instruction to
special education students but were working on the implementation of co-teaching to
meet their students’ needs.
The importance of push-in and co-teaching service models was discussed by all
participants. Both require collaboration in their implementation. Lipsky & Gartner (2012)
noted that this new service delivery model was based on the idea that more professionals
work collaboratively to teach material to a diverse group of learners. This model was
proven to enhance the outcomes for all students, not just those diagnosed with a
disability. As the principals improved and expanded their inclusive practice programs,
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 71

they were looking to improve service models in the classroom with both the general
education teacher and education specialist working as a team to provide all students
access to the curricula.
Collaboration between the principals and their districts consisted of the districts
providing inclusion specialists/TOSAs. Four principals noted having inclusion-specific
district personnel assigned to their elementary school. They note that the inclusion-
specific district personnel assisted with troubleshooting problems and provided feedback
on student growth and programming. Robinson Principal noted, “It is comforting that I
can call her [inclusion TOSA] and get support right away.” Rawling Principal
emphasized relying on having the monthly visit and class walk-throughs to informally
evaluate student progress and get advice. One noted not having a specific inclusion
implementation person but receiving support from the curriculum specialist. This
principal implemented the inclusive practice program as a pilot and not as a district
directive. This may account for the lack of inclusion-specific support staff allocated to the
school. Research on inclusion-specific district personnel was minimal and their impact on
successful implementation should be considered for future research.
Training, Experience and Previous Knowledge
The lack of training, experiences and knowledge regarding special education
contributed to opposition from teachers, parents, and principals. Three principals
conveyed that initial resistance to the inclusive program from teachers was specifically
related to feelings of not being prepared or adequately trained to have students with
disabilities in their classrooms. This directly relates to Yang and Rusli’s (2012) findings
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 72

that teachers are resistant to inclusion because they feel inadequate in teaching children
with disabilities.
All five principals noted having had district support at the initial stages of
implementation through teacher training, monthly inclusion newsletters, end-of-the-year
inclusion school presentations, and UDL training for education specialist. The most
valued support provided by the districts came from inclusion specialists/TOSAs, special
education program specialists and staff allocations for instructional assistants. Although
the initial support aided in the implementation, it was not continued and since decreased.
The principals thereafter relied on the education specialist to continue to train the general
education teachers on UDL, modifying the curriculum, behavior management and
understanding the IEP. As the number of students with disabilities increased in the
inclusive environment, the support staff was limited. Lack of support staff was directly
linked to teacher resistance to inclusion (Sparks, 2009).
Four principals specified that not having special education experience was a
shortcoming. They relied heavily on previous personal experiences with past colleagues,
students and previous SDCs. Deemed a limitation in literature, the lack of special
education experience is noted as a barrier to successful inclusion (Davidson & Algozzine,
2002). The principals expressed there should be more training in special education in
administrative credential programs to better prepare principals to ensure the needs of all
students are met in the least restrictive environment. With inclusive practice becoming
more prevalent, it would seem negligent to exclude special education specific training in
administrative credentialing programs. The lack of administrator preparation for inclusive
practice is an area of concern and should be a topic of focus in future research.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 73

Short-Term Wins
Ensuring short-term wins is step six of Kotter’s change model. Three principals
deemed short-term wins crucial in gaining teacher buy-in. Rawling Principal noted “the
more we highlight the more teachers are seeing that it really works.” The teachers at
Rawling were beginning to feel empowered because they had a part in short-term wins
through student successes. Brooke Principal also noted, “we share these (short-term wins)
at our staff collaboration time and it kind of feeds on itself. Keeping our focus on the
benefits ensured that it keeps happening.” Minimal research was found on the use of
Kotter’s change model in an educational setting, therefore necessitating further research
on its effective application in a school setting.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from 20 principals surveyed as well as five
principals interviewed from Southern California public K-6 elementary schools. Results
indicated successful implementation of inclusive practice in a public K-6 elementary
school is attainable with the right supports for the principal and school site. As indicated
in the results, Kotter’s eight-step change model can be utilized for the successful
implementation of inclusive practice. This study validates the need for principals to have
prior knowledge, experience and training in special education to facilitate and aid in the
implementation of inclusive education. This study identifies the need for formal
evaluation tools to evaluate success of inclusive practice programs. Chapter five
discusses the research, further conclusions and implications of the research. Finally,
recommendations for future research are reported.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 74

