University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

(USC Thesis Other)

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Strategies to Create a Culture of Inclusion for Students with Special Needs
by
Jessica Awni Ghobrial

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Jessica Awni Ghobrial 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jessica Awni Ghobrial certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Elaine Semple
Rudy Castruita
David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv
Abstract
With the least restrictive environment mandate per the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (2004), it is imperative to understand general education teacher perceptions that allow them
to successfully include students with special needs in general education settings and discover the
resources and strategies they use. This study sought to identify the strategies and tools
elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County perceive
they need to successfully include students with special needs in their classrooms, the strategies
and tools they use, and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students with
special needs they perceive to be necessary. A sample of 48 elementary general education
teachers, selected from school districts practicing inclusion models in Los Angeles County, made
up the research participants. Surveys provided formal data on the specific tools and resources
general education teachers had access to and knowledge of as well as the resources and tools
they perceived they needed. Surveys also gathered data on the components that created a
successful culture of inclusion for students with special needs. Interviews were conducted for
seven of the 38 general education teachers, who were purposefully selected to describe general
education teacher perceptions of the tools and strategies needed to successfully include students
with special needs in their classrooms, the tools and strategies they currently use and/or have
knowledge of, and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students with special
needs. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, incorporating qualitative data from interviews
and quantitative data from surveys. Data analysis was guided by the conceptual framework as
well as the research questions. A codebook was developed, and results from surveys, interviews,
and the literature were compared in order to triangulate the data. Gaining knowledge of what
general education teachers need to successfully include students with special needs may allow

v
leaders to better equip teachers with tools, resources, and strategies to do what is best for
students with special needs.
Keywords: Inclusion, students with special needs, general education, special education,
mainstreaming, strategies, resources, equity, diversity

vi
Dedication
To my father, Awni Aziz Ghobrial, I could not have achieved this without your love and support.
You sacrificed so much for us, instilled the power of education and hard work in me and
continue to inspire me every day.

To my brothers Dr. Andrew Ghobrial and Coach Michael Ghobrial. You are my role models!

To my late mother and aunt, Hoda Soliman and Margaret Tadros, who were here when I first
began this journey three years ago and who, I know, have never left my side.

vii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I give thanks to God for His everlasting love and blessings. Next,
words cannot express my sincerest thanks to my committee chair, Dr. David Cash, for his
guidance and support. You pushed me when I needed the nudge, you encouraged and motivated
me to get it done, and you enlightened me with your immense knowledge and experience.
Utmost respect and gratitude, also, for Dr. Rudy Castruita. I will never forget how inspiring your
classes were when I first began the program as the nervous wreck that I was. I looked forward to
your countless stories illustrating anything is possible when you have passion and integrity. Also,
immense gratitude and admiration to Dr. Elaine Semple. You planted this seed in me when I was
just starting my career and you continued to push me to pursue this path in leadership. Most
importantly, you led by example in your work for our kids. I hope to do a fraction of the work
you did for our district. I would also like to acknowledge the great contribution of Dr. Kati
Krumpe to the data collection in this study. I am extremely grateful to you!
I also thank all my colleagues who have journeyed with me in this program, especially
Adrienne Thomas, Manuel Albert, William Satti, Edwin Yau, and Steve Mejia. Thank you for
the stimulating discussions, the insightful perspectives, the supportive comments and texts, the
late-night walks to our cars, and the many laughs. You have made these three years so
memorable.
Finally, to my classroom team and colleagues for the work you do every day to push our
kids to reach for the stars.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ........................................................................ 7
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Special Education Law and the Least Restrictive Environment ....................................... 11
Caselaw on the Least Restrictive Environment ................................................................ 12
Defining Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General Education Settings ........ 15
Coteaching Model ............................................................................................................. 17
The Effectiveness of Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General
Education .......................................................................................................................... 18
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 20
Barriers Toward the Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General
Education Settings ............................................................................................................ 23

ix
General Education Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion ....................................................... 25
Best Practices: Tools and Strategies to Support the Integration of Students With
Special Needs in General Education Settings ................................................................... 27
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 30
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 33
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 33
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 34
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 35
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 35
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 37
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 38
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 40
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 42
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 43
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 45
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 47
Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings .............................................................................. 48
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 48
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 49
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Organization of Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 51
Demographics of Survey Participants ............................................................................... 53
Demographics of Interview Participants ........................................................................... 55
Findings for Research Question 1 ..................................................................................... 57
Findings for Research Question 2 ..................................................................................... 72
Findings for Research Question 3 ..................................................................................... 92

x
Discussion and Chapter Summary .................................................................................. 105
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 109
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 109
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 110
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 111
Results and Findings ....................................................................................................... 111
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 115
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 117
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 120
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 121
References ................................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix A: Interview Protocol for General Education Teachers ............................................. 136
Appendix B: Introduction Letter for Survey Participants ........................................................... 142
Appendix C: Survey for General Education Teachers ................................................................ 143

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Special Education/General Education Cost Ratios ......................................................... 22
Table 2: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of General Education Teachers ...................... 43
Table 3: Interview Participants’ Demographics ........................................................................... 56
Table 4: Interview Participants’ Inclusion Experience With Students With IEPs ........................ 57
Table 5: Barriers Perceived by General Education Teachers That Prevent Students With
Special Needs From Succeeding in General Education ................................................. 60
Table 6: Resources Perceived by General Education Teachers Needed to Support Students
With Special Needs in Their Classroom ........................................................................ 61
Table 7: Strategies 38 General Education Teachers Indicated They Received Training In and
Strategies They Currently Use ........................................................................................ 75
Table 8: Tools/Resources Currently Available in the Classroom to Support Students With
Special Needs ................................................................................................................. 76

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Triangulation of the Data .............................................................................................. 45

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study

You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: “now, you are free to go where
you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.” You do not take a man
who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a
race, saying, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe you
have been completely fair. . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for
civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human
ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.
—Lyndon B. Johnson, “Commencement Address at Howard University” (1965)

The purpose of education is to give all students the opportunity to achieve. It is our duty
to ensure we are providing every student the means necessary to make progress and reach his/her
potential. As Lyndon B. Johnson so eloquently stated, to do this we cannot simply teach to meet
the needs of the status quo; we must be teaching to meet the needs of every student. So often, the
term best practices is used lightly but confidently among teachers and schools. But are we really
intentionally planning instruction to meet the needs of all learners, especially those who are
“hobbled by chains,” using what current literature deems to be best practices? Are we carefully
considering the needs of our most struggling students to ensure we design and implement
strategies that will truly give them a chance in the race of life?
The inclusion of students with special needs in their least restrictive environment (LRE)
is not only a legal requirement but also necessary for students with special needs to gain
educational benefit. Classrooms are not adequately supporting students with special needs in
general education settings, leading to placement into more restrictive settings and/or litigation
2

(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Cheney & Barringer, 1995; MacMillan et al., 1996; Russo-
Campisi, 2017; Skiba & Peterson, 2000; Walker & Bullis, 1990). In 1954, Brown v. Board of
Education set the precedent that separate is, in fact, not equal, and that facilities educating
students were inherently unequal (Martin et al., 1996). This became relevant to students with
special needs, who were also in separate placements. Though much progress has been made, the
lack of inclusion of students with special needs in general education settings has maintained
segregation. We are still educating our students separately due to the lack of support and
resources offered in those settings.
Background of the Problem
Segregation in schools has been at the forefront of educational issues for decades
(Maydosz & Maydosz, 2013). Based on the Brown decision, in 1965 the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act was established, and this is what later became known as No Child Left
Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act. The focus shifted to low-performing groups of
students by the implementation of accountability measures. The Brown decision also made an
impact on the Mills v. Board of Education case in 1972 that declared education is for all students
regardless of disabilities (Martin et al., 1996).
The first laws of special education were not established until the early 1970s (Martin et
al., 1996). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 stated people with disabilities cannot be discriminated
against and ensured their civil rights, including accommodations in schools. The Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 asked that schools receiving funding provide a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE) and that students be educated in their least restrictive
environment (LRE). This means that, to the greatest extent possible, students with disabilities
should be with their nondisabled peers.
3

The provision of the least restrictive environment for students identified under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act stated that students are entitled to a FAPE in the least
restrictive environment, which ensures that “to the maximum extent appropriate, students with
disabilities be educated with children who are nondisabled” and that it is inappropriate “if the
nature or severity of the disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA, 2004, Section
300.114). Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act, established in 1990, prohibited
discrimination on the basis of disability in all activities, services, and programs provided to the
public. In 1990, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act became known as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; it was amended in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004 to
ensure all students eligible to receive special education services be provided an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP; Martin et al., 1996). Though much progress has been made, the lack of
support provided to students with special needs has maintained segregation. Because of this lack
of support, students are being placed in separate classrooms to get their needs met. This study
investigated the tools and resources needed to adequately support students with special needs in
their least restrictive environments.
Statement of the Problem
Numerous studies have suggested that inclusive practices positively affect the
achievement of students with special needs in comparison with their peers in separate placements
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). With the LRE mandate in place, districts
must strive to create more programs that allow for students with special needs to be taught in
general education settings to the greatest extent possible. Three studies found significant
evidence that coteaching models significantly affect student achievement, cognitive engagement,
4

and attendance in comparison with their peers taught in self-contained special education settings
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). According to Daley et al. (2019), their
study’s results suggested the following improvements are needed: “increased professional
development for teams to move beyond the one teach, one support model of co-teaching,
additional research on cognitive engagement and coteaching, and teacher preparation programs
to include more examples of, and training in, quality co-teaching models” (p. 6).
Buli-Holmberg and Jeyaprathaban (2016) studied the factors in 24 schools in South
Norway that contribute to effective teaching practices for students with special needs. They
found that general education teachers lacked the skills needed to support students with special
needs in their classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the support they needed,
while students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were better supported. Why
is there a gap? What strategies are being implemented in classrooms successfully including
students with special needs that others may not be implementing?
Purpose of the Study
The key stakeholders in supporting students with special needs in the public-school
system include general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers,
administrators, parents, and students. However, ultimately it is the general education and special
education teachers who implement the strategies and utilize the tools provided to successfully
include students with special needs in general education settings. This is why it is imperative to
understand their perceptions of what allows them to be successful in including students with
special needs in general education settings and to identify the tools and strategies that they have
access to and/or knowledge of.
5

Surveys in this study provided formal data on the specific tools and resources general
education teachers have access to and have knowledge of. The surveys also provided data on
general education teachers’ perceptions of the tools, strategies, and resources needed for the
inclusion of students with special needs in their settings. Finally, the surveys provided
information about the culture of inclusion at the schools in the study and helped identify and
define successful cultures of inclusion. Additionally, interviews were conducted to understand
general education teacher perceptions of the tools and strategies needed to successfully include
students with special needs in their classrooms; what strategies, tools, and resources they use
and/or have knowledge of; and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students
with special needs.
The use of inclusive practices such as grouping strategies, providing peer support, direct
instruction, visuals and manipulatives, differentiated instruction, relationships teachers have with
students, behavioral strategies, and adult support (e.g., paraeducator or other one-on-one support)
have all been presented in the literature that forms this study’s conceptual framework (Canges,
2010; Obiakor et al., 2012; Strogilos, 2018). The literature also highlights how the culture of a
school may either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special needs (Obiakor
et al., 2012). Although differentiated instruction is supported by the literature, the only way to
ensure its implementation is to provide teachers with the tools they need to implement that level
of support (Strogilos, 2018). Canges (2010) found that to support the social inclusion of students
with special needs, the arrangement of the environment is critical. Specifically, where students
are seated can greatly affect their sense of belonging. Obiakor et al. (2012) emphasized the
importance of engaging all students in learning.
6

Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students
with special needs in their classrooms?
2. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special needs in their
classrooms?
3. What do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los
Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful culture of
inclusion for students with special needs?
Through a transformative worldview, this study examined the tools and strategies that
general education teachers need in order to support the inclusion of students with special needs
in their classroom. Transformative research gives otherwise marginalized groups such as
students with special needs a voice and advocates for their best interest (Creswell, 2018).
Significance of the Study
This study may inform the practice of general education teachers in their work on the
inclusion of students with special needs in their classrooms. Specifically, administrators, general
education teachers, and IEP team members may better understand the tools, strategies, resources,
and culture that will allow them to better support students with special needs in their classrooms.
If we can better identify the tools, strategies, and resources needed to adequately support students
with special needs in their LRE, policymakers will be better able to work to equip schools.
Legislation should work toward prioritizing funding in education so that students are given what
7

they need to achieve. Further, researchers should work more closely with practitioners to define
key practices that meet the needs of students with special needs.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The limitations of this study include the use of interviews to glean perceptions of general
education teachers, which may lead to biased data. Teachers may be more inclined to respond to
interview questions that indicate what they should be doing or saying rather than what they
actually practice, and therefore the presence of a researcher may have affected the subjects’
responses. The delimitations of this study were the geographic region sampled (Los Angeles
County) and the number of general education teachers surveyed and interviewed.
Definition of Terms
Educational equity: A state in which each child receives what he or she needs to develop
to his or her full academic and social potential. Working toward equity involves:
• Ensuring equally high outcomes for all participants in the educational system;
removing the predictability of success or failures that currently correlates with any
social or cultural factor
• Interrupting inequitable practices, examining biases, and creating inclusive
multicultural school environments for adults and children
• Discovering and cultivating the unique gifts, talents and interests that every human
possesses. (National Equity Project, n.d., para. 2)
Efficiency: “Getting the most out of a given input” and “achieving an objective for the
lowest cost” (Stone, 2002, p. 61).
Equality: “The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value,
rank, or ability” (Dictionary.com, n.d., para. 1).
8

Equity: Giving people what they need when they need it (Smith, 2019).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): “A plan or program developed to ensure that a
child who has a disability identified under the law and is attending an elementary or secondary
educational institution receives specialized instruction and related services” (University of
Washington, 2019, para. 1).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): “A law that makes available a free
appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and
ensures special education and related services to those children” (U.S. Department of Education,
n.d., para. 1).
Least restrictive environment (LRE): According to IDEA,
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in
public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are
not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1412(a)(5)(A))
Students with special needs: “Any of various difficulties (such as a physical, emotional,
behavioral, or learning disability or impairment) that causes an individual to require additional or
specialized services or accommodations (such as in education or recreation)” (Merriam-Webster,
n.d., para. 1).
Transformative research paradigm: Set of assumptions and procedures used in research:
9

• Underlying assumptions that rely on ethical stances of inclusion and challenging
oppressive social structures.
• An entry process into the community that is designed to build trust and make goals
and strategies transparent.
• Dissemination of findings that encourage use of the results to enhance social justice
and human rights. (Creswell, 2018, p. 71)
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the study
and contextualizes the inequities in servicing students with special needs in their least restrictive
environments. Chapter Two presents a literature review of five areas: history of litigation and
discrimination in special education in America, inclusion and coteaching practices in special
education, funding, barriers toward the inclusion of students with special needs in general
education settings, and best practices in teaching students with special needs. Chapter Three
describes the methodology selected for this research study and includes sample and population
selection, interview and survey questions, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Four is a
report of the research findings. Chapter Five is composed of a summary of findings, implications
for practice, conclusions, and recommendations.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Segregation in schools has been at the forefront of educational issues for decades
(Maydosz & Maydosz, 2013). Individuals with disabilities have been institutionalized since at
least the 12th century and hospitalized and brutally and inhumanely treated since the 13th
century (Rossa, 2017). In the 18th century, Denis Diderot stated that because there was so much
variability across people, there really was no such thing as a norm. Jean Marc Gaspard Itard
argued that because people are social beings, lack of socialization can create handicaps. This
demonstrated the need for all individuals, including the “wild,” to be educated (Rossa, 2017).
Discrimination across race, gender, and ability has been present in the United States for
centuries. In the 1830s and 1840s, Samuel Morton, an American craniologist, conducted a
“scientific” study measuring different skull capacities of various races by filling them with
mustard seeds, finding that the skulls of White people were consistently larger than those of
Black people (Gould, 1996). Also, in the 19th century, Darwin attempted to give a scientific
explanation for racism and identified a superior race based on physical and intellectual qualities.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 gave all males born in the United States the right to citizenship,
regardless of race, color, or condition. Nevertheless, in 1896 the doctrine of separate but equal
was upheld after a landmark case, Plessy v. Ferguson, where an African American passenger
refused to sit in a car in a train designated for Black people. This continued to legitimize the
practice of segregation. Hitler sterilized groups he considered to be biologically inferior and, in
1938–1939, adults and children were being killed to preserve racial purity (Rossa, 2017). The
rights and needs of people with disabilities were not yet recognized. Groups such as individuals
with special needs continue to be marginalized today.
11

Special Education Law and the Least Restrictive Environment
The first laws of special education were not established until the early 1970s (Martin et
al., 1996). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 stated people with disabilities cannot be discriminated
against and ensured their civil rights, including accommodations in schools. The Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 stated that schools receiving funding must provide FAPE
for students with special needs and that students must be educated in the LRE. Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, established in 1990, prohibited discrimination on the basis of
disability in all activities, services, and programs provided to the public. In 1990, the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, amended in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004 to ensure all students eligible to receive special
education services be provided an IEP (Martin et al., 1996). IDEA “mandates nondiscriminatory
assessment, identification, and placement of children with disabilities” (IDEA, 2004, Sec.
300.304).
All districts must implement the provision of the least restrictive environment for
students identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Students
are entitled to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, which
ensures that “to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities be educated with
children who are nondisabled” and that it is inappropriate “if the nature or severity of the
disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be achieved satisfactorily” (IDEA, 2004, Sec. 300.114). The inclusion of
students with special needs in their LRE is a legal requirement. However, LRE has been defined
and interpreted differently since its adoption. According to Bakken and Obiakor (2016), with the
provision of FAPE, various placement options for students with special needs were offered,
12

including separate placements. As a result, the argument became that the least restrictive
environments for many students were separate placements because these students had been
denied access to the education they needed in their home schools. The tenets of IDEA continue
to be held to interpretation by IEP teams and result in due process cases that districts must
navigate (Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, 1989; Education v. Rowley, 1982; Hartmann
v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 1997; Oberti v. Clementon, 1993; Sacramento v. Rachel
H., 1994). Caselaw has continued to establish precedence that separate is not equal by continuing
to provide parameters on how LRE is defined.
Caselaw on the Least Restrictive Environment
It was not until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that the United States began moving
toward the equity of students with special needs. This case set the precedent that separate is, in
fact, not equal, and that separate facilities were inherently unequal. This became relevant to
students with special needs who were in separate placements and would open the door to
legislation for special education students to become full participants in educational settings.
Based on the Brown decision, in 1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was
established, and this is what later became known as No Child Left Behind and the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The focus shifted to low-performing groups of students by the implementation of
accountability measures. The Brown decision affected Mills v. Board of Education (1972), which
declared education is for all students regardless of disabilities (Martin et al., 1996).
In Board of Education v. Rowley (1982), educational benefit was more clearly defined
when the parents of student Amy Rowley sued Hendrick Hudson Central School District for
failing to provide a sign language interpreter in her general education placement. The court held
that FAPE was achieved when students gained educational benefit even though they might not
13

reach their fullest potential. Because Amy was progressing and performing above average, the
court ruled in favor of the district. Based on Roncker v. Walter (1983), the court created a two-
part test to determine placement for a student with special needs: Can the student’s services be
feasibly provided in an inclusive setting? (If yes, then the separate placement is not appropriate.)
Also, to the maximum extent appropriate, is the student being mainstreamed? Daniel R.R. v.
State Board of Education (1989) extended this two-question test to include: With the use of
supplementary aids and services, can an appropriate education be provided in the general
education setting and is the student included to the maximum extent appropriate even if he or she
is in a more restrictive placement? These cases helped shape the way educational benefit was
defined and made it clear that supplementary aids and services must be provided within reason.
In Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education (1997), the court rejected its initial
ruling in favor of the parents fighting for a stay-put placement for their child with autism in his
general education class. The school district claimed that his current general education placement
was not providing meaningful educational benefit and that his behavior was disruptive. The court
stated, “Given the strong presumption for inclusion under the IDEA, disruptive behavior should
not be a significant factor in determining the appropriate educational placement for a disabled
child” (para. 10) but further concluded that those decisions should fall on the professional
judgment of the educators and that mainstreaming a student should only be offered if that student
will receive educational benefit, benefits from mainstreaming should outweigh benefits from the
separate setting, disruptive behavior can be considered when making a determination on
placement, and educational benefits outweigh the benefits of socialization (Hartmann v.
Loudoun County Board of Education, 1997).
14

Oberti v. Clementon (1993) changed IDEA’s narrative to include the notion of inclusion
to help define mainstreaming. When the school wanted to move a student with autism to a more
restrictive placement on the basis of his disruptive behavior, the court held that inclusion was a
right for some students, not a privilege. It was further noted that to support students in
functioning independently in society, placement should be in more inclusive settings, not in more
restrictive placements such as separate classrooms.
In another landmark case, Rachel, a third-grade student with an intelligence quotient of
44, was placed in a special education class despite her parents’ request to place her in a full-time
general education setting (Sacramento v. Rachel H., 1994). Her parents filed due process and
argued that she could be educated in a general education setting with proper accommodations
and supports. Using a four-pronged test called the Holland test, the court ruled in favor of Rachel
and ordered the district to place her in a general education classroom with proper support. The
four factors, which would be adopted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine
whether a general education setting was appropriate, were the following:
1. the educational benefits available in the regular classroom;
2. the non-academic benefits of interaction between a student with disabilities and those
without disabilities;
3. the impact of the student with disabilities on the teacher and other children in the
regular classroom; and
4. the cost of supplementary aids and services required for mainstreaming the student.
(Sacramento v. Rachel H., 1994, para. 3)
When considering that Rachel’s general education teachers described her as “a full
member of the second-grade class,” the judge further explained that Rachel would benefit from
15

the socialization of inclusion. When the district appealed the decision, the Supreme Court refused
to hear the case. Diane Lipton, an attorney from the Disability Rights Education and Defense
Fund, concluded that this refusal “signals an end to the historic segregation and isolation of
children with disabilities in the American public school system” and that “the principles
established in Brown v. Board of Education over four decades ago now apply to children with
disabilities” (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 1994, para. 4).
Defining Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General Education Settings
Students with special needs increasingly have been placed in more inclusive settings and,
therefore, have been given increased access to the general education classroom and curriculum
(Bakken & Obiakor, 2016). In 2013, 31% more students were reported to spend more than 80%
of their school day in general education settings than students in 1989 (American Youth Policy
Forum, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2016).
The need for students with special needs to be given access to more inclusive environments is
becoming realized more as time goes on. However, as previously stated, the LRE for a student
could be defined in various ways, with a continuum from separate placements to fully included
students in general education settings.
Rodriguez and Garro-Gil (2015) discussed the semantic differences in the terms inclusion
and integration and the implications of using either term. The term inclusion first appeared at the
World Conference in 1994 and was meant to expand on the term integration (Rodriguez &
Garro-Gil, 2015). Four stages demonstrate the progression of the history of including students
with special needs in general education settings: exclusion (people with special needs were
removed from all social settings, including family, school, and community), segregation
(students with special needs needed an education but would be provided one in separate
16

settings), integration (public schools would be required to create settings to give students with
special needs an opportunity to socialize with their typically developing peers but could still have
separate placements within the school setting), and inclusion (settings and actions are created
with students with special needs in mind) (Rodriguez & Garro-Gil, 2015).
With their guiding framework on inclusion, five principles were outlined by delegates of
the World Conference on Special Needs Education in 1994, which included 92 governments and
25 international organizations. Special education policy and practice would be centered on these
principles with the theme “Education for All.” In what is known as the Salamanca Statement, the
five principles are the following:
1. Every child has a fundamental right to education, and must be given the opportunity
to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of learning.
2. Every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs.
3. Education systems should be designed and educational programs implemented to take
into account the wide diversity of these characteristics and needs.
4. Those with special educational needs must have access to regular schools which
should accommodate them within a child-centred pedagogy capable of meeting these
needs.
5. Regular schools with this inclusive orientation are the most effective means of
combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an
inclusive society and achieving education for all; moreover, they provide an effective
education to the majority of children and improve the efficiency and ultimately the
cost-effectiveness of the entire educational system. (UNESCO, 1994, VIII–XIX)
17