CHAPTER FIVE: CONLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Literature found that principal leadership is crucial in the implementation of
inclusive education programs. For this reason, the researcher focused on principal
leadership in the implementation of inclusive education for students with disabilities.
This study determined that participating K-6 elementary school principals utilized steps
in Kotter’s change model when implementing their inclusion education programs. This
study examined the application of a business change model to an educational change
setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of Kotter’s (2006) eight-step
change model to implement inclusive educational programs for students with disabilities
in a K-6 elementary public school setting. This study examined the importance of
principal leadership role in the execution of inclusive education programs for students
with disabilities through three factors. The primary factor was the role of elementary
school principals’ leadership in the implementation of inclusive educational programs.
The second was a determination of the change models they used to implement the
programs. The third was their methods for evaluating the effectiveness of their programs.
Recognizing and knowing the barriers principals may face may better prepare other
principals for successful implementation in the future.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide the study:
1. Do elementary school principals use Kotter’s change model when implementing
an inclusive education program in a K-6 school?
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 75

2. What previous knowledge and experience is essential for elementary school
principals to implement a successful inclusion program?
3. How is the success of an inclusive education program evaluated by the elementary
school principal?
Methodology
This study aimed to determine whether the participating K-6 elementary school
principals utilized steps in Kotter’s change model when implementing inclusive
education programs for students with disabilities. To obtain this information, the
researcher utilized a mixed-methods approach to provide concise account of events
during implementation at an elementary school level. Steps used in the implementation of
were determined via questionnaire and one-on-one interviews.
The methodology utilized in this study served to collect quantitative data through
surveys administered during interviews and qualitative data from open-ended questions
during interviews of elementary principals. Quantitative data were collected via the
Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey that provided evaluation
information for each school’s implementation of inclusive education programming.
A mixed-methods approach and triangulation important in checking for
consistency of findings among the existing literature, survey, and interview data. This
mixed-methods approach has been used to maximize the strength of quantitative research
in providing descriptive information from a large population together with the strength of
qualitative research in providing and in-depth exploration of the underlying meanings
that participants give to the data (Creswell, 2004). Kotter’s (2006) perspectives and
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 76

research on change models and the key roles principals play in the process were applied
as a method of connecting the findings within these larger aspects.
Results and Findings
The findings in this study are based on the data collected and analyzed. The
interview data offered important principal perspectives on the implementation of
inclusive education. This study offered insight into the steps utilized for implementation
via Kotter’s change model, previous knowledge, and experiences principals felt may have
been beneficial in the implementation process and evaluation of inclusive practice
programming.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “Do elementary school principals use Kotter’s
change model when implementing an inclusive education program in a K-6 school?” All
principals were unable to identify by name the change model utilized by their district or
self when implementing the inclusive practice program. When presented with Kotter’s
(2006) eight-step change model visual, they identified the steps utilized during
implementation. The researcher further analyzed the data to identify steps principals may
not have acknowledged when asked directly.
The steps identified by principals to be the most important in the implementation
of inclusive education for students with disabilities were steps one, three, four, and five.
Step one, establishing a sense of urgency (Kotter, 2006), was the only step identified and
utilized by all participants. Three noted that establishing a sense of urgency was a
principal focus reinforced by the school district’s administration as well. Three noted that
the sense of urgency was created by the school district. This provided a sense of urgency
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 77

in helping administrators begin the process of implementing inclusive programing for
their special education students in and out of SDC. The sense of urgency from the district
illustrated a push in complying with the least restrictive environment mandated by the
EHA. Two principals whose decision to implement inclusive education programming
was not district-driven were in agreement with literature noting how principals’ favorable
attitude toward the movement of inclusion influenced school-wide policy implementation
(Cook et al., 1999). Overall, creating a sense of urgency was the most important factor in
the implementation of inclusive programming for students with disabilities.
Steps three, four, and five were identified and utilized by four principals. Step
three, creating a vision, needs to reflect a strong understanding of the organizational
culture and what its members value (Kotter, 2006). This step was commonly interpreted
and defined by the principals as a culture shift. It was a shift from self-contained
classrooms to embracing the new norm of inclusive education and of meeting all
students’ needs in the general education classroom. Although the principals encountered
initial teacher resistance, the vision of their schools now imbedded equal access for all
and least restrictive placement for students with disabilities.
Step four, communicating the vision (Kotter, 2006), was communicated verbally
and reinforced at all staff functions, meetings and trainings. Initial resistance was
minimal until the actual implementation occurred. Resistance is a common force in any
change initiative and is seen as resulting from problems with the change vision or its
communication (Gorran Farkas, 2012). In this study, the principals noted that
communicating the vision and obtaining the teacher buy-in was made possible by
acknowledging short-term wins.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 78

Step five is enabling action (Kotter, 2006). Once a vision is developed, refined
and communicated, Kotter stated that the next step is to empower the rest of the staff to
act on it (Gorran Farkas, 2012). The principals noted they needed to be a source moral
support, provide access to material, fund trainings, and allocate planning and observation
time. The principals enabled action by removing barriers and encouraging collaboration
to expand the teacher’s depth of knowledge.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What previous knowledge and experience is
essential for elementary school principals to implement a successful inclusion program?”
All participants stated that knowledge in special education and training were needed. All
obtained a general education multiple subject credential, but only one had a special
education teaching credential. All noted they gained most of their special education
experiences through personal involvement over time, on the job. The attitude and
experience of school administrators related to individuals with disabilities have a clear
impact on special education practice (Praisner, 2003).
Currently in California, the administrative credential does not require
administrators to complete a course specifically special education. All participants noted
that special education was typically only covered in lecture or in assigned readings. All
expressed a need for formal special education training through their administrative
credential preparation program. This directly correlates with research indicating there is
considerable inconsistency in administrator knowledge and practices and that
professional development for administrators is necessary (Kamens, Susko, & Elliott,
2013). Idol (2006) also found that more training is needed on how to effectively support
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 79

teachers of inclusive classrooms in the areas of consulting teaching and cooperative
teacher.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How is the success of an inclusive education
program evaluated by the elementary school principal?” All participants recognized that
the inclusive programming was successful on their school site. However, they all noted
there is no formal evaluation of their program at a site or district level. Currently, school-
wide program evaluations of the programs at all five schools are informal. All principals
reported that the individualized student inclusion program was evaluated through IEP
goal progress and attainment along with the increase or decrease of specialized academic
instructional minutes needed. All principals viewed evaluation of their inclusive
programs as a shortfall and recognized the need for a formal evaluation system as their
programs grew. As inclusive education becomes a global phenomenon, its
implementation differs depending on resources and contextual realities (Walton, 2015).
Due to these differing factors, few studies offer comprehensive strategies for evaluating
inclusive school programs.
Ancillary Findings
A finding not directly related to the research questions was general education
students’ growth in empathy and understanding of differences. All principals noted this
finding as important to the inclusion program due to the impact it had on program success
and connection to previous studies on inclusive practice. This finding is also reinforced as
one of the most impactful findings in the literature that inclusion does not benefit only
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 80

students with disabilities. Rather, it is beneficial for typically developing general
educations students as well (Peltier, 1997).
Implications of Study
This study contributes to research a way of utilizing Kotter’s eight-step change
model when implementing of inclusive practices at K-6 elementary schools. The results
indicate that successful implementation of these practices is attainable when the right
supports are in place. Findings aligned with the research and further suggest implications
for practice to support increasing the number of schools implementing inclusive
education utilizing Kotter’s change model. This study validates the need for principals to
have prior knowledge, experience and training in special education to facilitate the
implementation of inclusive education. Lastly, this study identifies the need for formal
tools to evaluate these programs’ success.
Recommendation for Future Research
Twenty Southern California K-6 elementary school principals were surveyed and
five were interviewed in Orange County, California. Findings revealed additional areas to
be explored. The following are recommendations for future research:
• Further explore the nature of support systems for K-6 elementary school
principals during the implementation of inclusive practice.
• Strengthen the research on inclusive practice in K-6 public elementary schools.
• Expand the research on the use of Kotter’s eight-step change model in educational
settings.
• Additional investigation as to the causes of the successful implementation of
inclusive education in elementary school settings for students with disabilities.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 81