Donati (2006, 2009, 2011) described a theoretical approach called relational sociology to
distinguish the terms inclusion and integration. In this theory, human beings are seen as
relational beings who rely on relationships to relate to society and ultimately to develop oneself.
Relationships are driven by human beings and are therefore not accidental. Disability cannot be
seen as something that affects only the one who has it, but rather, society imposes these terms,
which creates social structures that exclude, include, or integrate people (Donati, 2006, 2009,
2011). Inclusion embraces the idea that although all individuals, with or without special needs,
are unique, all individuals are equally valuable with diverse needs but equal rights (Rodriguez &
Garro-Gil, 2015). It ensures that we create unified structures that include all students to access
their learning. Integration, on the other hand, meets diverse student needs by creating
individualized structures within “ordinary schools” or in other institutions, structures, and social
settings prepared to address those individual needs: “Special education should seek equity but
understand as justice that is, to give everyone his due in order to reach self-development”
(Rodriguez & Garro-Gil, 2015, p. 1326).
Coteaching Model
Numerous studies have suggested that inclusive practices positively affect the
achievement of students with special needs in comparison with their peers in separate placements
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Three studies found significant evidence
that coteaching models (i.e., classrooms taught by both general education teachers and special
education teachers) significantly affect student achievement, cognitive engagement, and
attendance in comparison with their peers taught in self-contained special education settings
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). According to Daley et al. (2019),
18

It should be communicated to all stakeholders that inclusive classrooms have the capacity
for the necessary rigor for learning, whereby both students with disabilities and their
nondisabled peers benefit from the instructional environment. Districts should provide
co-taught classrooms as part of the spectrum of service delivery options to meet the
ongoing requirements of the LRE. To the extent possible, students with disabilities
should be provided instruction in co-taught classrooms with necessary supports. (p. 15)
Some may worry about the impact on the general education students or on how parents
will receive these program changes. Studies found that not only were students with special needs
more engaged, but their typically developing peers being taught in coteaching models were also
more engaged compared with students taught by solely one teacher. These studies encourage
additional research on cognitive engagement in the coteaching model (Daley et al., 2019).
The Effectiveness of Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General Education
Inclusion for students with special needs works. According to Bakken and Obiakor
(2016), both qualitative and quantitative research, where the standard is replication, have shown
consistent positive outcomes for the inclusion of students with special needs in general education
settings for more than 20 years. These positive outcomes were for both students with
mild/moderate disabilities, such as learning disabilities, and students who are classified with
more moderate/severe disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities (Bui et al., 2010).
Significant positive relationships were found in early childhood special education settings
including typically developing students (Justice et al., 2014). Justice et al. (2014) assessed 670
preschoolers across 83 classrooms, 55% of which included students with special needs. Students’
pragmatic language scores in the spring were significantly better than their scores in the fall.
Typically developing peers positively affected the language scores of students with special
19

needs, consistent with Bandura’s (1971) social-learning theory. Waldron et al. (2004) studied
students across inclusive and traditional settings in Indiana. One of the largest findings was that
students without disabilities in inclusive settings performed significantly better in reading and
math than their peers without disabilities in traditional settings. This counters the myth that
inclusive settings hinder the progress of typically developing peers.
Little research has been done on the perceptions of parents of typically developing
students on the inclusion of students with special needs in general education settings. Stevens
and Wurf (2020) investigated parent perception on the inclusion of students with disabilities in
Australia. Parents of typically developing students as well as parents of students with disabilities
were surveyed and participated in focus groups. All parents, both of typically developing
students and of students with disabilities, believed inclusion was beneficial for their children.
Although not statistically significant, parents of typically developing students reported greater
satisfaction. Studies have reported positive as well as neutral effects of inclusion on typically
developing students, and although little research has been done, greater satisfaction with
inclusion was found among parents of typically developing children (Justice et al., 2014; Stevens
& Wurf, 2020; Waldron et al., 2004).
The benefits of participating in inclusive settings for students with behavioral disorders
include improvement in their social skills and relationships with peers, increased opportunities
for activities with same-age peers, and the generalization of skills that increase independence in
their home, school, and community (Dunlap, 1993; Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Muscott, 1997;
Panacek & Dunlap, 2003; Snell, 1990; Zionts, 1997). Students with disabilities have been
reported to do as well academically, or better, in general education settings, given proper
supports and adaptations (Gibbs et al., 1999; Rea et al., 2002). Students with special needs are
20

also held to higher standards when they are in general education placements (Weigle, 1997). The
National Longitudinal Transition study assessed 11,000 students with various disabilities.
Greater time spent in general education settings was positively correlated with fewer absences,
fewer referrals for disruptive behavior, and better outcomes in employment and independent
living after high school (Wagner et al., 2006). Inclusive settings also positively influenced
literacy, adaptive skills, and social relationships (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001). Both academic and
nonacademic benefits of inclusion have been reported across several studies (Bakken & Obiakor,
2016; Hieneman et al., 2005).
Funding
One of the greatest barriers in special education is the lack of federal funds to support the
implementation of the federal mandate of IDEA, affecting not only the seven million students
with disabilities it serves but all students, as districts pull from the general fund to ensure FAPE
is offered to students with special needs (Blad, 2020; Pruslow, 2003). State and local entities are
faced with the responsibility of providing the funding necessary for districts to adequately fund
special education, and many districts rely on Medicaid to fund their programs (Blad, 2020). For
example, Blad (2020) reported that in California, “the annual cost of educating a student with a
disability averages about $27,000, compared with general education costs of about $10,000 per
student” (p. 1). Yet, only “$1.2 billion dollars of the state’s $13 billion special education costs”
are covered by the federal government (Blad, 2020, p. 1). A survey of 700 principals and district
administrators resulted in 56% of respondents listing special education as the factor that had a
major impact on per-pupil expenses in their districts. Thirty-two percent of those surveyed chose
special education as one of the top five areas most in need of funding (EdWeek Research Center,
21

2019, as cited in Blad, 2020). If students with special needs have the right to FAPE, then the
barrier of funding needs to be at the forefront of policy change initiatives (Blad, 2020).
Pruslow (2003) compared the cost of a traditional special education program to the cost
of two inclusive models. The traditional program (i.e., conservationist model) was defined by
self-contained classrooms, resource classrooms, and general education classrooms for a few
students with special needs. The full inclusion model included all students with special needs in
fully general education settings with their grade-level peers. These programs were staffed with a
“commitment to collaborative practices to accommodate effectively the needs of both general
education and special education students” (p. 70). Staff included a general education teacher, a
special education teacher, and a teacher assistant. The last model the study used was known as
the conciliatory model, which was a blended program where students, who would have
traditionally been in self-contained classrooms, were included in the general education setting
and supported by a special education teacher in a resource room. Both the general education
teacher and the special education teacher worked as partners. Pruslow (2003) found that the cost
associated with students with special needs decreased with inclusive programs but was
overshadowed by the increased costs associated with general education students (see Table 1).
Both inclusive programs would be more expensive to implement than the traditional program;
however, it was possible that local education agencies could reduce the cost of litigation
associated with LRE. The reduction in expenses of transportation for moving to an inclusive
model was also noted (Pruslow, 2003). Students would now be attending their home school,
which would eliminate the cost of transporting students with special needs to alternative
programs at other sites. The cost associated with facilities was another factor Pruslow (2003)
noted would affect the budget when moving toward more inclusive programs. Renting separate
22

segregated facilities would be eliminated. However, increasing facility capacity in existing
programs to accommodate students now attending their home schools might increase cost on that
end.

Table 1
Special Education/General Education Cost Ratios
Conservationist model Full inclusion model Conciliatory model
Special education $7,700/student $6,395/student $6,287/student
General education $3,211/student $4,442/student $4,173/student
Cost ratio 2.3 1.4 1.4

Note. Reprinted from What School Administrators Should Know About Inclusion and Its Costs,
by John Pruslow, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.1.65.15253. Copyright 2003 by
Leadership and Policy in Schools.

23

Inclusive programs could be more cost effective. The National Center on Educational
Restructuring and Inclusion (1995) found that after the start-up costs in implementing an
inclusive program, the daily cost to maintain the program appeared to be comparable to that of
traditional programs. Odom et al. (2001) studied the instructional costs in traditional preschool
programs and inclusive preschool programs. Data on salaries, childcare tuition, equipment,
materials, transportation, administration, and building costs were gathered from five school
districts across the country that offered both inclusive and traditional special education service
options. When comparing those programs within districts, inclusive programs were found to be
less expensive in comparison with their traditional programs. However, a limitation of their cost
analysis was the relative degree of disabilities of students in the study and the different groups of
students enrolled in each of the program options. The results are mixed. While some studies have
highlighted the added expense in running inclusive programs (Pruslow, 2003), other studies have
found a decreased cost of running an inclusive program over the cost of a traditional program
(National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Odom et al., 2001).
Barriers Toward the Inclusion of Students With Special Needs in General Education
Settings
Despite many advantages reported in providing inclusive settings to students with special
needs, many barriers have been reported (Bullock & Gable, 1994; Cartledge & Johnson, 1996;
Kauffman et al., 1995; Muscott et al., 1996). For some students, particularly students with
emotional-behavioral disorders (EBD), their behavioral and mental health needs are so great that
the risk of injury and interruption to the classroom environment requires intensive individualized
intervention that is reported to be difficult to address in classrooms with more than 20 students
(Shriner & Yell, 1996). Lack of resources and training with increased accountability measures
24

also make it challenging for general education teachers to support students with special needs in
their settings (Cheney & Barringer, 1995; MacMillan et al., 1996; Walker & Bullis, 1990). This
is one reason why students are recommended for more restrictive settings.
Other systemic barriers, such as policies like Zero Tolerance and other punitive measures,
are used widely across educational settings, despite their lack of efficacy, and they make it even
more challenging to support students with behavioral challenges in the general education setting
(Skiba & Peterson, 2000). More individualized and positive supports should be implemented to
accommodate the needs of diverse learners (Nelson, 2000; Safran & Oswald, 2003). In addition
to classroom systems, school-wide systems and practices such as functional behavioral
assessments and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) should be implemented
to support all students (Hieneman et al., 2005).
Time constraints, administrative support, and difficulty creating access to general
education content and standards for students with special needs were also identified as barriers
(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Teachers were shown to have difficulty providing students
the individualized support they needed as well as with implementing evidence-based practices
such as time delay and picture cues (Agran & Alper, 2000). Instead, general education teachers
focused more heavily on class-wide curriculum in order to teach all the material needed to the
whole class (McDonnell, 1998). Special education teachers also did not find the general
education standards to be appropriate for some students and thought that they should be held to
different standards, ranking self-help skills such as grooming, social skills, and communication
as more meaningful for students with special needs (Agran et al., 2002). Browder and Cooper-
Duffy (2003) reported that little research is available on academic instruction for students with
special needs.
25

Traditional special educators believe that inclusion disrupts the quality of services for
students with disabilities (Diamond, 1995; Kauffman & Hallahan, 1995). Russo-Campisi (2017)
reviewed the literature available on evidence-based practices (EBPs), including pivotal research
and outcomes of various court cases. She identified the absence of training, absence of resources,
insufficient collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and a incongruence between
intervention and environment as common barriers toward the implementation of evidence-based
practices in special education. Russo-Campisi (2017) further explained this lack of fit between
intervention and environment results when interventions gleaned from the research apply only in
contrived settings and fail in practice because classrooms lack the resources, training, and staff
that are readily available in research studies. The gap between theory and practice is evident.
Norwich (2002) further described the dilemma in servicing students with special needs.
He stated that students continue to require special education settings and classes because of
“general education’s inability to accommodate and include the full diversity of learners” (p.
488). According to Norwich, a focus on individual needs and inclusion is necessary to prevent
the trap of discussing disability as the barrier that further segregates students on the basis of
ability. Again, a lack of training is a consistent barrier, and a shift from a deficit mindset to a
growth mindset is vital.
General Education Teacher Perceptions of Inclusion
Markova et al. (2016) studied preservice teachers’ attitudes and found that their
participants had more explicitly negative attitudes toward the inclusion of students with special
needs, especially those with challenging behaviors, and implicit beliefs toward students with
special needs from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The implication was that these implicit and
explicit beliefs could affect the interactions teachers have with their students. Glazzard (2011)
26

utilized focus groups to investigate the perceptions of teachers and assistants of the inclusion of
students with special needs at a school in Northern England and found that inclusion was
successful when practitioners’ attitudes toward including students with special needs was
positive. Practitioners with negative attitudes did not facilitate the school’s mission to include
students with special needs. In addition to practitioner attitude, Glazzard (2011) identified other
common barriers that prevent inclusion from taking place, including staff support, teamwork, the
standards-based agenda, training, parental resistance, and lack of resources. The standards-based
agenda was found to be the biggest barrier at this school site. Studies have demonstrated that
positive attitudes and perceptions have a more positive impact on the inclusion of students with
special needs and that negative attitudes and perceptions hinder inclusive practices (Glazzard,
2011; Markova et al., 2016).
Krischler et al. (2018) studied the attitudes teachers had toward the inclusion of students
with special needs as well as the stereotypes and attitudes they held in relation to students with
learning and behavioral challenges. They found that negative implicit attitudes were held by the
participants, but positive attitudes in regard to inclusion were expressed. These results may not
be surprising, given the current climate and the harsh reality of implicit biases, and they raise
additional questions about whether attitudes expressed toward inclusion truly reflect actual
teacher behavior and practices.
Gavish (2017) studied the perceptions of inclusion support teachers’ (IST) roles in
implementing inclusion practices in general education classrooms in Israel. The perception that
teachers played the main role in the implementation of inclusion practices seemed to influence
the inclusion practices at the school the most. Buli-Holmberg and Jeyaprathaban (2016) studied
the factors in 24 schools in South Norway that contribute to the effective teaching practices for
27

students with special needs. They found that general education teachers lacked the skills needed
to support students with special needs in their classrooms and that students in those settings
lacked the support they needed. Not surprisingly, students in more one-on-one settings and small
group settings were better supported.
Best Practices: Tools and Strategies to Support the Integration of Students With Special
Needs in General Education Settings
Why are teachers better able to service students in separate classrooms or in smaller
groups? What strategies are being implemented in classrooms successfully including students
with special needs that others may not be implementing? Researchers have studied evidence-
based practices for a number of years. According to Russo-Campisi (2017), “The purpose of
identifying and implementing EBPs is to ensure that students are exposed to interventions and
practices that have been shown to be effective through research, and which result in overall
improved student outcomes” (p. 194). Increased accountability measures encourage teachers to
utilize the following empirically based strategies.
Learning is best achieved through a framework called “the gradual release of
responsibility instructional framework” (Fisher & Frey, 2014, p. 128). In this model, the
cognitive load is transferred from teacher to student through a gradual approach that utilizes the
teacher as the model, shifting toward guided practice, followed by collaboration with peers and
then ultimately ending with independent practice. Grounded in the learning theories by Piaget,
Vygotsky, Bandura, and Wood, Bruner, and Ross, this approach emphasizes that learning must
take place through intentional and specific interaction with others (Fisher & Frey, 2014).
It is imperative also to provide the individualized support needed so that students can
reach those expectations (Fisher & Frey, 2014). Teachers need to teach small, purposeful groups
28

based on formative assessment data. Through the Professional Learning Community (PLC)
process, the emphasis is on discussing student achievement utilizing such data and creating
groups that allow these guided teaching opportunities to take place for groups of students with
common academic needs. The only way to determine this is through a conscious analysis of
formative data (Fisher & Frey, 2014). Molina (2015) found that the use of learning communities
encouraged the inclusion of students with special needs. These learners do not need more
modeling in the typical whole group format, but more guided instruction, “direction and practice,
with scaffolding in place to ensure success” (Fisher & Frey, 2014, p. 16). A key component in
the learning process is the collaboration time provided to students to work through new content.
Both Marzano (2007) and Fisher and Frey (2014) stressed the importance of keeping
expectations high and respecting the differences of all learners.
Marzano (2007) emphasized the collaborative process to assist struggling learners. He
encouraged the intentional pairing of students who have demonstrated mastery of content with
those who may still be struggling. Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) discussed the benefits of
utilizing teams to develop positive behavior interventions along with general education teachers
(Ellingston et al., 2000). This could tackle the aforementioned barrier on creating appropriate
behavioral supports for students with special needs in the general education setting. Also, the use
of a person-centered team approach was identified to gain parent involvement (Miner & Bates,
1997). Specifically, the use of the IEP team to involve all stakeholders is essential (Browder &
Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Systematic instruction is also recommended by experts (Jackson et al.,
2000). The more collaboration among key stakeholders, the more likely it is that inclusion
models will work: “No single individual can be expected to have mastered all the skills and
strategies necessary to address the needs and interests of diverse learners consistently without
29

collegial assistance” (Pruslow, 2003, p. 67). This is why it is vital to bring the minds of both
special education teams and general education teams together to implement practices such as the
following:
outcome based education, multicultural education, multiple intelligence theory,
constructivist learning, interdisciplinary curriculum, community-referenced instruction,
authentic assessment of student performance, multiage grouping, use of technology in the
classroom, peer-mediated instruction, teaching responsibility and peacemaking, and
collaborative teaming among adults and students. (Udavi-Solner & Thousand, 1995, as
cited in Pruslow, 2003, p. 68)
With collaboration between special education and general education teachers as a best practice,
coteaching models have been identified as one of the most successful approaches to the inclusion
of students with special needs (Keller & Cravedi-Cheng, 1995; Lipsky & Gartner, 1997;
Marston, 1996; Udavi-Solner & Thousand, 1995).
As previously reviewed in the literature, understanding general education teacher
perceptions and identities is pivotal in understanding the gap that exists in providing students
with special needs inclusion opportunities successfully. Teachers with more experience
implementing inclusive practices have more positive feelings about inclusion (Williams et al.,
1990). As a result, Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) noted, if teachers are given more
experience, their perspectives may change. Pruslow (2003) challenged the question of whether
inclusion works, stating that asking that question denies the fundamental belief that diversity is
valued and that schools have a moral obligation to prepare all students to participate in a society
that is free and democratic. He quoted Madeline Will, the former assistant secretary for the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, who said, “It is not a matter of
30

insufficient knowledge or inadequate resources, it is rather a question of will and character”
(Will, 1984, p. 12).
Hieneman et al. (2005) suggested the use of embedded school-wide systems such as
Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) and structures to support students with behavioral challenges
in addition to the individualized support needed. Positive behavioral supports should be more
effective and efficient than current practices to be successful. All members of a team, including
general education teachers, special education support staff, and school counselors, should work
together to successfully implement a cohesive and well-integrated school-wide plan (Hieneman
et al., 2005). Continuous training and resources as well as incentives for proper implementation
should be utilized to sustain an effective school-wide approach to behavior with fidelity (Elias et
al., 2003; Knoster & Kincaid, 2005). This should include a school-wide philosophy and culture
shared by all stakeholders. With all these components in place, a proactive behavior system with
multiple tiers of support, depending on the behavior at hand, can help alleviate the burden that
often falls on the general education teacher (Hieneman et al., 2005). Teachers need to be given
this kind of toolbox to effectively manage behavioral challenges presented by all students, but
especially students with special needs.
Theoretical Framework
Several concepts form the conceptual framework in this study. Ferguson (1996) stated
that “inclusion is a movement seeking to create schools that meet the needs of all students by
establishing learning communities for student with and without disabilities, educated together in
age-appropriate general education classrooms in neighborhood schools” (para. 4). Bakken and
Obiakor (2016) further defined inclusion as the practice of educating students with special needs
alongside their typically developing peers with the support they need to be successful. What is
31

meant by successful? Are students successful if they simply have a seat in a general education
class, demonstrate mastery toward general education standards and IEP goals, or are simply
completing work?
Inclusion is “an issue of social justice in which separate education and special education
students is not only unequal, but detrimental to the development of students” (Gerrard, 1994, p.
58). Inclusive school communities foster belonging and nurturing and provide access to all
learners despite differences in socioeconomic status, ability, gender, language, culture, or
ethnicity (Ferguson et al., 2003; Saldana & Waxman, 1997). Inclusion must be seen as “a way of
life, a way of living together, based on a belief that each individual is valued and belongs” (Villa
& Thousand, 1995, p. 11).
Reindal (2008) described a theoretical framework called the social relational model as
aligning closely to the morality of inclusion:
The process of identifying something as a special need, as an effect of impairment, is not
the issue that is relevant to the debate of inclusion, but how this need becomes a
disability: how does a reduced function become a state of being disabled? (p. 140)
In this theory, the dilemma results from oppression and discrimination and not from the
phenomenon of the disability itself necessarily. The goal then is to understand this dynamic in
order to disrupt the system that continues to marginalize students with disabilities by imposing
what Reindal (2008) called social effects and “various macro levels on society” (p. 144). These
social hindrances are preventing students with special needs access to the least restrictive
environments, which not only are mandated by law but ultimately will help each student reach
his/her potential. Understanding the factors, tools, and resources that lead to the successful
32

inclusion of students with special needs in general education settings will allow educators to take
steps toward disrupting the system that continues to marginalize these students.
Through a transformative worldview, this study examined the tools and strategies that
general education teachers need in order to support the inclusion of students with special needs
in their classroom. Creswell (2018) explained the purpose of transformative research is to give
groups such as students with special needs, who have historically been marginalized, a voice. Its
ultimate mission is to advocate for their best interest.
33