• Further research on principals’ perspectives of implementing inclusive education
for students with disabilities.
• A study of special education courses imbedded in preparation programs in
colleges and universities for school administrators.
• Advance inquiry into evaluation assessment for inclusive education programming.
Concluding Remarks
This study confirms that principals are a guiding force in the implementation of
inclusive education programs. Principals’ favorable attitudes toward the movement
influenced school-wide policy, making inclusion prevalent in today’s educational system
(Cook et al., 1999). As noted in the literature, schools become more inclusive to meet the
needs of more diverse students, including those with disabilities (Salisbury, 2006).
It was determined that Kotter’s eight-step change model is effective in the
implementation of inclusive education programming for students with disabilities in K-6
public elementary schools located in Orange County. Kotter’s model provides a practical
standard for change aimed at principals charged with leading transformation reforms by
influencing system-wide change. This study offers a systematic implementation model
for principals’ use in the application of inclusive education.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 82

References
Allan, J. (2003, April) Deterritorialisations: Putting post modernism to work on teacher
education and inclusion. Key Note Address, Foucault and Education SIG, AERA,
Chicago, Illinois.
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students
with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special
Education, 27(1), 42–59.
Barton, L. (1997). Inclusive education: Romantic, subversive or realistic? International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(3), 231-242. doi:10.1080/1360311970010301
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education,
2005(131), 99-111. doi:10.1002/he.190
Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Fourth Edition. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice
and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bowers, B. (1990). Initiating change in schools. Washington, DC; Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.
Brisenden, S. (1986). Independent living and the medical model of disability. Disability,
Handicap and Society, 1: 173–178.
Brotherson, M. J., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P., & Schertz, M. (2001). Elementary school
principals and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programs.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 31.
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 83

California Department of Education. (2009). Inclusion works! Creating child care
programs that promote belonging for children with special needs. Sacramento,
CA: Author.
Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G.(2008). Creating inclusive schools for all students.
The School Administrator, September, 24–30.
Coburn, C. E. “Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting
Change.” Educational Researcher, 2003, 32(6), 3–12.
Connor, D. J. (2009). Breaking containment – the power of narrative knowing:
Countering silences within traditional special education research. International
Journal of inclusive Education, 13(5), 449–470.
Cook, B. (2001). A comparison of teachers attitudes toward their included students with
mild and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4),203–213.
Cook, B., Semmel, M., & Gerber, M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special
education teachers towed the inclusion of students with mild disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-207.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching guidelines for creating effective practices.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 20 (3), 1-2.
Council for Exceptional Children (2001). Bright futures for exceptional learners: An
agenda to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning. Reston, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 84

Davidson, D. N., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Administrators’ perceptions of special
education law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15(2), 43-48.
Davila, G. (2009). Preparing school principals for a diverse and changing world.
Educational Considerations, 37(1), 53-55.
Davis, L. A. (2002, July). People with intellectual disabilities and sexual offenses.
Retrieved 03 02, 2014, from www.thearc.org
Do, T. P., & Geist, P. (2000). Othering the embodiment of persons with physical
disabilities. Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research
and application (pp. 49-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fisher, J. (Director), & Warmflash, S. (Writer). (1997). Unforgotten: Twenty-five years
after Willowbrook [Motion picture on DVD]. United States: City Lights
Productions.
Fitch, F. (2009). Moral philosophy, disability, and inclusive education. Ohio Valley of
Education Society.
Fleischer, D. Z., & Zames, F. (2000). The disability rights movement: From Charity to
Confrontation. Temple University Press.
Fullan, M. (1985). Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(3), 390-421.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY:
Teacher College Press
Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C. (2007). Inclusive Leadership: Preparing
principals for the role that awaits them. Educational Leadership
andAdministration,19, 117-132.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 85