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology of the following study. Instrumentation and
protocols used, design summary, and an in-depth look at the way in which participants were
selected in the study is presented. Data collection and data analysis procedures are described,
followed by a look into the validity and reliability of the study.
Statement of the Problem
Numerous studies have suggested that inclusive practices positively affect the
achievement of students with special needs in comparison with their peers in separate placements
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). With the LRE mandate in place, districts
must strive to create more programs that allow for students with special needs to be taught in
general education settings to the greatest extent possible. Three studies found significant
evidence that coteaching models significantly affect student achievement, cognitive engagement,
and attendance in comparison with their peers taught in self-contained special education settings
(Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay, 2013). Regarding their study, Daley et al. (2019)
said,
These results suggest the need for increased professional development for teams to move
beyond the one teach, one support model of coteaching, additional research on cognitive
engagement and coteaching, and teacher preparation programs to include more examples
of, and training in, quality coteaching models. (p. 6)
Buli-Holmberg and Jeyaprathaban (2016) studied the factors in 24 schools in South
Norway that contribute to the effective teaching practices for students with special needs. They
found that general education teachers lacked the skills needed to support students with special
needs in their classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the support they needed,
34

while students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were better supported. Why
is there a gap? What strategies are being implemented in classrooms successfully including
students with special needs that others may not be implementing?
Purpose of Study
Key stakeholders for students with special needs in the public-school system include
general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers, administrators,
parents, and students. However, ultimately it is the general education and special education
teachers who implement the strategies and utilize the tools provided to successfully include
students with special needs in general education settings. This is why it is imperative to
understand their perceptions that allow them to be successful in including students with special
needs in general education settings and to identify the tools and strategies that they have access
to and/or knowledge of.
Surveys provided formal data on the specific tools and resources general education
teachers had access to and had knowledge of as well as the resources and tools they perceived
they needed. Surveys also gathered data on the components that created a successful culture of
inclusion for students with special needs. Interviews were conducted to understand general
education teacher perceptions of the tools and strategies that are needed to successfully include
students with special needs in their classrooms, the tools and strategies they currently use and/or
have knowledge of, and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students with
special needs.
The use of inclusive practices such as grouping strategies, providing peer support, direct
instruction, use of visuals and manipulatives, differentiated instruction, relationships teachers
have with students, behavioral strategies, and adult support (e.g., paraeducator or other one-on-
35

one support) all tie directly to the literature that forms this study’s conceptual framework
(Canges, 2010; Obiakor et al., 2012; Strogilos, 2018). The literature also highlights how the
culture of a school could either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special
needs (Obiakor et al., 2012). Differentiated instruction is supported by the literature, but the only
way to ensure its implementation is to provide teachers with the tools they need to implement
that level of support (Strogilos, 2018). Canges’s (2010) study found that to support the social
inclusion of students with special needs, the arrangement of the environment is critical.
Specifically, where students are seated can greatly affect their sense of belonging. Obiakor et al.
(2012) emphasized the importance of engaging all students in learning.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students
with special needs in their classrooms?
2. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special needs in their
classrooms?
3. What do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los
Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful culture of
inclusion for students with special needs?
Selection of the Population
To answer the research questions on the perceptions of general education teachers, on
their use of strategies, and on the culture of inclusion, a sample of 48 general education teachers
36

made up the research participants. Elementary general education teachers were selected from
school districts practicing inclusion models in Los Angeles County. This decision was based on
convenience, given the time constraints of this study. Surveys were sent out to a sample of
general education teachers asking questions about the tools, strategies, and resources they use;
their perceptions of what is needed to successfully include students with special needs; and the
culture of inclusion at their school. The last question on the survey asked if participants would be
willing to participate in a 45-minute to 1-hour interview to further discuss these topics. Of the 15
who showed interest, seven participants were selected to participate in the interview. This
decision was also based on convenience sampling and to make sure teachers who participated in
the interview would be willing to give 1 hour of their time. Interviews took place via Zoom
conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was important to pick the most comfortable place
for the participants in order to encourage their candid responses.
The last factor that was weighed when picking participants was employing purposeful
maximum variation as advised by Patton and Patton (2002). Purposeful knowledge of general
education teachers was necessary. However, it was also important to pick a variety of teachers
when it came to including students with special needs in their classrooms. In order to make
conclusions that would have transferability to a range of teachers, a range of teachers needed to
be a part of the sample in this study. Not all teachers have the same level of knowledge and
experience in including students with special needs in their classrooms. Therefore, it was vital to
get a range of backgrounds among participants so that a variety of strategies, tools, and resources
that teachers use could be gathered and discussed. It should be noted that a significant limitation
in identifying teachers in this way is that they were selected based on their number of years of
experience in education, their grade level, their location/district, and they also had to be defined
37

as a successful teacher in including students with special needs per their survey responses and
their use of evidence-based practices. The number of years a teacher has in experience does not
necessarily have a correlation to their effectiveness or knowledge in a given area. Still, Johnson
and Christensen (2014) described maximum variation as
a selection of a wide range of cases purposively selected so that all types of cases are
included in the research. One reason for using this range of cases approach is to help
ensure that no one can claim that you excluded certain types of cases. (p. 270)
Design Summary
Both Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and Maxwell (2013) stated that qualitative research
allows researchers to glean meaning from participants, understand the process that an event
undertakes, and study a small sample as opposed to the large sample often needed in a
quantitative approach. Whereas quantitative research may inform our knowledge base and
contribute to the theories in which we base our practice, it is qualitative research that allows us to
improve our practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This is why a mixed-methods approach was
used. The focus of this study was on gathering data on the meaning constructed by the
participants, specifically on the general education teachers’ perceptions of the tools, strategies,
and resources they need to successfully include students with special needs as well as the tools,
resources, and strategies they use and have knowledge of. If knowledge is gained on what
general education teachers need to successfully include students with special needs, leaders can
better equip their teachers with those tools, resources, and strategies to do what is best for
students with special needs. According to Maxwell (2013), the qualitative approach gives the
researcher the flexibility of discovering the information they are seeking in any way they can.
38

The mixed-method approach allowed the researcher to answer the three research questions and
support those results with the evidence from the study (Maxwell, 2013).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), Maxwell (2013), and Creswell (2018) were used as the
guiding framework for the course of this research study. Chapter One explored the purpose of the
problem, and Chapter Two presented a review of the literature. Chapter Three discusses the
methodology, Chapter Four presents the results, and Chapter Five provides a discussion of the
results.
Methodology
For the purposes of this study, data were gathered using interviews and surveys. To
gather general education teachers’ perceptions, the most appropriate way of finding out their
beliefs is to ask them directly. While observation would be a beneficial way to triangulate data,
due to the Covid-19 pandemic, observations were not possible. However, even with
observations, observers may not see everything in practice, given the time constraints of the
study. This is why general education teachers were asked about the strategies they currently use
in their instruction to include students with special needs. According to Patton and Patton (2002),
we interview to find out things we cannot directly observe. It was vital to not only get a better
understanding about the tools, strategies, and resources general education teachers use
(conducive to collecting survey data), but also to identify what they perceived to be necessary for
the successful inclusion of students with special needs (conducive to interview data).
To capture interview data, interviews were scheduled at the most convenient time for
each of the participants. Interviews took place via Zoom conferencing due to the Covid-19
national pandemic. It was also important to maintain teacher privacy and give them the most
comfortable setting. This was done to encourage the most candid responses and to build their
39

trust. The researcher wore the clothing that the participants most often wear (e.g., dress pants and
blouse or school gear with jeans). Again, the goal was to create a low-stakes setting to encourage
a natural conversation. In all seven interviews, notes were taken in case recordings did not work.
The researcher recorded interviews with participant consent in order to get the most accurate
reflection of what was said during the interviews. Casual and incidental conversations are just as
powerful and informative as, if not more than, formal conversations (Maxwell, 2013), so notes
were taken on those conversations as well.
In addition, the use of surveys was integral to the credibility of the study. Both data sets,
along with the literature that forms the conceptual framework, were used to triangulate the data
gleaned from all sources. Interviews and surveys uncover how participants construct their own
meaning. Solely basing research on quantitative approaches such as surveys and tests deny us the
depth and breadth that qualitative research allows us to gain. This is why a mixed-methods
approach was used in this study. Maxwell (2013) stated that research should be more about the
process, the contexts, and the way in which participants make meaning out of them as opposed to
comparing with others or between variables. It seems that individuals in the field of study can
take direct action as a result of qualitative findings by applying it to their practice. There is also
an assumption that reality is socially constructed in qualitative research and that there cannot be
one observable reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because there are multiple realities,
knowledge cannot be found but must be constructed (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The use of a mixed-methods approach was warranted in order to triangulate data among
surveys, interviews, and the conceptual framework. This ensures internal validity. That is, it
made sure each of the data sets led to consistent results among each of the participants.
40

Instrumentation and Protocols
A mixed-methods approach was used. The following is a description of the qualitative
and quantitative instruments used in the study. That is, the interview protocol as well as the
survey instrument is described.
Qualitative Instrument
A semi-structured interview was utilized with the same interview protocols for each
teacher. The use of markers and probes allowed the researcher to gain more depth in the
responses given by connecting questions directly to the participants’ responses. The use of Patton
and Patton’s (2002) six types of questions allowed the researcher to gather in-depth data. The
protocol began with an introduction to clearly state the purpose of the study and inform the
participants on how their responses would be kept confidential and that they could opt out at any
time. The goal of the introduction and the background questions (see Appendix A) was to
establish rapport and build trust. This would allow for more authentic responses.
Questions were open-ended to assess what tools, strategies, and resources general
education teachers both had at their disposal and had knowledge about (Johnson & Christensen,
2014; Patton & Patton, 2002). To ask specifically about their use of a strategy might lead them to
answering that they do employ something specific when in fact they may not have (i.e., leading
questions). Therefore, the questions used asked more generally about which tools, strategies, and
resources they used and which they perceived they needed. Questions were also included to
gather data about the larger school culture because the literature highlights how the culture of a
school can either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special needs (Obiakor
et al., 2012). This ties directly into the conceptual framework of this study.
41

Quantitative Instrument
Quantitative data were also used in the methodology of this study via a questionnaire to
discover the number of strategies, tools, and resources general education teachers had knowledge
of and/or used in their instruction. This would also aid in identifying which programs would be
defined as a program employing the successful inclusion of students with special needs based on
the participants’ responses to the survey questions. Questions asked about their specific school
culture to determine whether their site successfully included students with special needs. Surveys
were also used to triangulate the data gleaned from interviews and were therefore intentionally
done before interviews. The researcher also wanted to give the teachers the opportunity to
understand the purpose of the study, in terms of what the interview would be about, so that they
could demonstrate what it is they actually knew in regard to best practices in including students
with special needs. All three research questions were answered in the use of surveys and
interviews.
Survey questions were close-ended, and answers included a 5-point Likert-type scale,
multiple choice, or a rating scale. This survey was designed to give the researcher numeric data
on the culture of inclusion and on the practices of general education teachers (Creswell, 2018).
Biased words and leading questions were avoided to the greatest extent, and questions were
designed to be meaningful to the participants (Fink, 2009). Part I of the survey was designed to
gather basic demographic information (e.g., general education teacher experience in years). Part
II asked about the school culture in relation to inclusion and would help answer Research
Question 3. Part III asked about the tools and resources that general education teachers perceived
they needed, which would help answer Research Question 1. Finally, Part IV asked about the
tools and resources that general education teachers utilized and had knowledge of, which would
42

help answer Research Question 2. The survey was sent to elementary principals who then
forwarded them to their general education teachers in urban elementary schools across Los
Angeles County.
Data Collection
Creswell’s (2018) and Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) steps to data collection were utilized
as a framework for the data collection phase of the study. These steps included locating the
individual and/or site, following steps to gain access and create a relationship, the use of
purposeful sampling, collecting the data and recording the data, solving field issues that
occurred, and storing the data (Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Quantitative data were
gathered through surveys utilizing Qualtrics, which were sent to principals of elementary general
education teachers in Los Angeles County public schools using the criteria in Table 2 (see
Appendix C). Principals then forwarded the surveys to their teachers. The purpose of the study
was outlined in a cover letter that accompanied the survey, and consent was obtained before
participants could start answering survey questions (see Appendix B).
Qualitative data were collected via a 45-minute to 1-hour and 15-minute interview
conducted among seven general education teachers who responded yes to question 16 of the
survey (i.e., that they would participate in an in-depth interview). Of those participants who
selected “yes,” purposeful sampling was used to select the interview participants who met the
criteria listed in Table 2. This would ensure interview participants selected would be the best
candidates to answer the research questions and, ultimately, to address the purpose of the study.

43

Table 2
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of General Education Teachers
Survey Interview
Years of experience: 2 years or more Years of experience: 2 years or more
Serving in public school district with student
population from 2,500 to 70,000
Serving in public school district with student
population from 2,500 to 70,000
Serving in Los Angeles County Serving in Los Angeles County
Based on survey responses, they indicated use
of evidence-based practices, a perception of
preparedness to working with students with
special needs, and a presence of a culture of
inclusion in their practice

Participants were asked a month in advance to schedule a time that would be most
convenient for them to ensure their comfort with the process and ultimately their candid
responses. Prior consent was gathered to explain the purpose of the interview, ensure
confidentiality would be maintained, and explain that the interview would be recorded to gather
accurate data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Notes were also taken during the interview. Interviews
were held via Zoom due to the Covid-19 national pandemic. Follow-up calls and/or emails were
made to gather any additional information needed. Interviews were transcribed using a voice-to-
text application and then reviewed for accuracy.
Data Analysis
Johnson and Christensen (2014) described data analysis as the process of finding central
themes or patterns that are salient across the data. The researcher began the process of analysis
by reviewing the conceptual framework and then reading all of the data through that lens, writing
44

down themes that connected to the framework and also appeared more than once or seemed like
a major focus for the participant (e.g., they spent a significant amount of time talking about it).
All responses from the interviews and surveys were transcribed. A codebook was then
developed, and the researcher went back through the data to highlight lines in the interviews
using Google Highlight to assign those lines to the respective codes. Some codes came up as
expected (i.e., a priori).
Corbin and Strauss (2008) described an analytic tool as a technique used to facilitate the
coding process. They described the use of questioning as a way of becoming acquainted with
one’s data. This tool was used as the researcher went through the process of data collection and
analysis. Questions like these help researchers see the data through the lens of the participant and
allow researchers to dig deeper into the meaning behind the words. Ultimately, they help
researchers make sense of the data and assign meaning.
A mixed-methods approach was utilized, incorporating qualitative data from interviews
and quantitative data from surveys. Survey and interview questions were directly linked to the
research questions (see Appendix A and Appendix C). Data analysis was guided by the
conceptual framework as well as the research questions. The researcher compared findings from
surveys, interviews, and the literature in order to triangulate the data (see Figure 1). According to
Creswell (2018), this would allow the researcher to determine whether the findings demonstrated
convergence, divergence, or a combination of both.

45

Figure 1
Triangulation of the Data

Validity and Reliability
Among the study participants, there was an assumption that the researcher, as a special
education teacher, was somewhat of an insider and was therefore privy to general education
culture as it relates to including students with special needs. This affected the lens through which
the researcher conducted the study, but she constantly reflected on this in order to discipline
subjectivity. Building rapport so that participants could be honest was critical to the credibility of
this study so that their responses could be as candid as possible. However, it was also important
that participants were not aware of the researcher’s positionality and biases, so as not to affect
the validity and credibility in their responses as they might have tried to respond with what they
Qualitative
Data:
Interviews
Conceptual
Framework
Research
Findings
Quantitative
Data:
Surveys
46

thought the researcher wanted to hear. This conflict was remedied during the data analysis phase
by using triangulation to compare what was said during the interviews to what was actually
recorded in surveys. For example, if a teacher noted that she used flexible seating in her
classroom in the survey, this data point could then be compared with what was said in her
interview.
The use of a semi-structured protocol with open-ended questions in the interview
protocol allowed for the flexibility that was needed to gather data in an emergent way. The use of
leading questions in interviews was challenged by intentionally keeping them open-ended.
According to Maxwell (2013), structure limits flexibility, which takes away from the inductive
approach and emergent data that allow researchers to create meaning; “less structured
approaches, in contrast, allow you to focus on the particular phenomena being studied and trade
generalizability and comparability for internal validity and contextual understanding” (p. 30).
During the data collection phase, the researcher wrote reflections and observer comments to
discipline her subjectivity. This ensured she was actively separating herself and her
biases/positionality from what she was actually observing and contributed to another analytic
tool, which was the use of rich and detailed data. This included transcribed interviews, which
affected the credibility of the findings because they were direct low-inference data from the field.
There were several threats to credibility, including reactivity during interviews. It was
difficult to remain neutral during this process, especially in attempting to facilitate conversation.
Johnson and Christensen (2014) stated that remaining impartial is necessary and that reacting at
all may bias participant responses. Although the researcher disciplined her subjectivity through
the use of reflection and observer comments, understanding her positionality as a special
education teacher with a passion for inclusive practices for students with disabilities most likely
47

shaped the findings in this study. There was also a lack of prolonged time in the field and a great
lack of data across both interviews and surveys, preventing the researcher from reaching the
point of saturation, which means some critical strategies exhibited by the teachers may have been
missed. This also greatly affects the assertions that can be made in the discussion of the findings.
Summary
This mixed-methods study used both quantitative data gleaned from surveys and
qualitative data gleaned from interviews. Data were collected from a sample of elementary
general education teachers in Los Angeles County participating in schools with inclusion
models. Data collected were analyzed to answer the three research questions of the study. The
findings are presented in Chapter Four, and a discussion of the findings is presented in Chapter
Five.

48

Chapter Four: Research Results and Findings
This chapter is an analysis of the data collected. Data was gathered on the tools,
strategies, and resources general education teachers in Los Angeles County school districts use
and need in their classrooms. Data was also collected on participants’ perceptions of the
components of a successful school culture to support the inclusion of students with special needs.
Purpose of the Study
Key stakeholders for students with special needs in the public-school system include
general education teachers, special education teachers, related service providers, administrators,
parents, and students. However, ultimately it is the general education and special education
teachers who implement the strategies and utilize the tools provided to successfully include
students with special needs in general education settings. This is why it is imperative to
understand their perceptions that allow them to be successful in including students with special
needs in the general education settings and to identify the tools and strategies that they have
access to and/or knowledge of.
The use of inclusive practices such as grouping strategies, providing peer support, direct
instruction, visuals and manipulatives, differentiated instruction, relationships teachers have with
students, behavioral strategies, and adult support (e.g., paraeducator or other one-on-one support)
ties directly to the literature that forms this study’s conceptual framework (Canges, 2010;
Obiakor et al., 2012; Strogilos, 2018). The literature also highlights how the culture of a school
can either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special needs (Obiakor et al.,
2012). Canges’s (2010) study found that to support the social inclusion of students with special
needs, the arrangement of the environment is critical. Specifically, where students are seated can
greatly affect their sense of belonging. Obiakor et al. (2012) emphasized the importance of
49

engaging all students in learning. The only way to ensure implementation of these practices is to
ensure teachers are equipped with the tools, resources, and strategies to make that happen
(Strogilos, 2018).
Theoretical Framework
Several concepts form the conceptual framework in this study. Ferguson (1996) stated
that “inclusion is a movement seeking to create schools that meet the needs of all students by
establishing learning communities for students with and without disabilities, educated together in
age-appropriate general education classrooms in neighborhood schools” (para. 4). Bakken and
Obiakor (2016) further defined inclusion as the practice of educating students with special needs
alongside their typically developing peers with the support they need to be successful. What is
meant by successful? Are students successful if they simply have a seat in a general education
class, demonstrate mastery toward general education standards and IEP goals, or are completing
work?
Inclusion is “an issue of social justice in which separate education and special education
students is not only unequal, but detrimental to the development of students” (Gerrard, 1994, p.
58). Inclusive school communities foster belonging and nurturing and provide access to all
learners despite differences in socioeconomic status, ability, gender, language, culture, or
ethnicity (Ferguson et al., 2003; Saldana & Waxman, 1997). Inclusion must be seen as “a way of
life, a way of living together, based on a belief that each individual is valued and belongs” (Villa
& Thousand, 1995, p. 11).
Reindal (2008) described a theoretical framework called the social relational model,
according to which the dilemma of inclusion results from oppression and discrimination and not
from the phenomenon of the disability itself necessarily. The goal then is to understand this
50

dynamic in order to disrupt the system that continues to marginalize students with disabilities by
imposing what Reindal (2008) called social effects and “various macro levels on society” (p.
144). These “social hindrances” are preventing students with special needs access to the least
restrictive environments that not only are mandated by law but ultimately will help each student
reach his/her potential. Understanding the factors, tools, and resources that lead to the successful
inclusion of students with special needs in general education settings will allow educators to take
steps toward disrupting the system that continues to marginalize these students.
Through a transformative worldview, this study examined the resources, tools, and
strategies that general education teachers need in order to support the inclusion of students with
special needs in their classroom. According to Creswell (2018), the purpose of transformative
research is to give groups such as students with special needs, who have historically been
marginalized, a voice. Its ultimate mission is to advocate for their best interest.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students
with special needs in their classrooms?
2. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special needs in their
classrooms?
3. What do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los
Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful culture of
inclusion for students with special needs?
51

Organization of Data Analysis
The following data analysis is organized into two sections. First, descriptive
characteristics of both survey and interview participants are presented. The second section is the
presentation of the findings, which is organized by each of the three research questions. Each of
these sections starts with the context of the research question summarized, followed by the
survey results to answer the research question, the interview findings to answer the research
question, and finally a summary.
A semi-structured interview was utilized with the same interview protocols for each
teacher. The use of markers and probes allowed the researcher to gain more depth in the
responses given by connecting questions directly to the participants’ responses. The use of Patton
and Patton’s (2002) six types of questions allowed the researcher to gather in-depth data. The
protocol began with an introduction to clearly state the purpose of the study and inform the
participants on how their responses would be kept confidential and that they could opt out at any
time. The goal of the introduction and the background questions (see Appendix A) was to
establish rapport and build trust. This would allow for more authentic responses.
Questions were open-ended to assess what tools, strategies, and resources general
education teachers both had at their disposal and had knowledge about (Johnson & Christensen,
2014; Patton & Patton, 2002). To ask specifically about their use of a strategy might lead them to
answering that they do employ something specific when in fact they may not have (i.e., leading
questions). Therefore, the questions used asked more generally about which tools, strategies, and
resources they used and which they perceived they needed. Questions were also included to
gather data about the larger school culture because the literature highlights how the culture of a
52

school can either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special needs (Obiakor
et al., 2012). This ties directly into the conceptual framework of this study.
Quantitative data were also used in the methodology of this study via a questionnaire to
discover the number of strategies, tools, and resources general education teachers had knowledge
of and/or used in their instruction. This would also aid in identifying which teacher and programs
were employing the successful inclusion of students with special needs based on the participants’
responses to the survey questions. Questions were asked about their specific school culture to
determine whether their site successfully included students with special needs. Surveys were also
used to triangulate the data gleaned from interviews and were therefore intentionally done before
the interviews. The researcher also wanted to give the teachers the opportunity to understand the
purpose of the study, in terms of what the interview would be about, so that they could
demonstrate what they actually knew in regard to best practices in including students with
special needs. All three research questions were answered through the use of surveys and
interviews.
Survey questions were close-ended, and answers included a 5-point Likert-type scale,
multiple choice, fill in the blank, and rating scales. This survey was designed to give the
researcher numeric data on the culture of inclusion and on the practices of general education
teachers (Creswell, 2018). Biased words and leading questions were avoided to the greatest
extent possible, and questions were designed to be meaningful to the participants (Fink, 2009).
Part I of the survey was designed to gather basic demographic information (e.g., general
education teacher experience in years). Part II asked about the school culture in relation to
inclusion and would help answer Research Question 3. Part III asked about the tools and
resources that general education teachers perceived they needed, which would help answer
53

Research Question 1. Finally, Part IV asked about the tools and resources that general education
teachers utilized and had knowledge of, which would help answer Research Question 2. The
survey was sent to general education teachers in urban elementary schools across Los Angeles
County. This was done by contacting assistant superintendents in ten school districts. Eight of
them forwarded the cover letters and surveys out to their elementary principals who then sent
them to their teachers.
Demographics of Survey Participants
A total of 48 surveys were collected from general education teachers serving at
elementary schools in Los Angeles County public school districts servicing a student population
between 2,500 and 70,000. Ten surveys collected were partially completed. This left a total of 38
surveys that were completed by general education teachers. Ten school districts in Los Angeles
County were contacted, eight of which agreed to participate. Anonymous links were sent to the
districts’ assistant superintendents, who subsequently sent them to their elementary principals.
Elementary principals sent the anonymous survey links to their general education teachers.
Forty-three respondents indicated the number of years of experience they had. A total of
4.65% had 2–4 years of experience, 2.33% had 5–6 years of experience, 13.95% had 7–8 years
of experience, 11.63% had 9–10 years of experience, and 67.44% had 11 or more years of
experience. Forty-three respondents indicated the number of years they had been at their current
school site. A total of 6.98% had been at their current site for 1–2 years, 18.60% had been at
their current site for 3–4 years, 9.30% had been at their current site for 5–6 years, 20.93% had
been at their current site for 7–8 years, 4.65% had been at their current site for 9–10 years, and
39.53% had been at their current site for more than 10 years. Forty-two respondents indicated the
grade level they taught in. A total of 2.38% were transitional kindergarten teachers, 14.29%
54

taught kindergarten, 9.52% taught first grade, 14.29% taught second grade, 14.29% taught third
grade, 14.29% taught fourth grade, 2.38% taught a fourth and fifth grade combination class, and
28.57% taught fifth grade.
Of the 43 respondents who continued with the survey, 100% had previous experience
working with students with special needs. A total of 6.98% currently did not have students with
IEPs in their classrooms. A total of 79.07% had 1–3 students with IEPs, 11.63% had 4–6, and
2.33% had 7–10 students with IEPs. A total of 23.26% of respondents indicated that students
with IEPs are fully included for the entire school day. A total of 53.49% indicated that students
with IEPs are included in their classroom for most of their school day and are pulled out for
related services (e.g., specialized academic instruction/resource, speech, OT). A total of 6.98%
stated that students with IEPs are in a separate setting for half of their school day and in the
general education class for the other half of their school day. A total of 2.33% indicated that
students with IEPs come to their general education classroom for a portion of their school day,
but the majority of their time are in a separate setting. A total of 6.98% selected “Other” for this
question, specifying that students with IEPs are “Both in my classroom most of the day and
pulled out for services AND some students are just with me for a small portion (majority is in a
separate setting),” “My IEP students vary, some all day with me, some out part of the day and
some out all of the day, except a few hours in the middle for specials,” and “They are with me
for all synchronous instruction and pulled for services during asynchronous and independent
work times.”
Of the 38 survey respondents, 68.4% indicated they felt moderately prepared to teach
students with special needs in their class, 21.1% felt somewhat prepared to teach students with
55

special needs in their class, 2.6% indicated they felt neither prepared or unprepared, and 7.9%
indicated they felt extremely uncomfortable teaching students with special needs.
Demographics of Interview Participants
Seven survey respondents were selected to be interviewed from a total of 15 who
responded “yes” or “maybe” to the question “Would you be willing and available to be
interviewed for 45 minutes to 1 hour via zoom?” Two interviews were conducted across two
sessions to accommodate time constraints. Interviews ranged in duration between approximately
40 minutes and 1 hour and 15 minutes, averaging 53 minutes. All interviews were conducted via
Zoom due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
At the time of the interview, participants taught in grades K–5 (except grade 3). All
participants had at least 7 years of experience. A total of 57% of interview participants had 11 or
more years of experience. Table 3 presents a summary of the demographics of interview
participants, including their current grade level, years of experience, years at their current site,
and whether they had prior experience including students with IEPs in their classrooms. Table 4
takes a closer look at the number of students with IEPs in the teachers’ classes and the amount of
time students with IEPs spend in their general education classroom.

56

Table 3
Interview Participants’ Demographics
Participant
Current grade
level
Years of
experience
Years at current
site
Prior experience
including students
with IEPs
1 K 9–10 7–8 Yes
2 4 7–8 7–8 Yes
3 4 9–10 3–4 Yes
4 5 11+ 3–4 Yes
5 2 11+ 1–2 Yes
6 1 11+ 10+ Yes
7 5 11+ 10+ Yes

57

Table 4
Interview Participants’ Inclusion Experience With Students With IEPs
Participant
# of students with IEPs in
current class
Inclusion amount
1 4–6 Most
2 7–10 Other*
3 1–3 Most
4 1–3 Full
5 1–3 Full
6 1–3 Most
7 1–3 Most

Note. Participants were asked to select from the following choices: They are fully included for
the entire school day; they are in my classroom for most of their school day and are pulled out
for related services (i.e., specialized academic instruction/resource, speech, OT, etc.); they are in
a separate setting for half of their school day and in my class for the other half of their school
day; they come to my classroom for a portion of their school day, but the majority of their time is
in a separate setting; I do not have students with IEPs in my class; or other.
*This respondent specified, “Both in my classroom most of the day and pulled out for services
AND some students are just with me for a small portion (majority is in a separate setting).”

Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “What strategies and tools do elementary general education
teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully
58

include students with special needs in their classrooms?” As previously reviewed in the
literature, understanding general education teacher perceptions and identities is pivotal in
understanding the gap that exists in providing students with special needs inclusion opportunities
successfully. Teachers with more experience implementing inclusive practices have more
positive feelings about inclusion (Williams et al., 1990). As a result, Browder and Cooper-Duffy
(2003) noted, if teachers are given more experience, their perspectives may change. Pruslow
(2003) challenged the question of whether inclusion works, stating that asking that question
denies the fundamental belief that diversity is valued and that schools have a moral obligation to
prepare all students to participate in a free society that is democratic. He quoted Madeline Will,
the former assistant secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
who said, “It is not a matter of insufficient knowledge or inadequate resources, it is rather a
question of will and character” (Will, 1984, p. 12).
Despite many advantages reported in providing inclusive settings to students with special
needs, many barriers have been reported (Bullock & Gable, 1994; Cartledge & Johnson, 1996;
Kauffman et al., 1995; Muscott et al., 1996). The behavioral and mental health needs of some
students, particularly those with emotional-behavioral disorders, are so great that the risk of
injury and interruption to the classroom environment requires intensive individualized
intervention, which is reported to be difficult to address in classrooms with more than 20
students (Shriner & Yell, 1996). Lack of resources and training with increased accountability
measures also make it challenging for general education teachers to support students with special
needs in their settings (Cheney & Barringer, 1995; MacMillan et al., 1996; Walker & Bullis,
1990). This is one reason why students are recommended for more restrictive settings.
59

Time constraints, administrative support, and difficulty creating access to general
education content and standards for students with special needs were also identified as barriers
(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Teachers had difficulty providing students with the
individualized support they needed as well as implementing evidence-based practices such as
time delay and picture cues (Agran & Alper, 2000, as cited in Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).
Instead, general education teachers focus more heavily on class-wide curriculum in order to
cover content with the entire class (McDonnell, 1998). Special education teachers also did not
find the general education standards to be appropriate for some students and indicated that they
should be held to different standards, ranking self-help skills such as grooming, social skills, and
communication as more meaningful for students with special needs (Agran et al., 2002). More
individualized and positive supports should be implemented to accommodate the needs of
diverse learners (Nelson, 2000; Safran & Oswald, 2003), and in addition to classroom systems,
school-wide systems and practices such as functional behavioral assessments and Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports should be implemented to support all students (Hieneman
et al., 2005).
Norwich (2002) further described the dilemma in servicing students with special needs.
He stated that students continue to require special education settings and classes because of
“general education’s inability to accommodate and include the full diversity of learners” (p.
488). A focus on individual needs and inclusion is necessary to prevent the trap of discussing
disability as the barrier that further segregates students on the basis of ability. Again, a lack of
training is a consistent barrier, and a necessary shift from a deficit mindset to a growth mindset
becomes vital.
60

Results for Research Question 1: Survey Analysis
With a sample size of 38, 84.2% of general education teachers surveyed indicated they
believed there were barriers that prevented students with mild to moderate special needs from
succeeding in general education settings. When asked to identify what barriers existed,
participants selected lack of adult support, instruction is not at their level, lack of materials that
meet their needs, other, and lack of administrator or district support. Table 5 shows how these
barriers ranked among participants.

Table 5
Barriers Perceived by General Education Teachers That Prevent Students With Special Needs
From Succeeding in General Education
Barriers Count % of respondents
Lack of adult support 25 65.8
Instruction not at their level 24 63.2
Lack of materials 15 39.5
Other 8 21.1
Lack of administrator or district support 5 13.2

61

Table 6 presents participants’ ranking of seven resources based on the level of need in
their classroom to support students with special needs in their classroom. The most important
resource identified by those surveyed was embedded paraeducator/adult support, with an average
rating of 1.97. Following in order of importance to participants was collaboration with their
special education teacher and actual tools (e.g., adaptive materials, flexible seating). Four survey
participants specified other resources they needed in their classroom to support students with
special needs. These included “language and training to help students understand diversity of
needs,” “audio equipment,” “movement things,” “qualified special education aides that are
trained,” “someone to just adjust the general education homework to meet their specialized
needs,” “one on one attention,” and “smaller class sizes.”

Table 6
Resources Perceived by General Education Teachers Needed to Support Students With Special
Needs in Their Classroom
Resources Average Median
Embedded paraeducator/adult support 1.97 1
Collaboration with special education teacher 2.21 2
Tools (e.g., adaptive materials, adaptive/flexible seating) 3.37 3
Administrator support 5.05 5
Collaboration with speech-language pathologist 5.05 5
Professional development 5.13 6
Collaboration with other IEP members 5.21 5
62

Findings for Research Question 1: Interview Analysis
The following resources, tools, and strategies were stated multiple times across interview
participants as what they believed was needed to successfully include students with special needs
in their classrooms. Participants were asked what would ideally be made available to them if they
could have any resource, tool, or strategy to address the needs of a student struggling to complete
an assignment. They were also asked a similar question related to a student with behavioral
challenges in their classroom. Other questions that helped gather the data for this section
included what they believed the role of a special education teacher should be and what tools and
resources they would have available if they could create their own school.
Resources
Push-In Support: Supporting In-Class Instruction. Push-in support was stated on
almost 40 different occasions across all seven participants. Several themes even within this idea
of what push-in support should be and should look like became apparent. The first theme
presented is the idea that push-in support should be an extension of the instruction taking place in
the classroom. Teacher 3 stated,
Of course, it depends on the student, but they would support in totality, right? I mean,
they’re an additional adult in the classroom and because they’d be hearing the lessons,
they’d be able to continue that. So, like a continuum to the instruction. So I think that
would be ideal. Just to continue on to the group, teaching group lesson, as opposed to
being disjointed and, as opposed to working on something else, right, pulling them
separately.
Teacher 4 said,
63

I’m a huge advocate for push-in instruction . . . when a kid leaves the classroom to go get
support on a goal, let’s say that they have for their IEP, that student also has instruction
that they’re missing in the classroom. . . . And so those are the students that often need
more time to work on something but in fact with the pull-out model, they’re getting less
time to work on a particular thing because they have another goal that they’re working
on, right? So, I’m a huge advocate for as much pushing in support as possible, especially
in the upper grades, when we’re trying to transition them off of an IEP eventually.
Push-In Support: Behavioral Support. Behavioral push-in support was another
common theme. Teacher 3 stressed the need for push-in support to help manage behavior:
I think definitely more behaviorists, or BI’s, available to us because usually the ones that
are here are assigned to a specific kid. So, I would definitely say, like, every school
campus could use a behavioralist, who basically hops around all the classrooms and when
they see behavior gets in there and fixes it, and then talks to the teacher and says, “Hey, I
see this student doing this a lot. Let’s try and manage their behavior in this way.” So, I
think every single classroom could use that, doesn’t need to be full time now, but every
school site. If we could have a floating behavioralist to kind of come and jump around
and help you manage behavior.
Push-In Support: Help Other Students. The theme of helping other students presented
on five different occasions. Participants discussed the need for the push-in support to be
available to help other students, when possible, and discussed giving students the opportunity to
become more independent. Teacher 1 stated,
I think that there’s a fine line between like constantly sitting next to the kid all the time
and then they become dependent on it. I think there’s a line between being there if they
64

need the help and also like backing away when they don’t need the help, and I think like
some of the best like paraeducators that I’ve or special educators that I’ve seen like will
not only come in and check on their kid; they’ll come in like kind of check on other kids
in the class just to kind of be like, “Oh look I’m looking at everyone,” you know, and it’s
not as obvious like, “Oh, this kid needs help,” but just, of course, obviously being there
when they need it but, you know, giving them that independence if they can do it on their
own as well.
Push-In Support: Small Group. Push-in support used to provide small-group
instruction came up six times. Teacher 3 stated,
It would be a person helping the classroom, an aide, someone who can pull kids for a
small group, at that moment when they see the struggle. . . . But, if, if we had someone in
math class, in reading class, that you could say, “Hey, can you review this with them?”
That, that’s what’s needed. That’s a greatest wish.
Push-In Support: Experienced/Knowledgeable. Finally, in terms of push-in support,
participants stressed the need for individuals who are skilled and experienced to support the
needs of the students they serve. This came up on nine different occasions. Teacher 4 stated,
The one-on-one aides are really helpful and, and not just an adult in the classroom but
somebody who’s really trained, right, who has the ability to, to understand what that
specific child’s needs are and . . . and are trained to support that . . . that specific child.
So, having the right type of aide, the right fit is really important.
Special Education Teacher. The need for special education teachers as a resource came
up eight times in relation to this research question. Teacher 7 stated,
65

I mean in an ideal world, we’d have more so they could, you know, be more involved and
have more time with the students in their, in their care, but, um, they’re just spread so
thin that there’s not a whole lot they can do.
Other participants spent time discussing the value that added special education teachers could
provide in order to be more available, several times mentioning their high caseloads. Another
salient point was the need for the special education teacher’s support to align with the content in
the general education classroom.
Social-Emotional Support. Another resource that was identified multiple times was
social-emotional support. Teacher 7 suggested an idea to provide social-emotional support to the
students at her school:
The one thing that I wish our school did better is, um, well, the one thing that I kind of
wish, if I were principal . . . I would love to do like family groups. So, kids from all grade
levels would come together in smaller groups, maybe like two kids from each grade level,
and one grown-up from campus. I mean, janitors to lunch ladies to teachers to aides to
principal, office manager. Everyone had a group that those kids stay with throughout the
whole . . . their whole life at our school. I just think it would really help to build stronger
relationships. I think we do an okay job, but we tend to focus more on the kids that
struggle and the whole student body. And I wish we had some outlet, some way to do that
as a whole. So even if we met with each group . . . once a week or even once a month,
um, I just think, building those strong relationships, would be the best use of time and
energy.
Several participants discussed the need for a safe space that teachers can provide for their
students. Teacher 1 stated,
66

A cool-down corner or something, where the kids could go. . . . Be nice to have like a
space for that. Um, or like something to make it kind of unique and fun, like it’s not like a
punishment. And the kids have a cool place to go and any kid could use it, you know,
didn’t have to be the kid that was exhibiting that behavior if they were feeling a certain
way.
Curriculum. Another resource mentioned was curriculum, specifically with modifying
the content to give students access. Teacher 4 described how she would do this:
And, so, what I would do is, I would gather all those materials into like a PDF document,
make an answer key for it, and then share those resources with that teacher, saying like,
“This is what we’re covering in science. Here’s the answer key,” and then that teacher
would then modify it to meet the needs of their particular students.
Professional Development. The need for professional development to support students
with special needs was brought up 28 times. Teacher 6 stated,
I mean, probably don’t have as much training as we probably should. But I think it’s a
little more as needed, because not everybody has [kids with special needs] in their
classroom. So, they may not need a training. So, you know, maybe it’s more if you need
something, come find me. I would say my district is very supportive, but I don’t feel like
I’ve had too much training this last year.
Teacher 3 discussed the need for behavioral training to address the various needs of her
students:
I wouldn’t have known what to do with [a student with ED] had we not had one and . . . I
just think what’s unfortunate is this is not what they’re training teachers on. They’re not
training us on how to manage behavior, really.
67

She continued to discuss the need for trainings that allow teachers to practice with real scenarios
and for behaviorists to come help teachers learn those skills directly in their classrooms. Teacher
5 and Teacher 6 both mentioned the issue of teacher buy-in and the idea that if teachers do not
see the value in the trainings or if they do not have the time and support to practice content,
actual application will not be realized.
Here, Teacher 5 discussed the need for trainings to engage teachers so that content from
trainings would be more likely to be applied:
I would say it’s a lot of giving and a lot of input. . . . Not a lot of opportunity to practice.
What is really missing is that opportunity to talk. I will say prior to the current situation
we are in, I would say the district . . . we did pretty well, we did for the most part, and try
to encourage that opportunity to talk with each other, but I think that’s something we still
need to work on . . . that collaboration. Also, I think the biggest, I think, challenge is that
it’s a . . . one of . . . a lot of one shot only. It’s, here’s the PD, and there’s not that… all of
that really happening, whether it’s by the principal or the district itself to really cause a
change . . . unless you have . . . that handful, and then . . . they’re like running with it.
Collaboration. Collaboration was mentioned five times across participants as a needed
resource. Teacher 3 discussed the need for collaboration in order to ensure alignment between
the special education setting and the general education setting:
But I would like to see there be more collaboration, so what they’re doing in there models
more what we’re doing in here. And I don’t know that I would be successful as a gen ed
teacher, providing that collaboration . . . but there needs to be more one on one, and more
classroom collaboration.
Teacher 4 stated,
68

I think it’s so valuable to have time built in your day to collaborate with other teachers,
and so kind of like that PLC model, right, where you’re meeting with a team and you’re
sharing data, you’re, you know, it’s not just like a time to complain and, you know, show
your frustrations, but a time to like problem solve. So, I think that is so valuable . . .
having a model set up at your school where you can pop in and watch another teacher
teach, I think, is priceless. I was a huge advocate for that when I was a BTSA mentor . . .
the district gave you like a half day as a new teacher to go and like observe another
teacher, and I think seeing other teachers, you just pick up on so much, either what to do
or what not to do, right? But I think that that peer collaboration, teacher-to-teacher, is
priceless.
Time. Time was mentioned nine times as a needed resource. Teacher 2 stated,
Time: That’s probably the biggest one, time and scheduling. Um, ideally, there would be
a beautiful schedule that accounts for everyone to be included, everyone to have
flexibility, everyone to not be constrained by meetings and all this stuff. You know, but
that’s ideal.
Teacher 7 further discussed how time could help support students better:
I mean, more time is the best thing, if I could just have unlimited time to be able to sit
with them and work through stuff with them. Um, usually it’s a matter of time where
you’re just usually under such time constraints that we have to move through everything
much faster than, you know, some of these kids need.
Administrator Support. The last resource that was presented by the general education
teachers was the need for administrator support. Teacher 1 stated,
69

And so, I feel like the admin wasn’t really sure how to support a kid that needed all these
different like mobility things and needed a different place to go to the bathroom. And we
just didn’t have the capability to provide that support.
She explained that if leadership does not have the solution to site-specific dilemmas that prohibit
students from having access to their campus, who will?
Tools
Visuals. Visuals were one tool that was mentioned repeatedly. Teacher 1 stated, “It might
be helpful to have some like social stories books in our school library. I know one of my friends,
who’s a speech path, she has a lot at her school.” Teacher 2 stated,
It would also be really nice, as you know, many teachers, we spend hours just making
these charts. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it would be great to have a Teachers Pay
Teachers kind of thing that wasn’t expensive because we end up spending a lot of money
on it, right, and a lot of these tools are awesome . . . these digital visuals.
Flexible Seating. Flexible seating was another tool that teachers believed would help
with the successful inclusion of students with special needs. Teacher 1 asked for “bigger rooms,
more space to accommodate like the different needs for kids. Like you could have like a cool-
down corner, you could have extra space for wheelchairs and different things.” Teacher 2 said
that although she has flexible seating,
if I want this bouncy chair for this kid, I shouldn’t have to pay $100 even though it really
benefits them, right? So ideally things would be free and accessible maybe in a room and
we could go grab them and then put it back, as needed.
70

Strategies
Universal Design. One of the most prominent needed strategies that was raised to
successfully include students with special needs was Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
Teacher 5 summarized the need in this way:
I would say [teachers] really need to understand UDL, first and foremost. The idea,
where everybody gets into the door. You know, everything is accessible, and then how do
we create that environment, whether it’s the physical, whether it’s social interaction,
whether it’s academic practice, and what do we need to do to make every kid have access
to the same level of content/curriculum, not separating, including, and just, just wanting
every kid to have that chance. What do we need to do, and then what’s that mastery look
like? And then on the flip side, how do we readjust what we’re looking at? Does it need
to be always written down? This doesn’t have to be on this paper, must you always sit in
a chair? I’m thinking all those kinds of ideas, like creating an environment that is
inclusive and allows for flexibility. Like, teachers have flexible seating, but I don’t know
if they really understand what that means.
Going along the same line with UDL, differentiated instruction was another strategy that
teachers believed was needed to successfully include students with special needs in their
classrooms. Teacher 1 stated, “I feel like they’re, they are obviously able to be accommodated in
their classrooms. I mean, I think it takes modifications and accommodations, and you have to be
willing to do that.”
Coteaching. Another prominent theme that was discussed was that of coteaching. This
was discussed at length five times. Teacher 5 stated,
71