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishers.
Goodland, J. I., & Lovitt, T. C. (Eds.). (1993). Integrating general and special education.
New York: Merrill.
Gorran Farkas, M. (2013). Building and sustaining a culture of assessment: best practices
for change leadership. Reference Services Review, 13-31.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the
treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14,
263-276.
Hall, G.E. and Hord, S.M. (1987, Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Hamre-Nietupski, S., Dvorsky, S., & McKee, A. (1999). Going home: general and
special education teachers’ perspectives as students with moderate/severe
disabilities return to rural neighborhood schools. Education & Training in Mental
Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 34(3), 235-259.
Harter, L. M., Scott, J. A., Novak, D. R., Leeman, M., & Morris, J. F. (2006). Freedom
through flight: Performing a counter-narrative of disability. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 34(1), 3-29.
Ho, A. (2004). To be labelled or not to be labelled: That is the question. British Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 32, 86–92.
Holahan, A., & Costenbader, V. (2000). A comparison of developmental gains for
preschool children with disabilities in inclusive and self-contained classrooms.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(4), 224–235.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 86

Idol, L. (1997). Key questions related to building collaborative and inclusive schools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4), 384-94.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education.
Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-77.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat.
2647 (2004).
Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (1997).
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. New York, NY, McGraw Hill.
Kamens, M. W., Susko, J. P., & Elliott, J. S. (2013). Evaluation and supervision of
coteaching: A study of administrator practices in New Jersey. National
Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 97(2), 166-190.
Kersten, T.A. and Sloan, C.A. (1985, “Principal: manager or change agent?”, Catalyst
for Change, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 24‐7.
Laughlin, H. H. (1922). Eugenical Sterilization in the United States. Chicago, IL:
Psychopathic Laboratory of the Municipal Court of Chicago.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. G. (2012). Inclusion: A service, not a place: A whole school
approach. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing.
Lorde, A. (1998). Age, race, class, and sex: Women redefining difference. In Race, class,
and gender: An anthology, ed. M.L. Anderson and P.H. Collins, 187–95.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 87

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles: SAGE.
McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making Sense of Research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Mento A., Jones R., & Dirndorfer W. (2002). A change management process: grounded
in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3, 45–59
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners All: A Call for
Inclusive Schools (The Report of The NASBE Study Group on Special
Education). Alexandria, VA
New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 596 F. 2d 27 (1979)
Norwich, B. 2007. Dilemmas of inclusion and the future of education. In R. Cigman
(Ed.). Included or excluded? The challenges of the mainstream for some SEN
children (pp. 69–84). London, UK: Routledge
Ogbu, J., & Simon, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural
ecological theory of school performance and some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Oliver, M. (1989) Disability and dependency: a creation of industrial societies. In L.
Barton (Ed.). Disability and Dependency (pp. 50–60). London, UK: Falmer Press.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 88

Patreese, P. D. (1997). Leadership behaviors of principals in inclusive education settings.
Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 411-427.
Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the
research. Contemporary Education, 68(4), 235–238.
Pfeiffer, D. (1993). Overview of the disability movement: History, legislative record, and
political implications. Policy Studies Journal, 21(4), 724-734. doi:10.1111/j.1541-
0072.1993.tb02169.x
Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward inclusion of
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.
Quigney, T.A. (1996). Revisiting the role of the building principal in the supervision of
special education. Planning and Changing, 27,
209-228.
Ross, J. A., and M. Berger. (2009). Equity and leadership: Research-Based strategies for
school leaders. School Leadership and Management 29 (5): 463–476.
Ryndak, D., Jackson, L., & Billingsley, F. (1999). Defining school inclusion for students
with moderate to severe disabilities: What do experts say? Exceptionality, 8(2),
101–116.
Salisbury, C. (2006). Principals’ perspective on inclusive elementary schools. Research
&Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 70–82.
Salisbury, C., & McGregor, G. (2005). Principals of inclusive schools. National Institute
for Urban School Improvement, 1–12.
Salt, T. (2010). Salt review: Independent review of teacher supply for pupils with severe,
profound and multiple learning difficulties (SLD and PMLD)
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 89