I think it’s going back to that, that coteach mindset, whether it’s actually true coteaching,
or that idea where these are all our kids, that we’re not separating kids out. Also, a special
ed teacher has a level of skill and expertise that a gen ed teacher does not . . . necessarily
have. And so, being able to write that way of looking at things differently, like, “Hey,
have you ever thought of doing this?” or even just showing that “Hey, use docs this way
or if you stopped and did this, look, look at the results you might have.” . . . The one
thing is we sometimes come from different angles, and it’s amazing how much better the
life of those kids would be.
Relationships With Students With Special Needs. The last strategy discussed among
participants was building relationships with students with special needs. When discussing what
made her special education teacher so effective, Teacher 7 stated,
So, she was like the main continuity for most of the kids and just knew what worked best
for them . . . and so she would be my ideal if I could, if I could clone her for each of my
students. Just, I mean, she was someone that genuinely cared about each of the kids no
matter what their issues were, or at least the kids believed that she cared for them even if,
you know, if they were kind of hard . . . They didn’t know that, you know, she was really
good about treating everyone well, um, and also to help move them forward.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Across survey and interview responses, participants identified several resources, tools,
and strategies they believed were needed in order to successfully include students with special
needs in their classrooms that were also described in the literature. In terms of resources,
participants identified push-in support in the form of supporting in-class instruction, to provide
behavioral support, to help other students, and to provide small-group instruction, as well as
72

push-in support from an experienced/knowledgeable person. Other resources described multiple
times across qualitative and quantitative measures included use of the special education teacher,
social-emotional support, curriculum that is developmentally appropriate to meet the needs of all
learners, professional development, collaboration among IEP team members, time, and
administrator support (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Cheney & Barringer, 1995; MacMillan
et al., 1996; Walker & Bullis, 1990). Tools that teachers stated they needed included visuals and
flexible seating, and strategies included universal design especially with differentiated
instruction, coteaching, and developing relationships with students with special needs (Agran &
Alper, 2000). The literature echoed the need for these resources, tools, and strategies (Agran et
al., 2002; Nelson, 2000; Safran & Oswald, 2003).
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “What strategies and tools do elementary general education
teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special
needs in their classrooms?” Why are educators better able to service students in separate
classrooms or in smaller groups? What strategies are being implemented in classrooms
successfully including students with special needs that others may not be implementing?
Researchers have studied evidence-based practices for a number of years. According to Russo-
Campisi (2017), “The purpose of identifying and implementing EBPs is to ensure that students
are exposed to interventions and practices that have been shown to be effective through research,
and which result in overall improved student outcomes” (p. 194). Increased accountability
measures press upon teachers to utilize the following empirically based strategies.
Scaffolding the learning of students encompass a variety of strategies. Learning is best
achieved through a framework called “the gradual release of responsibility instructional
73

framework” (Fisher & Frey, 2014, p. 128). It is imperative also to provide the individualized
support needed so that students can reach goals (Fisher & Frey, 2014). Teachers need to teach
small, purposeful groups based on formative assessment data. Through the PLC process, the
emphasis is on discussing student achievement utilizing such data and creating groups that allow
these guided teaching opportunities to take place for groups of students with common academic
needs. The only way to determine this is through a conscious analysis of formative data (Fisher
& Frey, 2014). Molina (2015) found that the use of learning communities encouraged the
inclusion of students with special needs. These learners do not need more modeling in the typical
whole group format, but more guided instruction, “direction and practice, with scaffolding in
place to ensure success” (Fisher & Frey, 2014, p. 16). A key component in the learning process
is the collaboration time provided to students to work through new content. Both Marzano
(2007) and Fisher and Frey (2014) stressed the importance of keeping expectations high and
respecting the differences of all learners.
Hieneman et al. (2005) suggested the use of embedded school-wide systems such as PBS
and structures to support students with behavioral challenges in addition to the individualized
support needed. Positive behavioral supports should be more effective and efficient than current
practices to be successful. All members of a team, including general education teachers, special
education support staff, and school counselors, should work together to successfully implement a
cohesive and well-integrated school-wide plan (Hieneman et al., 2005). Continuous training and
resources as well as incentives for proper implementation should be utilized to sustain an
effective school-wide approach to behavior with fidelity (Elias et al., 2003; Knoster & Kincaid,
2005). This should include a school-wide philosophy and culture shared by all stakeholders.
With all these components in place, a proactive behavior system with multiple tiers of support,
74

depending on the behavior at hand, can help alleviate the burden that often falls on the general
education teacher (Hieneman et al., 2005). Teachers need to be given this kind of toolbox to
effectively manage behavioral challenges presented by all students, but especially students with
special needs.
Results for Research Question 2: Survey Analysis
Table 7 presents the strategies that general education teachers indicated they were trained
in and, of those strategies, which ones they currently use. Table 8 presents the tools/resources
currently available in their classroom to support students with special needs. One participant
specified an additional strategy not listed that they use to support students with special needs in
their classroom:
I am also an Intensive Behavioral Interventionist and have been trained in ABA. I feel
highly skilled in positive reinforced and applied behavior—I just have too many students
to provide what is needed for students with any sort of accommodations. I use small
groups A LOT. 32+ kids in a classroom isn’t beneficial for anyone!

75

Table 7
Strategies 38 General Education Teachers Indicated They Received Training In and Strategies
They Currently Use
Strategies
Count
trained
% trained
Count
using
strategy
% using
strategy
Differentiated instruction 36 94.7 37 97.4
Small-group instruction 35 92.1 37 97.4
Use of technology in the classroom 35 92.1 38 100
Scaffolding 34 89.5 34 89.5
Direct instruction 34 89.5 36 94.7
Use of visuals and manipulatives 33 86.8 37 97.4
Positive Behavior Interventions and Support 32 84.2 29 76.3
Environmental strategies 32 84.2 33 86.8
Professional learning communities 30 78.9 14 36.8
Data-driven decision making 29 76.3 26 68.4
Building relationships with students 29 76.3 35 92.1
Collaboration with the IEP team 27 71.1 29 76.3
Collaborative learning groups 27 71.1 30 78.9
Heterogeneous grouping 26 68.4 30 78.9
Gradual release of responsibility 21 55.3 21 55.3
Authentic assessment of student performance 18 47.4 28 73.7
Applied behavior analysis 14 36.8 11 28.9
Peer-mediated instruction 12 31.6 12 31.6

76

Table 8
Tools/Resources Currently Available in the Classroom to Support Students With Special Needs
Resources Count % of participants
Collaboration with special education teacher 38 100
Collaboration with speech-language pathologist 33 86.8
Tools (i.e., adaptive materials, adaptive/flexible seating) 30 78.9
Collaboration with other IEP members 29 76.3
Administrator support 25 65.8
Embedded paraeducator/adult support 24 63.2
Professional development 19 50

Findings for Research Question 2: Interview Analysis
The following resources, tools, and strategies were stated multiple times across interview
participants as what they use to successfully include students with special needs in their
classrooms. Participants were asked what they would want if they could have any resource, tool,
or strategy to address the needs of a student struggling to complete an assignment, as well as
what they currently use or have access to. They were also asked a similar question related to a
student with behavioral challenges in their classroom. Other questions that helped gather the data
for this section included asking participants to describe any professional development they
received in the last year related to their role in teaching students with special needs, if any, and
what support they currently receive to provide instruction for students with special needs.
77

Resources
Push-In Support: Paraeducator. Push-in support was mentioned on 23 different
occasions across all seven participants. Again, several themes within this idea of what push-in
support currently looks like for the participants became evident. One theme was the idea that
push-in support is an extension of the instruction taking place in the classroom. Teacher 7
described what that support looked like:
She also wouldn’t interrupt what was going on in the classroom, but she was there and
was able to quietly guide the kids that needed more guidance. And then she was able to
. . . pull them . . . out of the room, and give them extra support when needed. So, she was
pretty ideal.
Push-In Support: Modify Work. Participants shared that their push-in support was used
to modify student work. Teacher 7 said they have a library of materials available that they had
used in the past and that when her push-in support “noticed something needed, like if some
student, didn’t have the right thing, she’d run up and get a copy, you know, and modify it for
those handful of kids that she was working for or working with.”
Push-In Support: Help Other Students. Teachers appreciated the push-in support that
would go the extra step to help other students who were struggling in the class. Teacher 3 stated,
“Because she spent so much time in the classroom, she was then able to help all students, you
know, and often would be able to help if she wasn’t pulling . . . a student for his one-on-one
work.”
Push-In Support: Experienced/Knowledgeable. Once again, experienced and
knowledgeable push-in support was important to the participants in supporting the inclusion of
78

students with special needs in their classroom. Teacher 7 described the qualities of one of her
most supportive paraeducators:
We actually had a phenomenal aide in the classroom, but she kind of anticipated your
student’s needs, and, um, and was able to do more than the teachers were able to because
she had a little more freedom to move around, so she was able to be in the classroom,
more and, you know, work with the kids that need it, and really grow relationships with
the kids. Because she works with them, year after year.
Push-In Support: Small Group. Finally, in terms of push-in support, general education
teachers valued the use of their paraeducators to provide small-group instruction. Teacher 2
explained the importance of using them with the support and expertise of her collaboration with
the special education teacher:
The aides will push in for certain subjects and the special education teacher and I will
communicate about what their needs are. And, so, we’ll discuss that or if they call them
just outside for a small group, we will discuss what they want them to work on.
Special Education Teacher. One of the most valuable resources general education
teachers stated was available to them was their special education teacher. Their special education
teachers provide multiple weekly check-ins with both their students and the general education
teachers, modify work (including quizzes and tests), schedule, communicate with families on
behalf of the team, train and assist paraeducators to support students in the general education
setting, and provide modified packets of their own. Teacher 6 stated,
I would say the most support that’s provided is our special ed teachers; we have a K–2
and then we have a 3–5. Just so much communication, you know, the emails and sending
us their IEPs and then doing a meet and greet before we have them in our classrooms.
79

And asking for, like, our work ahead of time, you know. We send the work home on
Fridays, homework and any other activities, so they can modify it.
Social-Emotional Strategies. Teachers also shared the use of social-emotional strategies
as a resource they could use at their disposal to support their students. Teacher 1 stated,
Right now, we’re trying to focus a lot on like the social-emotional skills, and really like
all about our emotions and how like things make us feel and what reactions we could
have and maybe how we could have different reactions. So, we have all these resources
through . . . the ruler curriculum . . . there’s like a mood meter where they track like I’m
in the red, I’m in the blue, like if they’re angry or sad or like I’m in the yellow, or the
green, like they’re calm and pleasant, you know? So, I think using those kind of materials
to help them like identify those emotions, how they’re feeling, and how they’re reacting,
and maybe like talking through like how else can we change . . . how else could we feel
that way and not have this particular behavior and maybe have, you know, a different
one.
Curriculum. The use of the curriculum available to participants was also mentioned
several times as a resource that helped them support their students in their classrooms. Teacher 4
explained,
We use writers’ and readers’ workshop and, so, I do create Google Slides for my like
presentation for the kids. And, so, I gave access to the special ed teachers to access those
slides; they would have those. And then I created smartboard lessons for all of our math.
And so, I shared that with not only the special ed team, but with all the fifth-grade
teachers in the district. So, things like that they have access to, which is really nice
because the math is so cumbersome, or even like reading and writing workshop, but one
80

lesson to read, Lucy Calkins, is like 20 pages long. So, to put it in a Google slide, like
kind of an edited version, it’s really helpful for the special ed team because they can just
get to the main point, you know?
Other resources mentioned in the area of curriculum included Fountas and Pinnell, Momentum,
and all the collaboration from fellow teachers.
Professional Development. The general education teachers who participated in the study
shared many examples of professional development opportunities they had received to help build
their capacity in supporting students with special needs in their classrooms. Teacher 2 shared her
experience going to a district-funded training, Club 21, suggested by one of her parents to
support her student with Down syndrome. She stated their district funded both general and
special education teachers supporting that student to attend. Teacher 4 described her district’s
professional developments within the last 2 years, including learning about the personalized
learning approach, readers’ and writers’ workshop, and CGI math, all geared to the
personalization of learning to meet individual student needs. Although none of these trainings
was directly for students with special needs, many of the teachers believed they still benefitted
their instruction for students with special needs.
Participants were asked to describe the strengths of the PDs they found helpful to their
instruction. Teacher 4 said,
I feel like any PD that attaches it to the why, I feel like that kind of pulls at you and gets
you interested in being better and bettering yourself . . . bettering your, your craft. I feel
like any PD that’s beneficial is something that can be directly related back to your
classroom situation, right, so not something that just like hangs in a cloud somewhere,
but like you can immediately take that information and apply it to your kids and your
81

classroom. . . . You can apply it. I think those are the ones that are the most beneficial.
And when you have time within that PD to kind of like, play around, right, when you
have time in that PD to, to plan, to apply it to your own situation and it’s built, that’s built
into your PD time, I think that’s so beneficial because sometimes you’re just given so
much information kind of like shoved down, you know, and just like you walk out of a
PD with like your brains hurting because you’re just trying to think of all these new
things. So, I feel like, in a PD, what’s really beneficial is when there’s more of that quiet
application time, or you can work with someone else and work in a group, um, you know,
give yourself some time to like plan it out and build, create something, is really
beneficial.
Teacher 2 echoed those sentiments and valued discussions about the content with fellow
educators in small groups. She also explained the benefit of surveys provided after her districts’
professional development trainings. Across participants, teacher buy-in and engagement in PD
was valued.
The content of PDs was also a shared strength among participants. Teacher 2 stated, “I
think we do have really solid presenters, folks that are well versed in what they’re preaching and
what they’re teaching, which is really important, obviously.” Teacher 5 described a training on
UDL:
It was so much fun. She just opened your eyes. She actually did a great activity about
glasses . . . and had us going in different parts of the room . . . was just a simple way of
just getting people to understand this idea of, you know, what UDL means. You’re trying
to give everybody access, it doesn’t mean it’s easier for anybody. It’s just everybody has
access to that content. It was amazing, I loved every minute of it.
82

Teacher 7 described how her district used two teachers from a neighboring district to do a PD:
There were two women that were actually teachers in a neighboring district, and they are
pretty phenomenal. They actually bring in hands-on things and you know we get to, we
get to actually use what they want us to try, or what they want us to implement in our
classroom. And so, their strengths were they were well planned out, they definitely
listened to us, they gave us lots of chances to try what they wanted us to do, and to get
feedback.
Professional development that allows for teacher engagement and buy-in, is rich in content, and
seeks feedback was a definite resource of value among participants.
Involvement in the IEP. Teachers also valued their involvement in the IEP process,
whether in meetings or in receiving IEP documents from their special education teacher or
related service providers to help support students included in their classrooms. Teacher 2
described the value of “working as a team, including parents”:
Many of the times during an IEP meeting, we’ll say, “Hey, so and so’s doing this really
well. She’s providing this, we’re doing this.” And so I find that, as a team, folks do
highlight one another’s strengths and how they’re helping . . . our shared students.
Teacher 5 said,
You know, I will honestly say my speech teacher was very helpful in some ways of
sharing. Like I got the IEP, I got the goals on, and those were actually, probably the most
well-written goals I’ve ever seen and that I truly understood. . . . They truly are practical,
specific, clear actionable things that . . . I was like, Oh, . . . I know exactly what I was
supposed to look for and how I can support.
83

Collaboration. The use of collaboration among participants was described 24 times as a
valued resource. Teacher 4 said her district uses a “passport” to share everything they need to
know to support the needs of a student with an IEP in their class, from strengths to areas of
needed growth:
It follows them when they travel teacher to teacher. Um, and so it just kind of gives us
that overview. That gives us a lot of help in terms of, okay, what’s worked well, you
know, here’s a heads up, let’s go through and read through these accommodations on the
IEP. What does their pullout schedule look like?
She further described how her team embraces the idea of collaboration to support her students:
In terms of communication with those support teachers, and I share all of my lessons,
they’re like a part of my Google Classroom, so they have access to all my material. I
would send over my pacing guide to the SDC teachers, so like I have my students who
come for science, right, and social studies. I gave them my pacing guide because we
knew that they were coming to my class for those areas. So their SDC teacher wanted
them to be kind of up to date and supported in on those concepts at that time. . . Then the
SDC teacher would modify that curriculum to meet the students’ needs. . . It felt like
they had that base knowledge so when they came into my classroom, they were able to
come with their notes, and to come with . . . ideas to present during conversations in the
class. So, a lot of sharing materials. Meeting just to talk about what’s going well, what’s
not going well. All of our communication with parents, we always cc each other on.
Alignment of content between classrooms was also an aspect that collaboration seemed to
help facilitate. Teacher 2 shared how this unfolded at her site:
84

And, so, what we try to do, and again, that’s, that’s been a big, contentious thing at
school, right, is they can take work from my class, but it needs to align with their, you
know, special ed goals. The problem is teachers will just send their kids with stuff to do,
and it doesn’t align with their goals and so she can’t teach their goals and the kids aren’t
getting their work done. And that’s the problem. So, if they leave my classroom to go to
hers, we make sure it aligns with their goals.
In addition to actual conversations, Teacher 2 further described collaboration as a lot of sharing
of materials, including communication logs, student work samples, and folders of materials
going back and forth from classroom to classroom.
Administrator Support. Teachers also valued administrator support when thinking
about the inclusion of students with special needs. Teacher 7 gave an example of the type of
support she appreciated from her administrator:
We also had one student that . . . had a really hard time sitting still. So, the principal
would meet with him, I would send him out to the principal, and they would do a certain
amount of push-ups and sit-ups and stuff like that, jumping jacks together, and then he’d
come back and he’d be a little better. So, our school is pretty supportive in that we try and
come up with new ways to help everybody.
Teachers valued the responsiveness of their administrators when they needed support as well.
Tools
Visuals. The use of visuals was mentioned six times. Teacher 1 gave an example:
I had one girl who had like a vision issue, and she had to have all her materials like
larger, and so we figured out a way, with the special ed teacher, to like make her copies,
on a bigger paper for her to be able to visually see those better.
85

Manipulatives. The use of manipulatives was also mentioned six times. Teacher 1
explained how she utilizes manipulatives to support students with special needs in her class:
They could do it better with an iPad or in math . . . they’re having trouble like writing out
the problem, like maybe I could give them manipulatives. I’m just kind of being creative
and thinking of other ways for them to show their knowledge.
Flexible Seating. The use of flexible seating was mentioned eight times. Teacher 3
discussed what her setup looked like:
I have a table up front, where they can come and sit on these little crate chairs I have. . .
There’s certain kids who just their body needs to move. I finally ordered a stand-up table,
so I’m so excited to put that into play when we get back. And I can’t say that I’ve
mastered how to assign those, you know, that some kids need it more than others, but it’s
kind of seen as a reward or something different, so all the kids want it. So, I set different
guidelines, and sometimes I’ll say well this week this table gets to choose where they’re
sitting and, um, you know, so that’s what has worked so far.
The issue of how to allocate resources like flexible seating came up again with Teacher 5, who
said she felt this is an area of training, specifically in UDL, that teachers need help in.
Technology. Given the current pandemic, it was no surprise that technology was another
tool teachers stated they had access to and used to support students with special needs in their
class. Teachers discussed how they create “video helpers” so students can watch them at home as
a follow-up to a lesson from the day. They discussed specific tools such as EdPuzzle and Google
Classroom. Tools like these helped teachers create quick checks to monitor progress on content
aligned with their instruction, but they also allowed students to watch at their own pace.
86

Strategies
Behavior Systems. The first and most prominent strategy that was discussed among all
participants was the use of various behavior systems. This was discussed at length 30 times.
Behavior strategies that interview participants used in their classrooms to support students with
special needs, and really all their students, included PBIS, checklists provided by the
psychologists, individualized behavior charts, collaboration on behavior challenges among the
IEP team (including parent communication), restorative justice strategies, and the use of
strategies grounded in applied behavior analysis, including reinforcement and identifying the
functions of behavioral challenges presented to them. Teacher 1 described how she used
behavior charts:
I’ll make one that’s tailored to like their individual goal . . . you’re having trouble coming
to the carpet for story time, then like I want one to say like “came to the carpet for story
time, thumbs up.” And, so, I use a lot of those kind of resources, but I usually make those
because I feel like they’re very targeted for the specific kid.
Teacher 2 discussed how she goes about identifying the function of a behavior to help her
address the underlying cause, grounded in the theories of applied behavior analysis: “I’d want to
target like, identify, where is the problem coming from? Is it like an attention issue? Do they not
understand the content? Is it really like an academic issue? Or is it stemming from something
else?”
In terms of PBIS, teachers found the emphasis on motivating students with PBIS tickets
and incentives to be valuable to student success. Teachers valued and felt supported when they
had clear boundaries of which behaviors should be addressed in the classroom, and which ones
87

should be handled at the administrative level. They also discussed the system itself as a whole at
length. Teacher 3 stated,
Um, so that PBIS tickets, right, for positive behavior, so identifying the positives. PBIS
reporting tickets and how to report incidents. We did have our PBIS matrix, which we all
helped develop and kind of laid out our expectations. Otherwise, I feel like, we reviewed
through our PBIS setup, like what’s acceptable on the playground, what our expectations
are in the classroom.
Teacher 4 spoke about her use of restorative justice practices in her classroom:

But then I also follow more of like a restorative justice approach. And so really if it were
to come up in my classroom, I would just kind of quietly have a conversation with a
student as others were working, not calling attention to it . . . probably offer them like a
brain break first. “Okay, why don’t you walk to the office and get a drink of water down
at that water fountain?” Give them some time away from the situation. And when you
come back, let’s, you and I, chat, right, and so it’s more of that like private conversation.
And it’s never one of like discipline, right, or, you know, you think of it as punishment,
so really truly having a conversation about how that behavior impacts others, and
understanding their part in the situation, taking ownership. So, a lot of that kind of like
approach together and a more of like creating a learning opportunity.
Several of the interview participants echoed these strategies in terms of individualizing their
approach to behavior, focusing on building relationships with students, and moving toward a
more positive, as opposed to a more punitive, approach.
Small Groups and One-on-One Support. Participants said they use small-group and
one-on-one support in their instruction to help support their students. Teacher 7 stated, “I pull
88

them back to a small table and be able to work with them individually while the rest of class
continued on with whatever that they could do more independently.” Teacher 1 described her
one-on-one approach:
Well, first I would try to work with them one on one and see where the issue was, and if
it was something, hopefully I could just sit down with them, maybe give them a little
extra time, recess or lunch or something, you know, or during center time that they could
do it just with me.
Shortened Assignments. Shortened assignments or chunking student work was another
common strategy among participants. Teacher 3 stated,
So, I think honestly in a gen ed classroom like, if we’re in the middle of a math class, I
would chunk their work, you know, like, break it down. Say, “Okay, focus on these two.
I’ll be back in a minute.” Go help some others.
Teacher 5 asked, “Does he need to do all of the assignment? Is it enough to show a level of
knowledge and a level of understanding?”
Accommodated or Modified Expectations. Participants in the study discussed
accommodated and/or modified expectations eight times as another strategy they employ in their
classroom. Teacher 2 described it by saying,
Can I decrease? Are there too many choices? Can I decrease choices and just offer less so
they can still be successful, but accommodated and not completely modified? So, I would
look for those accommodations that, you know, we frequently use with kids with, you
know, IEPs that need it, but really with all kids who require accommodations.
Teacher 4 described how she accommodates tasks for a student struggling with written
assignments:
89

Depending on the situation, like a different assignment completely, right. For example,
right now I have a student who has a 504. He is completely choosing not to do any sort of
writing assignments. It’s just too much for him at this point. So, what we’re doing is, I’m
giving him the option to tell me what he would normally write, to tell me orally. He can
record a video of himself on Seesaw. That’s why I made a private Seesaw account, just
for him, so that he can go on and record videos, telling me what he would normally be
writing.
She further described how some students may not do well on tests but can have a conversation
with her on what they learned from a unit.
Universal Design. Universal design was mentioned seven times as another strategy used
by the participants. Teacher 5 explained how her district has invested in the idea of UDL, and
Teacher 2 described what it looks like in her classroom:
I have something I call the Zen Zone. It’s like a sensory center that all kids can access
because it’s not just our kiddos with IEPs who need sensory supports; everyone benefits.
I encourage those kinds of things in the classroom because . . . our kiddos with more
severe needs, they can have their needs met, without sticking out, but then everyone
realizes, well, we can all benefit from these things.
Differentiated instruction was also mentioned several times in the interviews, either directly or in
the way work was assigned.
Peer-Assisted Learning. Participants discussed the use of peer-assisted learning to help
struggling learners. Teacher 4 described it as “partnering him up with someone who could be that
valuable partner, so it’s not just me, that’s, you know, giving instruction, but a peer/classmate.”
Teacher 5 asked, “Would it be better if they work with a team or partner first before they worked
90

independently?” Teacher 7 stated, “And then also within the classroom, I do kind of watch who I
partner kids with, and so I use peer assistance.”
Relationships With Students With IEPs. Another common strategy among participants
was the idea of building relationships with their students with IEPs. Teacher 6 described this
approach: “I think it sounds like listening to the kids, listening to the kids’ needs, listening to the
parents’ needs, and making sure that we are providing everything for them to access all the
curriculum.” Teacher 3 gave an example of an eye-opening experience she had with one of her
students:
I think it’s much more personal as it gets to the bigger kids and finding out what their
motivation is. I had a really challenging kid this last year . . . major attention seeker, and I
remember, I came on strongest one day. I gave him the choice . . . I said, “Listen, you can
either do this or you can go and do your work up in the principal’s office.” And he went
right out of here, and walked on up. . . I was like, Oh, that isn’t what I was looking for. . .
Once I saw that as the reaction, I realized that what he really needs is me to come in and
assist him. He’s struggling here and doesn’t know how to make that next step. So, I think
with the bigger kids you really have to get to know them and find out what their
motivation is.
Teacher 4 echoed this message:
I guess honestly, it’s the patience. It’s a lot of that internal peace. I would say the one
thing I wouldn’t want to have available is to send the kid off to the office or send the kid
out. I, personally, feel it’s the worst message you can give is when that’s what you’re
doing. Like when you make that decision . . . it blocks all that opportunity to build that
relationship.
91

Students need a safe place with an adult they trust to be successful. Teacher 4 described
how her special education teacher provides such a space:
She’s also someone I feel like has built a connection with the kids that they feel safe
going there. They often want to spend their Friday, like when we’re in school on campus,
they often want to spend their Fridays at lunch hanging out with her. She has like a fun
Friday thing where they can invite friends. So, it’s kind of a safe space for them to go
anytime that they do feel frustrated in class. They know that they can . . . it’s right next
door, so they can just walk through the door or adjoining door and head over next door to
just be in that space.
Relationships With IEP Team. Lastly, having positive relationships among IEP team
members was mentioned 12 times in the interview process. Teacher 1 described it in the
following way:
I would say I got an email the other day from like one of the special ed teachers, and
she’s been sitting in on some of my Zoom meetings with the kids. And, so, she just like
reiterates like, “You’re such a great teacher,” you know, it felt very like supportive of
what I was doing. She said, “I can tell that the two kids that you have with special needs
are super engaged and they seem to really enjoy being there and when I’ve talked to them
about you, outside of class time, like they’ve always said really positive things.” They’re
like, “Keep up the good work,” so very supportive of what I’m doing.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
The following resources, tools, and strategies used in classrooms were mentioned
multiple times across survey and interview responses. In terms of resources being used by
participants, there is push-in support in the form of paraeducator support from an
92

experienced/knowledgeable person, as well as push-in support used to modify work, to help
other students in the classroom, and to provide small-group instruction. In addition, the use of the
special education teacher, social-emotional content, developmentally appropriate curriculum for
all learners, professional development, involvement in the IEP, collaboration, and administrator
support were also resources that the participants used and/or had access to. In terms of tools,
visuals, manipulatives, flexible seating, and technology were used among participants to
successfully include students with special needs in their classrooms. Finally, in terms of
strategies used, participants identified behavior systems such as PBIS and ABA, small-group and
one-on-one support, shortening assignments, accommodating or modifying expectations,
universal design, peer-assisted learning, and developing relationships with students with IEPs
and with the IEP team as a whole. Again, these resources, tools, and strategies were also
highlighted in the literature as evidence-based practices for all learners (Browder & Cooper-
Duffy, 2003; Elias et al., 2003; Ellingston et al., 2000; Fisher & Frey, 2014; Hieneman et al.,
2005; Keller & Cravedi-Cheng, 1995; Knoster & Kincaid, 2005; Lipsky & Gartner, 1997;
Marston, 1996; Marzano, 2007; Molina, 2015; Pruslow, 2003; Udavi-Solner & Thousand, 1995).
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What do elementary general education teachers in urban
school settings in Los Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful
culture of inclusion for students with special needs?” Markova et al. (2016) studied preservice
teachers’ attitudes and found that their participants had more explicitly negative attitudes toward
the inclusion of students with special needs, especially those with challenging behaviors, in
comparison with students with special needs from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Their
implications were that these implicit and explicit beliefs could affect the interactions teachers
93

have with their students. Glazzard (2011) utilized focus groups to investigate the perceptions of
teachers and assistants on the inclusion of students with special needs at a school in Northern
England and found that inclusion was successful when practitioners’ attitudes toward including
students with special needs were positive. Practitioners with negative attitudes did not facilitate
the school’s mission to include students with special needs. In addition to practitioner attitude,
Glazzard (2011) also identified other common barriers that prevent inclusion from taking place,
including staff support, teamwork, the standards-based agenda, training, parental resistance, and
lack of resources. The standards-based agenda was found to be the biggest barrier at this school
site.
Studies have demonstrated that positive attitudes and perceptions have a more positive
impact on the inclusion of students with special needs and that negative attitudes and perceptions
hinder inclusive practices (Glazzard, 2011; Markova et al., 2016). Studies also have found that
general education teachers lacked the skills needed to support students with special needs in their
classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the support they needed. Not surprisingly,
students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were better supported (Buli-
Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016; Gavish, 2017).
Marzano (2007) emphasized the collaborative process to assist struggling learners. He
encouraged the intentional pairing of students who have demonstrated mastery of content with
those who may still be struggling. Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) discussed the benefits of
utilizing teams to develop positive behavior interventions along with general education teachers
(Ellingston et al., 2000). This could help in the need to create appropriate behavioral supports for
students with special needs in the general education setting. Also, the use of a person-centered
team approach was identified to gain parent involvement (Miner & Bates, 1997). Specifically,
94

the use of the IEP team to involve all stakeholders is essential (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).
The more collaboration among key stakeholders, the more likely inclusion models will work:
“No single individual can be expected to have mastered all the skills and strategies necessary to
address the needs and interests of diverse learners consistently without collegial assistance”
(Pruslow, 2003, p. 67). This is why it is vital to bring the minds of both special education teams
and general education teams together to implement practices such as the following:
outcome based education, multicultural education, multiple intelligence theory,
constructivist learning, interdisciplinary curriculum, community-referenced instruction,
authentic assessment of student performance, multiage grouping, use of technology in the
classroom, peer-mediated instruction, teaching responsibility and peacemaking, and
collaborative teaming among adults and students. (Udavi-Solner & Thousand, 1995, as
cited in Pruslow, 2003, p. 68)
With collaboration between special education and general education teachers as a best practice,
coteaching models have been identified as one of the most successful approaches to the inclusion
of students with special needs (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Marston, 1996; Keller & Cravedi-
Cheng, 1995; Udavi-Solner & Thousand, 1995).
Results for Research Question 3: Survey Analysis
With a sample size of 38, 39.5% of respondents indicated that all students with mild to
moderate special needs should be fully included in a general education classroom, 39.5%
indicated that most students with mild to moderate special needs should be fully included in a
general education classroom while others require more intensive settings, and the remaining
21.1% indicated that some students with mild to moderate special needs should be fully included
in a general education classroom while others require more intensive settings. None of the
95

participants selected the last two choices (i.e., most and all students with special needs should be
offered a separate setting to get their needs met). When asked how most of their colleagues
would respond to that, 18.4% of respondents indicated that most of their colleagues believe that
all students with mild to moderate special needs should be fully included in a general education
classroom, 52.6% indicated that most of their colleagues believe that most students with mild to
moderate special needs should be fully included in a general education classroom while others
require more intensive settings, 21.1% indicated that their colleagues believe some students with
mild to moderate special needs should be fully included in a general education classroom while
others require more intensive settings, and 2.6% indicated most and 5.3% indicated all of their
colleagues believe students with special needs should be offered a separate setting to get their
needs met. A total of 92.1% indicated that the inclusion of students with special needs is highly
encouraged at their school site, 5.3% indicated that the inclusion of students with special needs is
somewhat encouraged at their school site, and 2.6% stated that it is neither encouraged nor
discouraged at their school site.
Findings for Research Question 3: Interview Analysis
The following components of a successful school culture of inclusion for students with
special needs were identified by interview participants and were stated multiple times.
Participants were asked to describe the support they receive as a teacher in providing instruction
to students with special needs, if any, and to recall a conversation in which they felt supported
and a conversation in which they did not feel supported. They were also asked what their ideal
special education support staff person who supports the instruction of special education students
in their room would do. They were asked how the inclusion of students with special needs is
encouraged at their school, if at all, and to provide an example. They were asked about barriers
96

existing at their school in relation to the inclusion of students with special needs, if any. They
were asked what tools/resources they would need if they could create their ideal school where
students with special needs were included in general education. Finally, they were presented with
this opinion: “Some people believe general education is not for everyone. Some say that even
with all the resources available, some students with mild/moderate special needs need instruction
in separate classrooms. How would you respond?” The following is a presentation of common
themes/categories that arose from their responses.
Barriers Toward a Culture of Inclusion
To help answer the third research question, it was important to understand what the
participants believed the barriers were toward creating a culture of inclusion for students with
special needs. Several barriers came up, including staff buy-in and staff perceptions of students
with special needs, scheduling, and issues with the physical environment, especially for students
with mobility needs. Participants also identified a lack of the following: communication;
curriculum that is more developmentally appropriate; staff, resulting in high caseloads for special
education teachers; time; funding; administrator support; and training. In regard to staff buy-in,
Teacher 2 stated,
I think what I hear about a lot is this desire to abstain from having them involved in
classes, and teachers not being open and willing to welcome these kids into their
classrooms, or to identify them as their own students. Um, a big problem we have, like
with class placements is, like, people specifically are avoided, because we know they’re
not going to be a good fit with the kid, which is a really big problem, because they should
be able to teach any child. And, so, a lot of those teachers have made comments, like,
“Well, I went last year or I shouldn’t have to go this year. It’s too much work,” or it’s just
97

a lot of complaining stuff. And, so, when I hear complaining negative and passive
comments, rather than targeted, action-oriented comments to me, that’s really how I see
most of the negative conversations happening.
Staff perceptions and attitudes toward students with special needs came up multiple
times. Teacher 5 stated,
I would say the conversations that are hard for me is when it’s “that kid,” . . . or actually
just had this recently, “Well, we know them, they’re not, they have ‘this’ and they’re not
going to do that and . . .” Those, those hurt because I don’t feel we give up on any kid,
personally, and that’s been my passion my whole life. And so those are hard
conversations when you hear, especially an administrator or someone above you make a
statement like that about an elementary kid, and we’re already giving up . . . People’s
attitudes, it’s really people’s thoughts. If, that kid, again focusing on the deficits and not
on strengths and knocking it out how, what can we do. Um, I feel like it’s this box is too
small. It needs to be more wide open of what kids can do.
Along the same line, Teacher 2 stated,
I think what comes down to is we need to have high expectations for all students, but we
know because of lack of funding, lack of communication, lack of training, you know,
lack of supports, there’s not equity for our kids and back to that last question. If . . . the
system was different, if . . . we did have all those things in place to help, our classrooms
would look different, and I think it would make it so much simpler for all kids to get the
needed supports, especially our kids with IEPs. But I think there’s a lot of limitations . . .
the system that’s failing us in our kids. Um, because at the end of the day, the system
needs to change.
98

Having challenging relationships with parents came up as a common barrier several
times. Teacher 1 stated,
It’s hard with the parents, and so like just having, I guess, like the supportive parent
community as well in a school. I don’t know that I’d be able to control that. In creating
my own school, it would also be really nice if the aides and the teachers don’t feel as like
attacked or nervous that the parents are going to be unhappy with what they’re doing and
that we have their best interest . . . at heart.
Setting up an inclusive environment that meets students’ needs and is individualized was
another barrier toward creating a culture of inclusion. Teacher 7 said,
I wish we could reach every kid where they are, you know, and if we can completely
individualize all learning to where kids are. That would be phenomenal, but I just don’t
see it happening in a public school, at least not at our public school.
Presence of a Culture of Inclusion
Across participants, it became evident that a culture of inclusion was very much alive in
their districts. A total of 29 examples was counted across all participants. Differentiating
instruction to meet the needs of their students was a common trait among the general education
teachers that indicated a presence of inclusion. Teacher 5 provided the following explanation to a
student who questioned why she treated students differently:
I said, “Because everybody’s different. So, you’re all getting an equal amount of
attention, it’s just a matter of, it may look different. . . Everybody needs something
different.” So, I think it’s acknowledging that . . . setting up the environment right away
so that that’s that welcoming place that everybody needs something, everybody has
strengths, and everybody has weaknesses. And not emphasizing that one child, and one
99

weakness is more glaring or more awful than another weakness, it’s . . . everybody has
that. So . . . we’re a team, we sink together, we swim together. And that’s the other part
too is having this team . . . help them and support them and cheer them on and
acknowledge them. It’s so important that kids just realize they have it within themselves,
giving them agency to control and that self-regulation.
Another component of a culture of inclusion that participants expressed was that of a
coteaching model. Teacher 5 explained,
Honestly, the best environment that I have fallen in love with is coteaching. . . It’s an
amazing way to show kids that all kids belong, and that opportunity where it’s that
teamwork and sharing. I mean I won’t say it would be easy. I would honestly say it
would be a challenge for me to be willing to share in that level that’s needed . . . but I feel
like that is when it’s “our kids” and “our kids” are going together and it’s not just “those
kids.” I feel like that’s the most successful environment.
Teachers in the study also shared a common purpose in directly teaching students how to
be inclusive and how to directly address students who ostracized students with special needs in
their classes. Teacher 3 described how she approaches this with her students when they do group
work:
So, when I do my group work, I always start the year with some major group projects that
aren’t necessarily skill building but more team building. And, so, I talk to them all year
about how, “Listen, sometimes your job is to be the leader. Sometimes your job is to
bring people in. Sometimes your job is to pull back and let someone else lead.”
100

She told a story of a time when she had three students working on a group project. One of the
students had special needs and was struggling to type for the group. Teacher 3 noticed group
members getting frustrated, so she pulled them aside:
I said, “Listen, can you imagine how empowered the student feels, getting to take the
lead?” So, I told them right out the gate, “I don’t care if you finish this assignment. I
don’t care if it’s done to the level of your liking. But what needs to happen is I need to
see that you guys are supporting her and making sure she feels like the leader.” And I
think they got it. . . But that in and of itself, on its own, really, I think, refocused those
two kids, and when I checked on them the next day, they were just going with the flow.
They didn’t end up finishing the assignment and that’s that, but that also reminded me to
bring it up with both the groups and say, “Hey, this is what I’m looking for. You might
not always finish, might not be up to your liking, but everyone gets to be the leader.”
Another prominent theme among participants was the direct teaching of inclusive
practices, not just in classrooms, but across settings at school, including on the playground, in the
cafeteria, and in school-wide behavior systems such as PBIS. Teacher 4 explained,
Inclusion is something that’s huge at our school, and we try to fully showcase that with
. . . what does it mean to be inclusive in the classroom, on the playground, at the
cafeteria, in distance learning. So, we talk about what inclusion looks like. And, so, even
like our SDCs and Friendship Club . . . they invite students from the gen ed to Friendship
Club, which is . . . [during] a lunchtime on like a Friday, and they get to eat lunch
together, and then they get to go into the SDC room and play games and it’s really fun.
So, things like that. We really try and have that inclusive spirit, and then I feel like just
the community that we’re a part of really showcases being inclusive.
101

Another feature of a culture of inclusion was the general attitude or perception toward
inclusive practices at the school sites. Participants successfully including students with special
needs saw the importance and value in including students with special needs for both the
students with special needs themselves and their typically developing peers. Teacher 4 explained,
I just think it’s so important . . . to have students included, because we need to model
what the real world is going to be like for our students and our students are going to be in
college and career settings where they’re going to engage and interact with students, with
people with special needs, and how do they interact appropriately. How do they interact
in a way that’s inclusive, right? So, in that job setting, right? How are they going to keep
their job and not offend someone who might have a particular need or understand how to
work with someone? I just think it’s so important for those [typical] students to have that
experience of inclusivity. But then also, too, for the students with special needs . . . for
them to interact with other students and understand how the . . . world operates right and
. . . how they can adapt and understand, you know, others’ perspectives and how to
interact with other people and have those skills is so important.
Finally, participants echoed the need to build relationships with all students in order to
foster a culture of inclusion. Teacher 7 described this:
I think we just have a really friendly, easy-going campus, and we all kind of strive to help
all the kids get on track. Like I said, the one student that’s been kind of frustrating this
year, you know, I’ve known him since Kinder and, um, you know, when I was pregnant
like three years ago . . . he was like, “I can’t wait to meet that baby.” So, I mean, we, we
just kind of build relationships with all the kids throughout the whole school
environment.
102

Role for Students With Special Needs
Another theme related to the third research question was the general role the participants
felt they had in servicing students with special needs. They stated they were their primary teacher
and that they would be facilitating their learning, collaborating with the IEP team, building
relationships with them, setting up their learning environment, differentiating instruction, and
actively learning about and seeking supports to meet their students’ needs. They believed that
they were the key player in their students’ lives and practiced their craft with that mindset.
Teacher 2 stated,
My role is to collaborate with the special education teachers, so our RSP teacher and our
SDC teacher, and any specialist, OT, SLP, APE, all of the acronyms, right? So, my goal
is to collaborate with them, facilitate . . . open conversations with them and the parents,
right? Um, but also to enhance student involvement and their success within the general
education environment, you know, destigmatize the label. And one way I try to do that is
to naturally include resources, and environmental . . . like, just environments on their
own, that are conducive to support all learners. So, to kind of take out, you know, you
need this, you need this, you should be over there for that, why don’t we just have all the
supports already there?
Equity
The final theme that emerged in the answers to the last research question was equity,
which tied directly to the conceptual framework of this study. Teacher 2 said,
I think it’s equity, and, you know, equity and communication. Equity in the types of
resources allotted to different teachers, equity in, in supports, because, you know, I’m
lucky in that I don’t always have to consult with other people because I have my own
103

tools, from my own experiences from being a special ed teacher. Or I, because of my, you
know, my history with special ed, I have a lot of folks that I can go to for support, but a
lot of people don’t have that, and so that’s not equitable. Um, so I think equity is a huge
issue not just for the kids, but for a lot of the teachers we see out there. Not having the
resources, not knowing how to do stuff, and then feeling panic like I don’t have the time,
I don’t know how to do it. The training, which is also a problem.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
A total of 92% of survey respondents believed that inclusion was encouraged at their
school, and this was very much evident across interview participants as well. Several barriers
toward a positive culture of inclusion were mentioned, including staff buy-in and staff
perceptions of students with special needs, scheduling, and issues with the physical environment,
especially for students with mobility needs. Additionally, participants identified a lack of the
following: communication; curriculum that is more developmentally appropriate; staff, resulting
in high caseloads for special education teachers; time; funding; administrator support; and
training. Staff perceptions and attitudes toward students with special needs, having challenging
relationships with parents, and setting up an inclusive environment that meets students’ needs
and is individualized were other barriers toward creating a culture of inclusion that were
mentioned several times.
Participants identified several components of a culture of inclusion. Differentiating
instruction and the use of a coteaching model were common components of a successful school
culture as stated by the general education teachers. In addition, direct instruction in the classroom
on teaching students how to be inclusive and how to directly address students who ostracized
students with special needs in their classes was important. Direct instruction of inclusive
104

practices, not just in classrooms but across settings at school, including on the playground, in the
cafeteria, and in school-wide behavior systems such as PBIS, was also echoed across
participants. Another component of a successful school culture of inclusion was the general
attitude or perception toward inclusive practices at the school sites. Participants successfully
including students with special needs saw the importance and value in including students with
special needs for both the students with special needs themselves and their typically developing
peers. They echoed the need to build relationships with all students in order to foster a culture of
inclusion. Another theme related to the third research question was the general role the
participants felt they had in servicing students with special needs. They stated they were their
primary teacher and that they would be facilitating their learning, collaborating with the IEP
team, building relationships with them, setting up their learning environment, differentiating
instruction, and actively learning about and seeking supports to meet their students’ needs. The
final theme that emerged in answers to the last research question was equity, which tied directly
to the conceptual framework of this study.
Studies have demonstrated that positive attitudes and perceptions have a more positive
impact on the inclusion of students with special needs and that negative attitudes and perceptions
hinder inclusive practices (Glazzard, 2011; Markova et al., 2016). Studies also have found that
general education teachers lacked the skills needed to support students with special needs in their
classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the support they needed. Not surprisingly,
students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were better supported (Buli-
Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016; Gavish, 2017). However, this study identified general
education teachers who successfully include students with special needs in their class and found
that they valued components such as collaboration and teamwork, building relationships with
105

students and IEP team members, having a unified behavior management system used across
campus, having a growth mindset in learning about and providing what students need to achieve,
having staff buy-in, and providing equity to create the positive culture that students with special
needs and their peers need to thrive in school and in the real world.
Discussion and Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the findings to answer the research questions of the study. It began
with an analysis of survey data associated with each of the research questions, including the
specific tools, strategies, and resources that general education teachers needed, used, and were
trained in. Data on the culture of inclusion at their school site were also gathered from survey
questions. Next, seven general education teachers were chosen from the pool of survey
participants who indicated a desire to be interviewed and who successfully include students with
special needs in their classrooms. Success was based on whether they felt prepared to include
students with special needs, whether they included students for most of their day, whether they
employed evidence-based practices in their classroom, and whether they believed students with
special needs should be included in their classrooms. Interview data were read and reviewed
repetitively to gather emerging themes and subcategories that would help answer the three
research questions posed.
The data revealed several resources, tools, and strategies general education teachers
believed were needed in order to successfully include students with special needs in their
classrooms that were also described in the literature. In terms of resources needed, participants
identified push-in support in the form of supporting in-class instruction, to provide behavioral
support, to help other students, and to provide small-group instruction, ideally from an
experienced/knowledgeable person. Other resources included use of the special education
106

teacher, social-emotional support, curriculum that is developmentally appropriate to meet the
needs of all learners, professional development, collaboration among IEP team members, time,
and administrator support (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Cheney & Barringer, 1995;
MacMillan et al., 1996; Walker & Bullis, 1990). Tools that teachers stated they needed included
visuals and flexible seating, and strategies included universal design, differentiated instruction,
coteaching, and developing relationships with students with special needs (Agran & Alper,
2000).
To answer Research Question 2, in terms of resources being used by participants, push-in
support in the form of paraeducator support from an experienced/knowledgeable person and
push-in support used to modify work, to help other students in the classroom, and to provide
small-group instruction came up multiple times. In addition, the use of the special education
teacher, social-emotional content, developmentally appropriate curriculum for all learners,
professional development, involvement in the IEP, collaboration, and administrator support were
also resources that the participants used and/or had access to. In terms of tools, visuals,
manipulatives, flexible seating, and technology were used among participants to successfully
include students with special needs in their classrooms. Finally, in terms of strategies used,
participants identified behavior systems such as PBIS and ABA, small-group and one-on-one
support, shortening assignments, accommodating or modifying expectations, universal design,
peer-assisted learning, and developing relationships with students with IEPs and with the IEP
team as a whole.
For Research Question 3, 92% of survey respondents believed that inclusion was
encouraged at their school, and this was very much evident across interview participants as well.
Several barriers toward a positive culture of inclusion were mentioned, including staff buy-in and
107

staff perceptions of students with special needs, scheduling, and issues with the physical
environment, especially for students with mobility needs. They also identified a lack of the
following: communication; curriculum that is more developmentally appropriate; staff, resulting
in high caseloads for special education teachers; time; funding; administrator support; and
training. Staff perceptions and attitudes toward students with special needs, having challenging
relationships with parents, and setting up an inclusive environment that meets students’ needs
and is individualized were other barriers toward creating a culture of inclusion that were
mentioned several times.
Participants identified several components of a culture of inclusion. Differentiating
instruction and the use of a coteaching model were common components of a successful school
culture as stated by the general education teachers. In addition, direct instruction in the classroom
on teaching students how to be inclusive and how to directly address students who ostracize
students with special needs in their classes was important. Direct instruction of inclusive
practices, not just in classrooms but across settings at school, including on the playground, in the
cafeteria, and in school-wide behavior systems such as PBIS, was also echoed across
participants. Another component of a successful school culture of inclusion was the general
attitude toward or perception of inclusive practices at the school sites. Participants successfully
including students with special needs saw the importance of and value in including students with
special needs for both the students with special needs themselves and their typically developing
peers. They echoed the need to build relationships with all students in order to foster a culture of
inclusion. Another theme that answered the third research question was the general role the
participants felt they had in servicing students with special needs. They stated they were their
primary teacher and that they would be facilitating their learning, collaborating with the IEP
108

team, building relationships with them, setting up their learning environment, differentiating
instruction, and actively learning about and seeking supports to meet their students’ needs. The
final theme that came up when answering the last research question was equity, which tied
directly to the conceptual framework of this study.
Chapter 5 includes a summary of research, practice, and recommendations.
Recommendations are provided for general education teachers and their site and district
administrators. The chapter also provides a brief review of the limitations and recommendations
for further study.