Selden, S. (2010). Eugenics and the social construct of merit, race and disability.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 235-252.
Shapiro, A. (1999). Everyone belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward classmates
with disabilities. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
Silverstein, R. (2000). Emerging disability policy framework: A guidepost for analyzing
public policy. Iowa Law review, 85(5), 1691-1806
Sparks, L. J. (2009) General education teachers resistance to teaching in inclusion
classrooms.
Stanovich, P. J., & Jordan, A. (2002). Preparing general educators to teach in inclusive
classrooms: Some food for thought. The Teacher Educator, 57(2), 173-185.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and
Evaluative Criteria. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 19(6), 418-427.
Stevenson- Jacobson, R., J. Jacobson, and A. Hilton. (2006). Principals’ perceptions of
critical skills needed for administration of special education. Journal of Special
Education Leadership 19 (2): 39–47.
The IRIS Center. (2010). Creating an Inclusive School Environment: A model for School
Leaders. Retrieved from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/inc/
Titone, C. (2005). The philosophy of inclusion: Roadblocks and remedies for the teacher
and the teacher educator. The Journal of Educational Thought, (39), 7-7.
Tobin, R. (2007). Interactions and practices to enhance the inclusion experience.
TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3(5) Article 5.
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 90

Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes toward inclusion and self
efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary
Journal, 12(2), 151–168.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016-014), Chapter 2.
Waldron, N. L., & Redd, L. (2011). Case in point: Providing a full cycle of support to
teachers in an inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 24(1), 59–61.
Walton, E. (2015). Global concerns and local realities: The “Making education inclusive”
conference in Johannesburg. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(3), 173-177.
Wiggam, A. E. (1922) The New Decalogue of Science (New York: Bobbs-Merrill).
Wolfe, P., & Hall, T. (2003). Making inclusion a reality for students with severe
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 56–61.
Yang, C., & Rusli, E. (2012). Teacher training in using effective strategies for preschool
children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 9(1), 53.
York, J., & Tundidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of
educators, parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 20(1), 31–44.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 91

Appendix A
Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy
Los Angeles, Ca. 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

USE OF KOTTER’S CHANGE MODEL BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
IN THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN K-6 ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study.
You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to examine the importance of principal leadership in the
implementation of inclusive education programs in K-6 urban school settings. The
purpose of this study encompasses three components. The primary component is to
understand the role of elementary school principal leadership in the implementation of
inclusive educational programs in K-6 elementary schools. The second purpose is to
determine what change models are used by principals to implement inclusive education
programming. The third component is to determine how principals evaluate the
effectiveness of their inclusion program.

It is important to examine principals use of change models because principal leadership is
deemed crucial and the key component to the effectiveness and successful
implementation of inclusive education (Patreese, 1997). Knowledge gained from this
study will help determine better ways to implement inclusive education programs to
better meet the needs of students with disabilities in schools.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey that
contains simple yes/no questions and may require a follow up face-to-face interview.
The online survey is anticipated to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Depending
on your responses to the survey and your availability, you may be asked to be
interviewed via Skype or in-person. The interview is voluntary, and anticipated to last
PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 92

approximately 30 minutes and may be audio-taped. You do not have to answer any
questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be taped, you cannot participate in this
study.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be compensated for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY

There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected. Your responses will
be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The audio-tapes will
be destroyed once they have been transcribed. The data will be stored on a password
protected computer in the researcher’s office until the study has been completed and then
destroyed.

The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator Maricecy Hernandez via email at maricech@usc.edu or
phone at (714) 277-9752 or Faculty Advisor Rudy Castruita at rcastrui@usc.edu or
(213) 821-4392.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 93

Appendix B
Quality Indicators of an Inclusive Environment Survey

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 94

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 95

Appendix C
Interview Protocol

Interviewee (Title & Pseudo name): ______________________________________

Interviewer: ______ __________________________________________________

Documents Obtained: _________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments or Leads:
___________________________________________________________________

Introductory Protocol:
To facilitate our note-taking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today. Please
sign the release form. For your information, only researchers on the project will be privy
to the tapes which will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. In addition,
you must sign a form devised to meet our human subject requirements. Essentially, this
document states that: (1) all information will be held confidential, (2) your participation
is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not
intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for your agreeing to participate.