109

Chapter Five: Discussion
Inclusive practices positively influence the achievement of students with special needs in
comparison with their peers in separate placements (Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002;
Tremblay, 2013). With the LRE mandate in place, districts must strive to create more programs
that allow for students with special needs to be taught in general education settings to the greatest
extent possible. Significant evidence has been found that coteaching models greatly improve
student achievement, cognitive engagement, and attendance in comparison with their peers
taught in separate special education settings (Daley et al., 2019; Rea et al., 2002; Tremblay,
2013). These findings indicate the need for more professional development and for more
research on cognitive engagement, coteaching, and revamped teacher preparation programs to
include more training in coteaching models (Daley et al., 2019).
Studies have found that general education teachers lacked the skills needed to support
students with special needs in their classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the
support they needed, while students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were
better supported (Buli-Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016). Why is there a gap? What strategies
are being implemented in classrooms successfully including students with special needs that
others may not be implementing?
Purpose of the Study
The use of inclusive practices such as grouping strategies, providing peer support, direct
instruction, use of visuals and manipulatives, differentiated instruction, relationships teachers
have with students, behavioral strategies, and adult support (e.g., paraeducator or other one-on-
one support) all tie directly to the literature that forms this study’s conceptual framework
(Canges, 2010; Obiakor et al., 2012; Strogilos, 2018). The literature also highlights how the
110

culture of a school could either hinder or promote inclusive practices for students with special
needs (Obiakor et al., 2012). Canges (2010) found that to support the social inclusion of students
with special needs, the arrangement of the environment is critical. Specifically, where students
are seated can greatly affect their sense of belonging. Obiakor et al. (2012) emphasized the
importance of engaging all students in learning. The only way to ensure implementation of these
practices is to ensure teachers are equipped with the tools, resources, and strategies to make that
happen (Strogilos, 2018). The purpose of this study was to find out what tools, strategies, and
resources successful general education teachers in Los Angeles County used and believed they
needed to support students with special needs included in their classrooms as well as what
components create a successful school culture. Finding out the perspectives of teachers who are
positively influencing student achievement may help inform the practice of teachers in districts
with similar demographics.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students
with special needs in their classrooms?
2. What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school
settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special needs in their
classrooms?
3. What do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los
Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful culture of
inclusion for students with special needs?
111

Methodology
A mixed-method study was conducted using a combination of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to gather data to answer the research questions. A survey was sent to general
education teachers in Los Angeles County school districts serving a population of at least 2,500
to 70,000 students. Elementary general education teachers were selected from school districts
practicing inclusion models in Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent out and provided formal
data on the specific tools and resources general education teachers had access to and had
knowledge of as well as the resources and tools they perceived they needed. Surveys also
gathered data on the components that created a successful culture of inclusion for students with
special needs. Interviews were conducted on seven of the survey participants, purposefully
selected to understand successful general education teacher perceptions of the tools and
strategies that are needed to include students with special needs in their classrooms, the tools and
strategies they currently use and/or have knowledge of, and the components of a successful
culture of inclusion for students with special needs. Data analysis was guided by the conceptual
framework as well as the research questions. A codebook was developed, and results from
surveys, interviews, and the literature were compared in order to triangulate the data.
Results and Findings
Data were gathered, analyzed, and organized into themes to produce the results and
findings of this study. Quantitative and qualitative data were corroborated with the literature and
interpreted in the following section.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “What strategies and tools do elementary general education
teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully
112

include students with special needs in their classrooms?” The data revealed several resources,
tools, and strategies general education teachers believed were needed in order to successfully
include students with special needs in their classrooms that were also described in the literature.
In terms of resources needed, participants identified push-in support in the form of supporting in-
class instruction, providing behavioral support, helping other students, providing small-group
instruction, and push-in support from an experienced/knowledgeable person. Other resources
included use of the special education teacher, social-emotional support, curriculum that is
developmentally appropriate to meet the needs of all learners, professional development,
collaboration among IEP team members, time, and administrator support (Browder & Cooper-
Duffy, 2003; Cheney & Barringer, 1995; MacMillan et al., 1996; Walker & Bullis, 1990). Tools
that teachers stated they needed included visuals and flexible seating, and strategies included
universal design, differentiated instruction, coteaching, and developing relationships with
students with special needs (Agran & Alper, 2000).
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “What strategies and tools do elementary general education
teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County use to include students with special
needs in their classrooms?” General education teachers in Los Angeles County who are
successfully including students with special needs in their classrooms identified several
resources, strategies, and tools available at their disposal. In terms of resources being used by
participants, push-in support in the form of paraeducator support from an
experienced/knowledgeable person and push-in support used to modify work, to help other
students in the classroom, and to provide small-group instruction came up multiple times. In
addition, the use of the special education teacher, social-emotional content, developmentally
113

appropriate curriculum for all learners, professional development, involvement in the IEP,
collaboration, and administrator support were also resources that the participants used and/or had
access to. In terms of tools, visuals, manipulatives, flexible seating, and technology were used
among participants to successfully include students with special needs in their classrooms.
Finally, in terms of strategies used, participants identified behavior systems such as PBIS and
ABA, small-group and one-on-one support, shortening assignments, accommodating or
modifying expectations, universal design, peer-assisted learning, and developing relationships
with students with IEPs and with the IEP team as a whole. Again, these resources, tools, and
strategies were also highlighted in the literature as evidence-based practices for all learners
(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Elias et al., 2003; Ellingston et al., 2000; Fisher & Frey, 2014;
Hieneman et al., 2005; Keller & Cravedi-Cheng, 1995; Knoster & Kincaid, 2005; Lipsky &
Gartner, 1997; Marston, 1996; Marzano, 2007; Molina, 2015; Pruslow, 2003; Udavi-Solner &
Thousand, 1995).
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What do elementary general education teachers in urban
school settings in Los Angeles County perceive are the necessary components for a successful
culture of inclusion for students with special needs?” A total of 92% of survey respondents
believed that inclusion was encouraged at their school, and this was very much evident across
interview participants as well. Several barriers toward a positive culture of inclusion were
mentioned, including staff buy-in and staff perceptions of students with special needs,
scheduling, and issues with the physical environment, especially for students with mobility
needs. Participants also noted a lack of the following: communication; curriculum that is more
developmentally appropriate; staff, resulting in high caseloads for special education teachers;
114

time; funding; administrator support; and training. Staff perceptions and attitudes toward
students with special needs, having challenging relationships with parents, and setting up an
inclusive environment that meets students’ needs and is individualized were other barriers
toward creating a culture of inclusion that were mentioned several times.
Participants identified several components of a culture of inclusion. Differentiating
instruction and the use of a coteaching model were common components of a successful school
culture as stated by the general education teachers. In addition, direct instruction in the classroom
on teaching students how to be inclusive and how to directly address students who ostracize
students with special needs in their classes was important. Direct instruction of inclusive
practices, not just in classrooms but across settings at school, including on the playground, in the
cafeteria, and in school-wide behavior systems such as PBIS, was also echoed across
participants. Another component of a successful school culture of inclusion was the general
attitude or perception toward inclusive practices at the school sites. Participants successfully
including students with special needs saw the importance of and value in including students with
special needs for both the students with special needs themselves and their typically developing
peers. They echoed the need to build relationships with all students in order to foster a culture of
inclusion. Another theme that answered the third research question was the general role the
participants felt they had in servicing students with special needs. They stated they were their
primary teacher and that they would be facilitating their learning, collaborating with the IEP
team, building relationships with them, setting up their learning environment, differentiating
instruction, and actively learning about and seeking supports to meet their students’ needs. The
final theme that emerged in answers to the last research question was equity, which tied directly
to the conceptual framework of this study.
115

Studies have demonstrated that positive attitudes and perceptions have a positive impact
on the inclusion of students with special needs and that negative attitudes and perceptions hinder
inclusive practices (Glazzard, 2011; Markova et al., 2016). Studies also have found that general
education teachers lacked the skills needed to support students with special needs in their
classrooms and that students in those settings lacked the support they needed. Not surprisingly,
students in more one-on-one settings and small-group settings were better supported (Buli-
Holmberg & Jeyaprathaban, 2016; Gavish, 2017). However, this study identified general
education teachers who successfully include students with special needs in their class and found
that they valued components such as collaboration and teamwork, building relationships with
students and IEP team members, having a unified behavior management system used across
campus, having a growth mindset in learning about and providing what students need to achieve,
having staff buy-in, and providing equity to create the positive culture that students with special
needs and their peers need to thrive in school and in the real world.
Limitations
Participants had knowledge of the researcher’s role as a fellow educator to help build
rapport. Building rapport so that participants could be honest was critical to the credibility of this
study. However, this may have affected the validity and credibility in their responses, as they
may have tried to respond with what they thought the researcher wanted to hear. This conflict
was remedied during the data analysis phase by using triangulation to compare what was said
during interviews to what was reported in the surveys. For example, in a survey response, a
participant noted the use of flexible seating in her classroom. During the interview, she also
described the way she utilized this approach.
116

The use of a semi-structured protocol with open-ended questions allowed for the
flexibility that was needed to gather data in an emergent way. The use of leading questions in
interviews was challenged by keeping them open-ended. According to Maxwell (2013), structure
limits flexibility, which takes away from the inductive approach and emergent data that allow
researchers to create meaning; “less structured approaches, in contrast, allow you to focus on the
particular phenomena being studied and trade generalizability and comparability for internal
validity and contextual understanding” (p. 30). During the data collection phase, the researcher
wrote reflections and observer comments to discipline her subjectivity. This ensured the
researcher was actively separating herself and her biases/positionality from what was being
reported and contributed to another analytic tool, which was the use of rich and detailed data.
This included transcribed interviews, which supports the credibility of the findings because they
were direct low-inference data from the field.
There were several threats to the credibility in the study, including the researcher’s
reactivity during interviews. It was difficult, at times, to remain neutral during this process.
According to Johnson and Christensen (2014), remaining impartial is necessary, and reacting at
all may bias participant responses. Although the researcher disciplined her subjectivity through
the use of reflection and observer comments, her positionality as a special education teacher with
a passion for inclusive practices for students with special needs may have shaped the findings in
this study. There was also a lack of prolonged time in the field and a lack of data through
observations that prevented the researcher from reaching the point of saturation, which means
some critical strategies, resources, and tools exhibited by the teachers may have been missed.
This also affects the assertions that were made in the presentation of the findings.
117

Due to the fact that the participants in the study were fellow educators, there was
potential harm in someone hearing they may not be providing support to students with special
needs in their class as per their Individualized Education Plan (i.e., may get them in trouble).
Participants may have felt threatened that, as their colleague, the researcher was judging their
performance in regard to the way they were including students with special needs in their
classrooms. This is why maintaining confidentiality and removing all identifying information
was essential. Questions that may have made participants uncomfortable were also avoided. The
researcher was aware of her own biases as a special education teacher. To mitigate the possible
harm, the researcher expressed that the hat she wore for the sake of this study was as a researcher
and that their responses would be kept confidential and not used to judge their performance as
educators. As Milner (2007) described, when researchers are not careful about their positionality
and ways of knowing, the results can be dangerous to communities and individuals. This is why
the reflection process was so critical throughout the course of this study.
Implications for Practice
This study informs the practice of general education teachers, special education teachers,
and administrators in urban school districts in Los Angeles County serving a population of at
least 2,500 to 70,000 students.
Differentiated Professional Development
To better support the inclusion of students with special needs in general education
settings, continuous, meaningful, and differentiated professional development with an emphasis
in servicing students with special needs should be offered. Cooc (2019) found that teachers who
included students with special needs were less qualified than those who did not and that 50% of
schools reported a need for teachers with competency in special education. According to Elmore
118

(2002), “The practice of improvement involves the acquisition of new knowledge, connecting
that knowledge with the skills necessary for effective practice and creating new settings where
learning can occur” (p. 15). The implementation of any change effort must come along with the
capacity building necessary in exchange for holding individuals accountable.
Throughout the study, participants expressed either how their practice was shaped by
knowledge gleaned from previous experiences in leadership and/or special education or how
their colleagues did not necessarily have the same knowledge base or practices that they had
when supporting students with special needs. Participants also expressed the need for meaningful
professional development that allows participants to work through new content together in a
collaborative and safe space. If the inclusion of students with special needs is best for student
achievement, then districts must build teacher capacity to ensure they have the competency skills
they need to do it successfully. It was interesting to find that most of the participants selected to
be interviewed, and therefore identified as teachers successfully implementing inclusive
practices, were educators with a background in either leadership or special education. Just as
students come with varied levels of knowledge and backgrounds, districts must tailor
professional development content to the individual needs of their teachers in order to continue to
meet the evolving needs of all students (Bowgen & Sever, 2010).
Establish a Culture of Trust and Accountability
Along with effective professional development, with any change effort, organizations
must have a culture of trust and internal accountability. Teachers may have different
backgrounds and knowledge bases, but organizations that establish a shared vision and mission
toward student achievement can build teacher capacity by creating a space that allows
individuals to take risks, make mistakes, and learn and grow from them. Once that vision is
119

engrained in the culture of the organization, professional accountability must be emphasized
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Leaders must recruit and choose strong and capable teachers to lead in
the change effort (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). One way of doing this is through the use of teachers as
coaches, placed on special assignment, serving as experts in a content area to help train and
coach all teachers throughout the district in implementing evidence-based strategies in their
classrooms. Rather than using policies and top-down systems, districts should place their trust in
the hands of educators to ensure the implementation of evidence-based strategies. This not only
will foster a system of internal accountability but also will encourage the buy-in necessary to
bring about positive change in instructional practices and the coherence districts strive to achieve
(Elmore, 2002).
Equity
The need for equity in resources, tools, and strategies became evident in this study. One
participant stated she was lucky to have a background in special education as it greatly shaped
how she could effectively include her students, and another participant emphasized how her
leadership experience has shaped her use of evidence-based practices such as UDL. The glaring
disadvantage for students in neighboring classes who are not fortunate enough to have one of
these teachers indicates a need for a movement toward providing tools, strategies, and resources
in a more equitable manner. One of the participants suggested a library of resources that all
teachers at the site could access. This library could include flexible seating to choose from based
on the needs of the students in a class, modified assignments (similar to a library of teacher-
created resources found on online sites), and manipulatives. Another resource mentioned
multiple times was the use of qualified and experienced paraeducator support. Districts should
consider building not only teacher capacity but also paraeducator and other support staff capacity
120

to increase program efficacy. In addition to the aforementioned use of differentiated professional
development and a culture of trust and accountability, school districts should look at ways of
distributing tools, strategies, and resources to give all classrooms the toolbox they need to meet
the needs of all students.
Future Research
This study surveyed 48 and interviewed seven general education teachers in Los Angeles
County. After data analysis, several additional areas for research were revealed. The following
are recommendations for future research:
1. Investigate the perceptions of administrators who have successfully implemented
coteaching models in their schools.
2. Expand the research on the implementation of coteaching models at elementary
schools.
3. Further explore the relationship between student achievement/graduation rates and
the various programs students are enrolled in (e.g., self-contained, full inclusion,
learning center/resource).
4. Explore the relationship between student achievement in life skills and the various
programs students are enrolled in (e.g., self-contained, full inclusion, learning
center/resource).
5. Investigate the specific components of a positive collaborative relationship between
special education teachers and general education teachers.
6. Further explore the components of professional development opportunities that help
build teacher and support staff capacity.
121

7. Study the perceptions of students with special needs on the tools, strategies, and
resources they feel they need to be successful.
Conclusions
The purpose of education is to give all students the opportunity to achieve. Not only
“those kids” or “my kids” or “your kids,” but OUR kids. How do we ensure all members of an
organization work collectively with that mission in mind? It is the duty of instructional leaders to
ensure staff are empowered to serve all students with the knowledge and tools they need to
succeed. However, just as students come with diverse backgrounds and experiences that
influence the people they have become, so do adults. Because of this, the tools one educator
might need to be successful may be different from those of another. How, then, do we
differentiate instruction for the adults who are ultimately responsible for educating our youth? So
often, programs and policies meant to help all students are enforced in a manner that leads to
faulty implementation.
Schools have one of the most powerful resources at their disposal: successful teachers
doing what is best for students with whatever tools, strategies, and resources they are given. In a
professional system of accountability, educators are accountable to their peers and to their
organization (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). They are held accountable for doing what is best for
students based on the norms and professional practices recognized by their members. When
teachers are valued and relied on for their expertise, buy-in is achieved and goals are
subsequently met. Do all members of the team agree that student achievement is a priority? This
is the first and necessary question. If this is the common goal, how do we ensure all members are
implementing what is known, based on research, to improve student learning? Leaders must
work hard to create a culture of trust among members to do the job that needs to be done, but
122

data are a necessary part of making improvements, and creating a culture of inquiry is
imperative. Finally, by taking the time to build relationships with their team, instructional leaders
are better able to build the capacity needed by the adults to then meet the needs of the students.
As Lyndon B. Johnson suggested, we should be seeking not only freedom but
opportunity for our students, not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right
and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result. It is through the provision of evidence-based
practices, especially for students performing significantly below grade level, that some progress
toward an equitable system can be made. It is the duty of all educators and instructional leaders
to ensure all students have the opportunity to achieve, whether that means providing additional
supports for students; ensuring guided practice, collaboration, and modeling are a part of their
learning; intentional grouping and planning by their teachers conducted based on formative
assessment data; or providing students the means to ensure they meet their potential. When these
practices are implemented across classrooms within a school, across schools within a district,
across districts within a county, and all the way up to the national level, we are striding closer to
ensuring all students are given the opportunity to achieve and to be educated in an equitable
system, in which it does not matter where one went to school, where one came from, or what
level of education one’s parents have, because the system has provided all students what they
need to compete in the race.

123

References
20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).
Agran, M., & Alper, S. (2000). Curriculum and instruction in general education: Implications for
service delivery and personnel preparation. Jour- nal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 25, 167–174.
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant cognitive disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training
in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
American Youth Policy Forum. (2002). Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities.
American Youth Policy Forum.
Bakken, J., & Obiakor, F. (2016). General and special education inclusion in an age of change:
An introduction. Advances in Special Education, 31, 1–12.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.
Blad, E. (2020). Why the feds still fall short on special education funding; calls to fully fund
IDEA heard on campaign trail. Education Week, 39(18).
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/why-the-feds-still-fall-short-on-special-
education-funding/2020/01
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,
186 (1982).
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Bowgen, L. & Sever, K. (2010). Differentiated professional development in a professional
learning community. Solution Tree Press.
124

Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe
disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The
Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157–163.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bui, X., Quirk, C., Almazan, S., & Valenti, M. (2010). Inclusive education research & practice.
Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education, 1–14.
Buli-Holmberg, J., & Jeyaprathaban, S. (2016). Effective practice in inclusive and special needs
education. International Journal of Special Education, 31(1), 119–134.
Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (1994). Monograph on inclusion: Ensuring appropriate services
to children and youth with emotional/behavioral disorders. Council for Exceptional
Children.
Canges, R. L. (2010). Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the
social inclusion of students with special needs [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California]. USC Digital Library.
http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/digital/collection/p15799coll127/id/365024
Cartledge, G., & Johnson, C. T. (1996). Inclusive classrooms for students with emotional and
behavioral disorders: Critical variables. Theory Into Practice, 35, 51–57.
Cheney, D., & Barringer, C. (1995). Teacher competence, student diversity, and staff training for
the inclusion of middle school students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 174–182.
Cooc, N. (2019). Teaching students with special needs: International trends in school capacity
and the need for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83,
27–41.
125

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage.
Daley, J., Murawski, W., & Lochner, W. (2019). the effect of co-teaching on student cognitive
engagement. Theory & Practice in Rural Education (TPRE), 9(2), 6–19.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, 874 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1989).
Diamond, S. C. (1995). The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current
special education bandwagon. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Special
education and the great god, inclusion (pp. 247–254). Pro-Ed.
Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Equality. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from
https://www.dictionary.com/equality
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. (1994, June 13). Sacramento City Unified Sch.
Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. https://dredf.org/1994/06/13/sacramento-city-unified-sch-
dist-bd-of-educ-v-rachel-h/
Donati, P. (2006). Repensar la sociedad.. Madrid: Ediciones Internacionales Universitarias.
Donati, P. (2009). La società dell’umano. Genova-Milano: Casa Editrize Marietti.
Donati, P. (2011). Relational sociology: a new paradigm for the social sciences. London:
Routledge.
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K.E., et al. (1993).
Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral
challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275–291.
126

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation,
sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public
schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303–319.
Ellingston, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J., Galensky, T. L., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000).
Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by
general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 85–97.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Albert Shanker
Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-
02elmore.html
Ferguson, D. L. (1996). Is it inclusion yet? Bursting the bubbles. In M. S. Berres, D. L.
Ferguson, P. Knoblock, & C. Woods (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s schools today: Stories
of inclusion, change, and renewal (pp. 1637). New York, NY: Teaches College Press.
Ferguson, D. L., Kozleski, E. B., & Smith, A. (2003). Transformed, inclusive schools: A
framework to guide fundamental change in urban schools. Effective Education for
Learners with Exceptionalities, 15, 43–74.
Fink, A. (2009). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Fisher, M., & Meyer, L. H. (2002). Development and social competence after two years for
students enrolled in inclusive and self-contained educational programs. Research and
Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 27, 165–174.
127

Gavish, B. (2017). Four profiles of inclusive supportive teachers: Perceptions of their status and
role in implementing inclusion of students with special needs in general classrooms.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.004
Gerrard, L. C. (1994). Inclusive education: An issue of social justice. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 27, 5867.
Gibbs, S. A., Alfred, K. W., & Ingram, C. F. (1999). Lessons learned from the inclusion of
students with emotional and behavioral disorders in one junior high school. Behavioral
Disorders, 24, 122–136.
Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary school:
Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. Support for Learning, 26(2), 56–63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01478.x
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. Norton.
Hartmann v. Loudoun County Board of Education, 118 F.3d. 996 (4
th
Cir. 1997).
Hieneman, M., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Positive support strategies for students with
behavioral disorders in general education settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 779–
794. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20112
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–
569.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A
preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 129–141.
128

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Justice, L., Logan, J., Lin, T., & Kaderavek, J. (2014). Peer effects in early childhood education:
Testing the assumptions of special-education inclusion. Psychological Science, 25(9),
1722–1729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614538978
Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., Baker, J., & Riedel, T. M. (1995). Inclusion of all students with
emotional or behavioral disorders? Let’s think again. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 542–546.
Keller, N., & Cravedi-Cheng, L. (1995). Voice of inclusion: Developing a shared voice-yours,
mine, and ours. In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp.
80–86). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School’s not really a place for reading:” A research synthesis
of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26(1), 1–12.
Knoster, T., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Long-term supports and ongoing evaluation. In L. Bambara &
L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behavior: Designing
positive behavior plans (pp. 303–333). Guilford Press.
Krischler, M., Pit-Ten Cate, I., & Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2018). Mixed stereotype content and
attitudes toward students with special educational needs and their inclusion in regular
schools in Luxembourg. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 75, 59–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.02.007
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s
classrooms. Brookes.
LRE requirements U.S.C. §300.114
129

MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical
perspective. Behavioral Disorders, 21, 145–159.
Markova, M., Pit-Ten Cate, I., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2016). Preservice teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion and toward students with special educational needs from
different ethnic backgrounds. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 554–578.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1055317
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models
for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 121–132.
Martin, E. W., Martin, R., & Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of
special education. Future of Children, 6(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602492
Marzano, R. (2007). The new art & science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for
effective instruction. ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Maydosz, A., & Maydosz, D. (2013). Culturally and linguistically diverse students with
disabilities: Case law review. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 65–80.
https://doi.org/10.1515/mlt-2012-0027
McDonnell, J. (1998). Instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education
settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 33, 199–215.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Special needs. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April
14, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/special%20needs
130

Miner, C., & Bates, P. (1997). The effect of person centered planning activ- ities on the
IEP/transition planning process. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 32, 105–112.
Milner, R. H. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
Molina, S. (2015). The inclusion of students with special educational needs in learning
communities. Intangible Capital, 11(3), 372–392.
Murawski, W. W. (2003). School collaboration research: Successes and difficulties. Academic
Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 104–108.
Muscott, H. S. (1997). Behavioral characteristics of elementary and secondary students with
emotional/behavioral disabilities in four different cascade placements. Education and
Treatment of Children, 20, 336–356.
Muscott, H. S., Morgan, D. P., & Meadows, N. B. (1996). Planning and implementing effective
programs for school-aged children and youth with emotional/behavioral disorders within
inclusive schools. Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study of inclusive
education. City University of New York, Graduate School and University Center.
National Equity Project. (n.d.). Definition of educational equity.
https://www.nationalequityproject.org/education-equity-definition
Nelson, C. M. (2000). Educating students with behavioral disabilities in the 21st century:
Looking through windows, opening doors. Education and Treatment of Children, 23,
204–222.
131

Norwich, B. (2002). Education, inclusion and individual differences: Recognising and resolving
dilemmas. British Journal of Educational Studies, 50(4), 482–502.
Oberti v. Clementon, 995 F.2d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1993).
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477.
Odom, S. L., Hanson, M. J., Lieber, J., Marquart, J., Sandall, S., Wolery, R., Horn, E., Schwartz,
I., Beckman, P., Hikido, C., & Chambers, J. (2001). The costs of preschool inclusion.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 46–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140102100104
Panacek, L., & Dunlap, G. (2003). The social lives of children with emotional and behavioral
disorders in self-contained classrooms: A descriptive analysis. Exceptional Children, 69,
333–348.
Patton, M. Q., & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
Pruslow, J. (2003). What school administrators should know about inclusion and its costs.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.1.65.15253
Rea, P., McLaughlin, V., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203–222.
Reindal, S. (2008). A social relational model of disability: A theoretical framework for special
needs education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(2), 135–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625080194781
Rodriguez, C., & Garro-Gil, N. (2015). Inclusion and integration on special education. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(C), 1323–1327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.488
132

Roncker v. Walter, 700 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1983).
Rossa, C. (2017). The history of special education. Journal for Perspectives of Economic
Political and Social Integration, 23(1–2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1515/pepsi-2017-
0011
Russo-Campisi, J. (2017). Evidence-based practices in special education: Current assumptions
and future considerations. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 193–205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9390
Sacramento v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary
practices? Exceptional Children, 69, 361–373.
Saldana, D. C., & Waxman, H. C. (1997). An observational study of multicultural education in
urban elementary schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 30(1), 40–46.
Shriner, J.G., & Yell, M.L. (1996). Legal and policy developments in the education of students
with emotional/behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 371–385.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to
early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335–346.
Smith, W. (2019). The goals of K-12 public education and education policy part 2 [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved from blackboard.com
Snell, M. E. (1990). Schools are for all kids: The importance of integration for students with
severe disabilities and their peers. In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.), The
regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models
(pp. 133–148). Sycamore Press.
133

Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1–7).
Rand Corporation. http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Stevens, L., & Wurf, G. (2020). Perceptions of inclusive education: A mixed methods
investigation of parental attitudes in three Australian primary schools. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(4), 351–365.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1464068
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Rev. ed.). Norton.
Strogilos, V. (2018). The value of differentiated instruction in the inclusion of students with
special needs/disabilities in mainstream schools. SHS Web of Conferences, 42(2).
https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184200003
Tremblay, P. (2013). Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with
learning disabilities: Inclusion with co‐teaching and solo‐taught special
education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(4), 251–258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01270.x
Udavi-Solner, A., & Thousand, J. S. (1995). Promising practices that foster inclusive education.
In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp. 87–109).
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs
education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality.
Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June.
University of Washington. (2019, April 30). What is the difference between an IEP and a 504
Plan? https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-difference-between-iep-and-504-plan
134

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). About IDEA. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of
education statistics 2014 (NCES 2016006), Chapter 2.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. (1995). Creating an inclusive school. Council for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2006). The academic achievement and
functional performance of youth with disabilities: A report from the national longitudinal
transition study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 20063000). SRI International.
Waldron, N., Cole, C., & Majd, M. (2004). The academic progress of students across inclusive
and traditional settings: A two year study. Indiana Institute on Disability & Community.
Walker, H. M., & Bullis, M. (1990). Behavior disorders and the social context of regular class
integration: A conceptual dilemma? In J. W. Lloyd, N. N. Singh, & A. C. Repp (Eds.),
The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models
(pp. 75–93). Sycamore Press.
Weigle, K. L. (1997). Positive behavior support as a model for promoting educational inclusion.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 36–48.
Will, M. C. (1984). Let us pause and reflect – But not too long. Exceptional Children, 52(1), 11–
16.
Williams, W., Fox, T. S., Thousand, J., & Fox, W. (1990). Level of acceptance and
implementation of best practices in the education of students with severe handicaps in
Vermont. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 120–131.
135

Zionts, P. (Ed.). (1997). Inclusion strategies for students with learning and behavior problems:
Perspectives, experiences, and best practices. Pro-Ed.

136

Appendix A: Interview Protocol for General Education Teachers
Research Question(s)
1) What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in
Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students with special needs in
their classrooms?
2) What strategies and tools do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in
Los Angeles County use to include students with special needs in their classrooms?
3) What do elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles
County perceive are the necessary components for a successful culture of inclusion for students
with special needs?
Introduction
Thank you so much for the time you agreed to spend with me to answer some of my
questions. The interview should take no more than one hour, does that still work with you?
Before we get started, I want to give you an overview of my study and answer any questions you
might have about your participation in this interview. I am a doctoral student at USC and am
studying the tools and strategies that general education teachers need in order to include students
with special needs in their classrooms. I will be interviewing other teachers as well.
I want to assure you that this interview will be kept strictly confidential and no
identifying information will be used with your responses. Your information will not be shared
with the district, principal or other teachers. In fact, do you wish to pick your own pseudonym? I
will do my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you, although I may be using what
you say as direct quotes. The data I collect from the interviews and surveys will be used to help
answer my research questions. I also want you to know that I am wearing the hat of a researcher
137

for this interview meaning I will not be judging you as a teacher or colleague based on your
responses. I am here to learn!
I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
3 years. Remember, this interview is completely voluntary, and you may opt out at any time.
Do you have any questions about the study? Also, I would love to accurately capture what you
share with me today. May I have your permission to record our conversation? The recording will
not be shared with anyone and will only be used to accurately capture what is said today.
Questions (with transitions)
II. Setting the Stage:
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. First, could you tell me about your background in
education?
a. How did you become interested in the field of
education?
b. How long have you worked in the field?
c. What roles or positions have you held?
2. Tell me about your role in working with students with
special needs.
a. Can you provide a specific example that best
demonstrates your role in the program?
III. Heart of the Interview:
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how students with
special needs are supported at your school, if at all.

1. Background

2. Background

138

3. Please describe any professional development you have
received in the last year related to your role in teaching
students with special needs, if any? Beyond the last year?
a. How did you hear about this professional
development?
b. What were some reasons you decided to attend?
c. Walk me through a typical professional
development session.
d. What are your thoughts about the quality of this PD?
i. What do you think were the strengths of
this PD?
ii. What do you think were the weaknesses
of this PD?
4. Tell me about the support you receive as a teacher in
providing instruction to students with special needs, if any?
a. Who provides this support?
b. What does this support look like?
c. What resources/tools are given to you?
d. What does this support sound like?
e. Can you recall a conversation in which you felt
supported as a teacher in working with students with
special needs? Describe that conversation.
3. RQ #2;
Experience
a) RQ #2;
Experience
b) RQ #1;
Experience
c) RQ #2;
Sensory
d) RQ #1;
Opinion

4. RQ #2/3;
Experience
a) RQ #2/3;
Experience
b) RQ #2/3;
Sensory
c) RQ #2/3;
Experience
d) RQ #2/3;
Sensory
139

f. Can you recall a conversation in which you did not
feel supported in working with students with special
needs? Describe that conversation.
5. Suppose a student with special needs in your class was
struggling to complete an in- class assignment. What tools
currently available to you, would you use, if any?
a. What resources currently available to you, would
you use, if any?
b. What strategies, currently available to you, would
you use, if any?
c. What tools/resources should ideally be available to
you?
6. Suppose a student with special needs in your class was
having behavior challenges during class. What tools
currently available to you, would you use, if any?
a. What resources currently available to you, would
you use, if any?
b. What strategies, currently available to you, would
you use, if any?
c. What tools/resources should ideally be available to
you?
I’d like to ask you some questions about your special education
teacher and her involvement in your class.
e) RQ #3;
Experience
f) RQ #3
Experience

5. a) and b)
RQ #2;
Hypothetical
c) RQ #1;
ideal

6. a) and b)
RQ #2;
Hypothetical

c) RQ #1;
ideal

140

7. What role, if any, does your special education teacher play
in relation to the students with special needs in your class?
8. What role do you believe she should play?
9. Please tell me about a time the special education teacher
supported a student with special needs in your class?
a. What did that look like?
10. If you could create the ideal special education support staff
that supports the instruction of special education students in
your room, what would that person do?
Now we’re going to switch gears and talk about the larger school
environment
11. How is the inclusion of students with special needs
encouraged at your school, if at all?
a. Can you provide a specific example?
b. What are the barriers that exist at your school in
relation to the inclusion of students with special
needs, if any?
12. If you could create your ideal school where students with
special needs were included in general education, what
tools/resources would you need?
13. Some people believe general education is not for everyone.
Some say that even with all the resources available, some
7. RQ #2;
Experience
8. RQ #1;
Opinion
9. RQ #2;
Experience
10. RQ #1; RQ
#3 Ideal

11. RQ #2; RQ
#3
Experience

12. RQ #1; RQ
#3 Ideal

13. RQ #1; RQ
#3 Devil’s
Advocate
141

students with mild/moderate special needs need instruction
in separate classrooms. How would you respond?
IV. Closing Question:
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation
about including students with special needs in general education
settings today that I might not have covered, if any?

V. Closing Comments:
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I
might have a follow-up question, could I contact you, and if so, is email ok? Again, thank you
for participating in my study.

VI. Post interview summary and reflection
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

142

Appendix B: Introduction Letter for Survey Participants

June 2020

Dear Survey Participant,

Thank you so much for the time you agreed to spend to answer some of my questions.
The survey should take no more than ten minutes. Before you get started, I want to give you an
overview of my study to answer any questions you might have about your participation in this
survey. I am a doctoral student at USC and am studying the tools and strategies that general
education teachers need in order to include students with special needs in their classrooms. I will
be interviewing teachers as well.

I want to assure you that this survey will be kept strictly confidential and no identifying
information will be used with your responses. Your information will not be shared with the
district, principal or other teachers. I will do my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from
you. The data I collect from the surveys and interviews will be used to help answer my research
questions. I also want you to know that I am wearing the hat of a researcher for this interview,
meaning I will not be judging you as a teacher or colleague based on your responses.

I will keep the data in a password protected computer and all data will be destroyed after
3 years. Remember, this survey is completely voluntary, and you may opt out at any time. There
are no known risks for your participation in this survey. Please be honest in your responses.
If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at
jghobria@usc.edu. Again, thank you so much for your valuable time and your contribution to the
field of education!

Sincerely,

Jessica Ghobrial, M.A., BCBA
USC Educational Leadership Doctoral Candidate

143

Appendix C: Survey for General Education Teachers
Survey for General Education Teachers

The purpose of this questionnaire is to survey your perception on the
tools, strategies and resources you need to support the inclusion of
students with special needs at your school, the tools, strategies and
resources you have available to you and the environment at your
school site. There are no right or wrong answers. You are asked to
respond to each item in terms of how strongly you feel about each
statement.

Part I: Background Information

1. Are you currently a general education teacher at an elementary
school in Los Angeles County, serving in a public school
district with a student population of 2,500 to 70,000, with at
least two years of experience?
a. Yes
b. No

2. How many years of experience do you have?
a. 2-4
b. 5-6
c. 7-8
d. 9-10
e. 11+

3. How many years have you been teaching at your current school
site?
a. 1-2
b. 3-4
c. 5-6
d. 7-8
e. 9-10
f. 10+

4. What grade level do you currently teach?
TK
K
K/1
1
1/2
2
2/3
3

1. Background

2. Background

3. Background

4. Background

144

3/4
4
4/5
5

5. Have you previously had or do you currently have students
with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in your general
education class?
a. Yes
b. No

6. How many students with IEPs are in your class?
a. None
b. 1-3
c. 4-6
d. 7-10
e. 10+

7. What portion of the day are students with IEPs in your class?
a. They are fully included for the entire school day
b. They are in my classroom for most of their school day
and are pulled out for related services (i.e., specialized
academic instruction/resource, speech, OT, etc.).
c. They are in a separate setting for half of their school
day and in my class for the other half of their school
day.
d. They come to my classroom for a portion of their
school day, but the majority of their time is in a
separate setting.
e. I do not have students with IEPs in my class.
f. Other: (Please, specify)________________________

Part II: School Program and Environment

8. I believe the following to be true:
a. All students with mild to moderate special needs should
be fully included in a general education class.
b. Most students with mild to moderate special needs
should be fully included in a general education class
while others require more intensive settings.
c. Some students with mild to moderate special needs
should be fully included in a general education class
while others require more intensive settings.

5. RQ #3

6. RQ #3

7. RQ #3

8. RQ #3

145

d. Most students with mild to moderate special needs
should be offered a separate setting to get their needs
met.
e. All students with mild to moderate special needs should
be offered a separate setting to get their needs met.

9. Most of my colleagues believe the following to be true:
a. All students with mild to moderate special needs should
be fully included in a general education class.
b. Most students with mild to moderate special needs
should be fully included in a general education class
while others require more intensive settings.
c. Some students with mild to moderate special needs
should be fully included in a general education class
while others require more intensive settings.
d. Most students with mild to moderate special needs
should be offered a separate setting to get their needs
met.
e. All students with mild to moderate special needs should
be offered a separate setting to get their needs met.

10. The inclusion of students with special needs is ___________ at
my school
a. highly encouraged
b. somewhat encouraged
c. neither encouraged nor discouraged
d. somewhat discouraged
e. discouraged

11. Do you believe there are barriers that prevent students with
special needs from succeeding in a general education
environment?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I do not know

If you answered yes to the above question, please answer the
following question:

12. What are the barriers that prevent students with special needs
from succeeding in a general education environment?
a. Lack of support from an adult
b. Lack of materials that meet their needs
c. Instruction is not at their level
d. Lack of administrator or district support
e. Other (Please, specify):____________

9. RQ #3

10. RQ #3

11. RQ #3

12. RQ #1/#3

146

Part III: Strategies, Resources and Tools for Students with Special
Needs in Your Classroom

13. What tools/resources do you currently have available to you in
your classroom to support students with special needs? (Please,
check all that apply.)
a. Embedded paraeducator support
b. Professional Development
c. Tools (i.e., technology, adaptive materials,
adaptive/flexible seating)
d. Administrator Support
e. Collaboration with Special Education Teacher
f. Collaboration with Speech-Language Pathologist
g. Collaboration with other IEP members

14. Rank the following resources based on the level of need in
your classroom with 1 being the resource you feel you most
need and 7 being the resource you need the least to support
students with special needs in your class.
a. ___Embedded Paraeducator Support
b. ___Professional Development
c. ___Tools (i.e., adaptive materials, adaptive/flexible
seating)
d. ___Administrator Support
e. ___Collaboration with Special Education Teacher
f. ___Collaboration with Speech-Language Pathologist
g. ___Collaboration with other IEP members

15. (Optional) Specify, if there are any other resources you need in
your classroom to support students with special needs.
___________________________________________________

16. How comfortable or prepared do you believe you are to teach
students with special needs?
a. Moderately comfortable/prepared
b. Somewhat comfortable/prepared
c. Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
d. Somewhat uncomfortable/unprepared
e. Extremely uncomfortable/unprepared

17. Which of the following strategies have you been trained in?
(Please, check all that apply.)
a. Scaffolding
b. Small Group Instruction
c. Differentiated Instruction

13. RQ #2

14. RQ #1

15. RQ #1

16. RQ #1/#2

17. RQ #1/#2

147

d. Direct Instruction
e. Applied Behavior Analysis
f. Positive Behavior Interventions and Support
g. Professional Learning Communities
h. authentic assessment of student performance
i. Collaboration with the IEP Team (Special Education
Teacher, Speech-Language Pathologist, etc.)
j. Gradual Release of Responsibility
k. Data-driven decision making
l. Collaborative learning groups
m. Heterogeneous Grouping
n. Use of visuals and manipulatives
o. Use of technology in the classroom
p. Building relationships with students
q. Environmental strategies (e.g., sit students in the front,
free from distractions, etc.)
r. Peer mediated instruction

18. Which of the following strategies do you use in your
classroom? (Please, check all that apply.)
a. Scaffolding
b. Small Group Instruction
c. Differentiated Instruction
d. Direct Instruction
e. Applied Behavior Analysis
f. Positive Behavior Interventions and Support
g. Professional Learning Communities
h. authentic assessment of student performance
i. Collaboration with the IEP Team (Special Education
Teacher, Speech-Language Pathologist, etc.)
j. Gradual Release of Responsibility
k. Data-driven decision making
l. Collaborative learning groups
m. Heterogeneous Grouping
n. Use of visuals and manipulatives
o. Use of technology in the classroom
p. Building relationships with students
q. Environmental strategies (e.g., sit students in the front,
free from distractions, etc.)
r. Peer mediated instruction

19. (Optional) Please, specify if there are any other tools,
strategies, or resources you use to support students with special
needs in your classroom?
___________________________________________________

18. RQ #2

19. RQ #2

148

20. Would you be willing and available to be interviewed for 45
minutes to 1 hour?
a. Yes
b. Maybe
c. No

21. If you answered yes or maybe, please enter the best way to
reach you below:
a. Phone
b. Email

If phone selected: please, enter your phone number below:
_________________

If email selected: please, enter your email address below:
_________________

Closing Comments

Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me
today! I really appreciate your time and willingness to share.
Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I
might have a follow-up question, could I contact you, and if so, is
email ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study!

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the least restrictive environment mandate per the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), it is imperative to understand general education teacher perceptions that allow them to successfully include students with special needs in general education settings and discover the resources and strategies they use. This study sought to identify the strategies and tools elementary general education teachers in urban school settings in Los Angeles County perceive they need to successfully include students with special needs in their classrooms, the strategies and tools they use, and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students with special needs they perceive to be necessary. A sample of 48 elementary general education teachers, selected from school districts practicing inclusion models in Los Angeles County, made up the research participants. Surveys provided formal data on the specific tools and resources general education teachers had access to and knowledge of as well as the resources and tools they perceived they needed. Surveys also gathered data on the components that created a successful culture of inclusion for students with special needs. Interviews were conducted for seven of the 38 general education teachers, who were purposefully selected to describe general education teacher perceptions of the tools and strategies needed to successfully include students with special needs in their classrooms, the tools and strategies they currently use and/or have knowledge of, and the components of a successful culture of inclusion for students with special needs. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, incorporating qualitative data from interviews and quantitative data from surveys. Data analysis was guided by the conceptual framework as well as the research questions. A codebook was developed, and results from surveys, interviews, and the literature were compared in order to triangulate the data. Gaining knowledge of what general education teachers need to successfully include students with special needs may allow leaders to better equip teachers with tools, resources, and strategies to do what is best for students with special needs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban 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

Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices for elementary classroom teachers in third through fifth grade in Los Angeles County urban schools

PDF

Effective strategies used by general education teachers to address the learning needs of students with selective mutism

PDF

Time out for mental health: barriers and strategies for high school coaches

PDF

Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis

PDF

Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students

PDF

Center court: exploration of access to mental health services by female university athletes

PDF

The special education dilemma: collaboration between teachers and special education service providers

PDF

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Administrators’ role on systems for students with exceptionalities

Asset Metadata

Creator Ghobrial, Jessica Awni (author)

Core Title Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for students with special needs

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/27/2021

Defense Date 03/01/2021

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

Tag diversity,equity,general education,inclusion,mainstreaming,OAI-PMH Harvest,resources,Special Education,strategies,students with special needs,Teachers

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Semple, Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email jessicaghobrial@gmail.com,jghobria@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-455412

Unique identifier UC11668779

Identifier etd-GhobrialJe-9556.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-455412 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GhobrialJe-9556.pdf

Dmrecord 455412

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ghobrial, Jessica Awni

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