We have planned this interview to last no longer than 30 minutes. During this time, we
have several questions that we would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be
necessary to interrupt you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.

Introduction
You have been selected to speak with us today because you have been identified as
someone who has implemented an inclusive education program on your elementary
school site. Our research project as a whole focuses on the change models used to
implement effective inclusive education programs. Our study does not aim to evaluate
your techniques or experiences. Rather, we are trying to learn more about effective
change models for inclusive education to improve student learning.

Section I. Interviewee Background

1. How long have you been in education?
2. How long have you been principal at your school site?
3. What is your highest degree?
Probe: credentials held:
4. K-12 teaching/administration experience:

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 96

Section II. Implementation of Inclusion

5. Describe your inclusive education program. (What levels are included, # of sped
teachers
6. What made you create an inclusion program at your school site?
7. Briefly describe your role as it relates to the creation of your inclusion program.
8. What change model, if any, did you use to implement your inclusion program?
Probe: what steps were utilized in implementing school inclusion? Show Kotter’s
Model
9. Did you encounter resistance to the implementation of inclusive practice?
a. Probe: If so, from whom?
10. What resources were made available to you and your staff to help implement
inclusive programming?

Section III. Experience with Inclusion

11. What is your knowledge of special education?
12. What experience do you have with special education programs?
13. What is inclusion and why is it important?
Probe: how was your school site selected, how did you get involved?
14. What were some of the major challenges you faced in attempting to change from
self-contained classroom setting to full inclusion?
Probes: How were these challenges overcome?
15. What previous knowledge and experience do you find to be essential in the
implement of a successful inclusion program?

Section IV: Evaluation

16. Is the inclusion program effective?
Probe: Is it working? Why or why not?
17. How is the inclusion of each student evaluated?
18. Describe how you went about assessing whether the included students grasp the
material you present in class?
Probe: Do you use evidence of student learning in your assessment of classroom
inclusion strategies?
19. How is the success of the inclusion program evaluated?
Probe: school site, teachers, district level?
20. What are some of the benefits you have seen after implementing an inclusive
model?
21. What would you like to improve upon?
22. Advise to principals beginning the process of implementing inclusive school
programming.

PRINCIPALS’ USE OF KOTTERS CHANGE MODEL 97

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Implementation of inclusive practice is the responsibility of school site principals. As school leaders, principals set the tone and expectations of a school’s approach to curriculum, equity, and inclusion. This places principals in a pivotal role in changing school climate and shifting special education programs from a special day class to the general education setting. ❧ This study explored the process used by principals when implementing inclusive education for students with disabilities. This study specifically looked at the use of Kotter’s change model in the implementation process in K-6 public elementary schools in Orange County, California. Results showed that although principals could not identify the change model used by name, they did identify several of Kotter’s eight steps. This study validates the need for principals to have prior knowledge, experience and training in special education to facilitate the implementation of inclusive education. Lastly, this study identifies the need for formal tools to evaluate these programs’ success. ❧ Recommendations include, further research on principal’s perspective of implementing education for students with disabilities, a study of special education courses imbedded in preparation programs in colleges and universities for school administrators and to expand research o the use of Kotter’s eight step change model in educational settings. Studying the implementation process may offer information to principals on how to create supportive environments when implementing inclusive education to provide equity for all students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of middle school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

PDF

The characteristics of high schools that have successfully implemented Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts

PDF

The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

PDF

The role of educational leadership on participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs at Bayside Elementary School

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

PDF

The role of educational leadership in participation in the National Program of Science and Technology Fairs in elementary schools in the coastal region of Costa Rica

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

Asset Metadata

Creator Hernandez, Maricecy (author)

Core Title Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/10/2017

Defense Date 03/07/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag elementary school inclusion,inclusion,inclusion implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Escalante, Michael (committee member), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member)

Creator Email maricech@usc.edu,maricecy.hernandez@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-351465

Unique identifier UC11257961

Identifier etd-HernandezM-5160.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-351465 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HernandezM-5160.pdf

Dmrecord 351465

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hernandez, Maricecy

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA