University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

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

by
Brian Grass

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

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Brian Grass

ii
Dedication
This written work is dedicated to the following individuals:
My husband, Collier Strong.
My amazing friends and my loving and supportive family.
Dr. Pedro Garcia, who provided so much guidance.
Mrs. Helen Carlos, who began my writing instruction.

iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the following individuals:

My dissertation team:

Committee Chairman - Dr. David Cash
2
nd
Committee Member - Dr. Rudy Castruita
3
rd
Committee Member - Dr. Brandon Martinez

The Educational Psychology weekend cohort: without you all, I would never have made
it.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1
Overview 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 3
Barriers to Inclusion 4
Benefits of Inclusion 5
Effective Leadership 6
Collective Teacher Efficacy 6
Purpose of Study 7
Significance of the Study 8
Limitations and Delimitations 9
Definitions of Terms 9
Organization of Study 11
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 12
History of Special Education 12
History of Special Education Inclusion in United States 13
Landmark Legislation 16
Organizational Barriers to Inclusion 17
Benefits to Inclusion 25
Effective Leadership Practices 30
Summation of Review 36
Chapter 3: Methodology 39
Background of Inclusive Education 39
Statement of the Problem 41
Research Methodology 41
Qualitative Methods 43
Research Questions 44
Sampling and Participants 45
Instrumentation 46

v
Interview Questions 48
Data Collection 51
Sampling 51
Access/Entry 52
Data Collection Approach 52
Data Analysis 53
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 55
Participating Stakeholders 56
Research Questions 56
Findings 57
Synthesis 70
Chapter 5: Conclusions 72
Summary of Findings 72
Implications for Practice 75
Future Research 76
Conclusions 77
References 79
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol 85
APPENDIX B: Interview Code Data Analysis 88

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. The Four Frame Model ....................................................................................... 32
Table 2. Connection between Research and Interview Questions .................................... 47

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs 34

viii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how to create a successful program to include
students with autism fully into general education classrooms in public urban elementary
schools. By analyzing the habits and strategies of six successful urban elementary school
principals, with productive autism inclusion programs, this study’s aim was to develop a
better picture of successful leadership practice. Specifically, this study set out to
determine: 1) What student data is used, and how do school leaders of analyze that data?
2) How much time and money are spent on teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and general education teachers? 3) How do school leaders
overcome the barriers created by unions’ collective bargaining agreements? 4) What are
the beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students around the inclusion
of autistic students into general education class? 5) How will inclusion programs for
students with autism in urban elementary schools be deemed successful? This study
implemented a qualitative method, using a grounded theory approach. A semi structured
interview format was used with the study subjects. Through a process of thematic
narrative grouping, the study’s findings indicate that these school leaders relied on
consistent and clear communication to achieve success. These principals also indicated
that the presence of union bargaining units did not directly hinder their ability to achieve
success. Overall, this study provides hope that future school leaders can better create and
organize autism inclusion within programs within their general education classes.

1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Overview
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study school records for
8-year-olds who live in select U.S. counties. These data are part of the Autism and
Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. The latest estimate of the prevalence of
autism spectrum disorder in children is 1 in 68. This number is up from a 1 in 88 rate
reported in 2008, and double the 1 in 150 rate that was initially reported in the year 2000
(Wright, 2017). The average United States elementary classroom holds 25 students.
According to current statistics, there is one student with autism for every three public
elementary classrooms. In 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and amended the act through Public Law 114-95, the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), in December 2015. The law states:
Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the
right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving
educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our
national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent
living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities. (U.S.
Department of Education, 2017, sec.1400 (c)(1) )

This law provides disabled students the right to a free and appropriate education, also
known as FAPE. The leading tenant of FAPE is that students with a disability deserve the
right to learn in the least restrictive environment (LRE) possible. The practice of
including such students in the general education population with their traditionally-abled
peers is considered to the LRE possible for the disabled learner. As state budgets for
special education are tightened throughout the country, many states face a decrease in
overall dollars for special education. In the state of California in 2014, according to the
Public Policy Institute of California, total state funding for students with special needs

2
had fallen (Hill, Warren, Murphy, Ugo, & Pathak, 2016). Very often, it is far less
expensive to instruct disabled students in general education classrooms. The number of
students with autism in urban elementary schools is increasing rapidly. The decision to
include these students in general education classrooms full time is becoming a necessary
standard practice in urban school districts. The charge for educational leaders then
becomes how to best prepare elementary schools for this inevitable outcome.
Background of the Problem
Among the challenges facing public schools, students with special needs are not
new. Indeed, educating children with special needs has always been a hallmark of the
inclusive nature of education in the public setting. However, students who are diagnosed
as being on the autism spectrum pose an increasing dilemma; their numbers in schools is
high, and the number of special education students receiving services in public schools is
rising (Salem, 2018). The latest figures from the CDC list a 30% increase in 8-year-olds
diagnosed with autism over between 2012 and 2014, and those numbers have tripled in
the between 2002 and 2012 (Baldrige, 2014). Although a lowering of the age at which
students are tested is one key to explaining the relative increases in diagnoses (Hertz-
Picciotto & Delwiche, 2009), the fact remains that a great many students with autism are
now attending neighborhood schools. According to the underlying ethos of IDEA, a
FAPE means that the most appropriate educational setting for these students is the LRE
(U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Ideally, the LRE would be the general education
setting with students of similar ages. Studies have shown that students with mild
disabilities do far better in the general education setting with specific accommodations

3
than they do in the special education setting, which is more restrictive (Madden & Slavin,
1983).
The inclusion of students with special needs means that these students are placed
into the general education setting with their peers who have no disabilities; students with
special needs and the assistance of both a special education and general education teacher
(Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). Including special needs student in the general education
setting requires a great deal of teacher training and instructional leadership, especially in
today’s environment, where budget cuts pose a challenge. A survey of working teachers
by the Guardian Teacher Network in the United Kingdom found that over 80% surveyed
felt that cuts to resources have led to diminished instructional effectiveness in their
classrooms (Ratcliffe, 2017). For school inclusion this type of endeavor to be successful,
school leaders must be able to support and train teachers and support personnel at their
school properly. Due to the fiscal realities facing modern urban school districts,
mainstreaming students with autism into the general education classroom makes logical
and financial sense. The challenge will be to identify and study those leaders who are
utilizing available resources to leverage strong structural and personnel strategies into
effective inclusion programs (Bolman & Deal, 1991).
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to answer the question of how to create a successful program
where students with autism are fully included into the general education classroom.
Currently, the numbers of students identified with special needs are increasing in schools.
A school that can successfully meet the needs of all students in the same effective
learning space will help to solve one of the most intractable problems in education: the

4
assurance of a fair and equitable access to curriculum for all students. Several key factors
are known about how to develop these types of special programs. This study examined
known factors such as inclusion practices (both as barriers and benefits), teacher efficacy,
and effective school leadership.
Barriers to Inclusion
Several barriers to inclusion may be encountered in a school that designs a strong
special education inclusion program for autistic students. One barrier may include use of
resources. Studies have found that schools that devote a specific set of resources toward
special education inclusion, especially the number of trained adults, create a stronger
inclusion practice (Powell & Jordan, 2011). Strong professional development is needed,
as well as increased adult assistance in general education classrooms. Schools with
effective inclusion programs will devote resources to offering updated training to their
educators and assistants.
Another possible barrier to successful inclusion may be political will. To enact
and sustain deep change in a system, leaders must often engage in actions that cost them
politically. In countries like Germany, special education settings are often more deeply
segregated (Powell & Jordan, 2011). In the United States, specifically in strong inclusion
schools, there are few visible divisions between students with disabilities and their
traditionally-abled peers. The leaders of those schools will have to establish strong
political will if they are to overcome any possible stigma or resistant philosophies around
the practice.
In the same vein of political will, the presence of a school leader’s own
perceptions and biases plays a major role in that school’s growth. Studies have shown

5
that school leaders who are limited in their own professional training around special
education held slightly negative views of the practice of special education instruction
(Ball & Green, 2014). School leaders will need strength of character to enforce policy
decisions that may cost them politically. This political will may see them overcoming the
biases present in school communities around special education inclusion. Teachers who
help lead the charge toward greater inclusion may have to push back, or help inform,
school leaders who are less than supportive.
Benefits of Inclusion
Full day inclusion of students with special needs can greatly benefit students in
general education. Researchers have found that in different parts of the United States,
school districts treat inclusion disproportionally. The southern states tend to do less
general education inclusion, whereas the northern states tend to do more of it. This
difference in inclusion practices might be one probable cause for traditionally higher
achievement rates for special education students in the north (Kurth, 2015). If strong
schools take the lead and adhere to a full inclusion model, it seems likely that other
programs that follow suit would begin to experience gains as well. Efforts put toward
teacher development and overall school efficacy would help drive successful inclusion
programs. As stated previously, a school leader’s attitude toward special education
inclusion matters greatly (Ball & Green, 2014). Having a successful inclusion program
would lend a higher profile to the leaders of those schools, as well as allowing those
teachers to benefit from an added sense of professional success.

6
Effective Leadership
The political landscape at schools with an already high existing special education
population, is ripe for the introduction of strong inclusion programs. The leaders at those
schools have either inherited or developed strong traditional special education programs.
It is certain that through strong and effective leadership, school principals can help to
continue promising programs and potentially make them stronger by introducing
inclusion into their plans (McLeskey, 2011). This type of innovation requires strong
school site teams, made up of teachers, teacher assistants, and administrators. Solid
managerial effectiveness is related to an emphasis on rationality and structure. A more
distributed leadership structure speaks to a strong team. It is possible that school leaders
who follow these tenets would effectively build a successful team. For school teams to
run successful programs, the leadership must instill and feed a growth mindset. For new
learning to take root, the atmosphere must enable growth and adaptation. Strategy,
experimentation, and adaptability are essential parts to leading in a symbolic manner
(Bolman & Deal, 1991).
Collective Teacher Efficacy
Collective teacher efficacy is known as a staff’s communal belief that by working
together toward a shared goal, they can achieve that goal, and thusly affect student
achievement for the better, especially students who are disengaged or disadvantaged
(Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). The nature of professional learning in schools helps to
foster this overall belief structure. As a result, high collective teacher efficacy would help
to reinforce the successful inclusion of the students with autism. Additional research
highlights the importance of how groups of teachers perceive their school leaders’

7
promotion of the teaching and learning success at their schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2000).
The careful use of the group professional learning environment to promote the teaching
staff will help those schools succeed in building a strong inclusion program.
Purpose of Study
The numbers of students with autism is increasing in elementary schools, leading
inexorably to the need for appropriate placement of these students. This study
investigated potential solutions to this problem. This study examined the leadership
practices, organizational barriers, and teacher efficacy of urban elementary schools that
successfully include students with autism into their general education programs. The
following research questions guided this study:
1. What student data are used, and how do school leaders of urban elementary
schools analyze those data with successful inclusion programs for students
with autism?
2. How much time and money is spent on teacher professional learning devoted
to collaboration between special and general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful inclusion programs for students with
autism?
3. How do school leaders at urban elementary schools with successful inclusion
programs for students with autism overcome the barriers created by union
collective bargaining agreements?
4. What are the beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students,
around the inclusion of autistic students into general education, at schools
with successful inclusion programs?

8
5. How will mainstreaming programs for students with autism in urban
elementary schools be deemed as successful?
Significance of the Study
Research regarding the leadership practices necessary to build an elementary
school program that successfully integrates students with autism into the general
education setting will have a profound impact on the world of education reform.
Currently, students with autism are routinely separated from their same age peers and
educated in a limited but parallel track. IDEA defines this practice as more restrictive.
The stated goal of the law is to educate students in the LRE possible (U.S. Department of
Education, 2017). This study strove to create a roadmap to ensure that public elementary
schools can to adhere the law more fully. As the number of students with autism grows
each year, this pursuit becomes not a desire by the public schools, but a necessity. If done
correctly, all facets of the public elementary school setting benefit, including both general
education and special education students. Students with autism gain greater access to
curriculum, and general education students gain invaluable exposure to students from a
diverse setting with alternative viewpoints. The parents of special education students will
gain a greater sense of purpose for their child, as well as a greater feeling of buy-in
toward their local public school. Finally, the staff of the elementary school will benefit
greatly from an improved level of inclusion by helping build a stronger school
community and growing in their ability to accomplish their chosen mandate: to serve all
students.

9
Limitations and Delimitations
This qualitative study involved interviews of several school leaders whose schools
with strong autistic student mainstreaming practices. These school leaders were studied to
identify strong leadership practices that are shared among them. One limitation of this
study is due to the subject pool being drawn from schools in the state of California, which
has been under a modified consent decree (MCD) for the past decade. Because of the
MCD, inclusion practices are a matter of mandate by the state of California. Due to this
particular focus, inclusion practices are better identified and thus more readily utilized in
California, than other states in the country. However, by utilizing a widely considered
and highly respected leadership framework on which to base the interview criterion (i.e.,
Bolman and Deal’s [1991] four frames), this study should be generalizable to a strong
majority of urban elementary schools in the United States of America.
Definitions of Terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a complex
developmental condition that involves persistent challenges in social interaction, speech
and nonverbal communication, and restricted/repetitive behaviors. The effects of ASD
and the severity of symptoms are different in each person (APA, 2018).
Accommodations: Changes that allow a person with a disability to participate
fully in an activity. Examples include extended time, different test formats, and
alterations to a classroom (“Special Education,” n.d.).
Collective Teacher Efficacy: A staff’s shared belief that through their collective
action, they can positively influence student outcomes, including outcomes for students
who are disengaged and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017).

10
Eligibility: Students determined eligible for special education services must meet
all three of the following criteria: the student must have a disability/disabilities, the
student’s disability/disabilities adversely affect educational performance, and the
student’s unique needs cannot be addressed through education in general education
classes alone—with or without individual accommodations—and requires specially
designed instruction (SDI; “Special Education,” n.d.).
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Special education and related
services are provided at public expense without charge to parents.
Inclusion: Term used to describe services that place students with disabilities in
general education classrooms with appropriate support services. Students may receive
instruction form both a general education teacher and a special education teacher
(“Special Education,” n.d.).
Individualized Education Plan (IEP): Special education term outlined by IDEA to
define the written document that states the goals, objectives, and services for students
receiving special education (IDEA Partnership, n.d.).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA): The original
legislation was written in 1975 guaranteeing students with disabilities a FAPE and the
right to be educated with their non-disabled peers. Congress has reauthorized this federal
law, and the most recent revision occurred in 2004 (IDEA Partnership, n.d.).
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The placement of a special needs student in
a manner promoting the maximum possible interaction with the general school
population. Placement options are offered on a continuum, including regular classroom
with no support services, regular classroom with support services, designated instruction

11
services, special day classes, and private special education programs (“Special
Education,” n.d.).
Modified Consent Decree (MCD): A settlement enforced by court order. The
office of the independent monitor (OIM) tracks identified school districts’ progress
toward goals designed to bring those districts into alignment with federal special
education law (IDEA Partnership, n.d.).
Political Will: Political will refers to the fact that the passage of any law may
result in some political cost, as the law may please some people and upset others.
Political will refers to the collective amount of political benefits and costs that would
result from the passage of any given law or policy (Wister, 2012).
Restriction: A regulation that restricts or restrains. In special education, the term
means the levels of accommodations given due to special education eligibility (“Special
Education,” n.d.).
Organization of Study
Chapter 2 presents a thorough review of the literature. Chapter 3 discusses the
research methodology, the study design, the research questions to be examined, the
sampling procedure, the rationale for performing this qualitative study, and the study’s
participants. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 then summarizes the
findings of the study and its implications for educational policy and future research.

12
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
History of Special Education
The history of elementary school-aged students with special education needs is a
checkered one. Students with special education needs have historically been treated
unequally in the public realm. In the early 20th century, the United States enacted
compulsory education laws, enacting the legally mandated dictate that all students
between the age of 7 and 18 years of age be enrolled regularly in school. This legal
enactment offered some improvements to the existing system; however, students with
disabilities continued to suffer under the inequities of a system that did not value them or
prioritize their needs. In the early 1970s, parents of disabled students began to organize
and advocate at the state and federal levels. These efforts were largely successful in
forcing the federal government to acknowledge that all students, regardless of their
intellectual or physical abilities, were entitled to a FAPE (Yell, Rogers, & Rogers, 1998).
The state of California was a forerunner in this arena, especially with respect to
students with autism. Through a concerted effort of both leading educators and the
parents of children with autism, the state legislature in Sacramento enacted California
Education Code 56847, which cemented several key rights for California students. This
legislation charged every public elementary school in the state of California with not only
identifying and serving students with autism to the best of their abilities, but also
providing and improving on existing curriculum and teacher professional development
(CDE, 2005).
In the year 2000, the CDC designated a special monitoring group of researchers
whose sole job it is to identify 8-year-olds who can be identified as autistic. This group,

13
the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, has estimated that the
prevalence of autism in this group of students is now 1 in 68. Reported in Scientific
American in 2017, this statistic marks a 30% increase from 1 in 88 reported in 2008, and
more than double the 1 in 150 rate reported in 2000. However, most educators agree that
these increases are not due to a true rise or decline in autism, but rather are the result of
policies that encourage the identification of special needs, as well as increased
identification criteria being used (Wright, 2017). Legislation is now established to ensure
that the state of California, in line with the United States, is invested in educating
students with special needs in an inclusive environment alongside their traditionally-
abled peers.
History of Special Education Inclusion in United States
By the middle of the 1970s, national attention had become focused on equitable
treatment of students with non-traditional abilities. In 1975, Public Law 94-142 was
passed, attempting to guarantee four rights:
1. To assure students with special needs that they can have a free and appropriate
public education.
2. To assure that the rights of these children and their parents are protected.
3. To assist states and local governments in following through on these promises.
4. To assess and ensure the effectiveness of these efforts to educate.
(D.O.E., 2018)
By this point in time, the United States government had come to understand that over 1
million children were living with a disability in the United States, and very few of them
were accessing the basic public instructional curriculum. Laws like PL 94-142 helped

14
pave the way for more sustainable and succinct laws such as IDEA, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1975. This sweeping law, signed by then-President Gerald
Ford, guaranteed a FAPE for every student with a disability. The law was considered
sweeping because it took many aspects of special educational reform into consideration.
This new law not only guaranteed services for students from birth to 5 years old, but also
made a special dispensation for each child’s eventual access to the general education
through a method of mixing with his/her traditionally-abled peers. This newer version of
FAPE laid down an establishing benchmark that every child with a disability would share
the goal of learning in the LRE possible. Moreover, this benchmark stated that every
student with a disability would work toward the goal of increasing the amount of time
he/she spent in a general education classroom, surrounded by his/her traditionally-abled
peers. Many amendments to this law have been adopted over time, and as IDEA becomes
more comprehensive, the core facet of the inclusion of special education students in the
general education environment remains bedrock. By adopting this civil rights landmark,
the United States Congress paved the way for millions of students to grow and develop
through their disabilities, and eventually become productive contributors to their
communities (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
The state of inclusion education for students with special needs, especially
students falling on the autism spectrum, has been a healthy mix of both uniquely
designed special needs instruction and general education with accommodations.
However, with both the current budget realities as well as the high numbers of autistic
students, the time is coming when more and more special education students may be
forced into the general education classrooms. Although proof exists to demonstrate the

15
success of almost every type of educational arrangement for students with special needs,
the strongest evidence of success lies in an approach that highlights and strengthens
existing programs and does not attempt wholesale change of existing pedagogy
(Kauffman & Pullen, 1989). Margaret Winzer (2009) wrote a book titled, From
Integration to Inclusion: A History of Special Education in the 20th Century. In it, she
largely agrees with Mr. Kauffman and his team’s determination, that revisions of existing
programs are not necessary for success. Winzer’s findings were most critical of the boom
and bust trend of most educational reforms. She found that, especially in the realm of
special education, the swinging pendulum of change was not beneficial overall. Winzer
stated that one size does not fit all students, and documented how the overall cultural and
emotional climate at the school site can have determined effects on the effectiveness of
the programs being offered there. Dr. Winzer outlined how social, political, and
ideological factors can strongly influence the effectiveness of special education programs
at a school site. Most importantly, Winzer and her team at Gauladet University found that
while being an effective practice, full special education inclusion in the general education
classroom is not the ultimate answer for student success. Instead, they found that a blend
of programs and strategies, tailored for the individual student’s needs, was most effective
in producing results.
In his study for the International Council for Exceptional Children, Dr. Maynard
Reynolds (1989) found similar results regarding the effectiveness of inclusive education.
His findings agreed with the need for individualized, tailored instruction based on student
need. However, he decided that given the state of special education funding, as well as
the overall philosophical standing of inclusive education, the future of special education

16
instruction would live solely in the general education setting. Reynolds asserted that more
exclusive programs, and the use of special day schools or specifically designed
alternative environments, would eventually be phased out completely for mildly disabled
or at risk students. Because many students with autism fall into these categories, it is easy
to see how they might be considered to qualify less as true special education students.
With the trend toward the dissolution of special day schools and alternative programs and
the rise in the numbers of students identified with special needs, more and more students
with autism are likely to be included in general education programs in a full inclusion
model of learning (O’Leary, 2016).
Landmark Legislation
Fourteenth amendment. The 14th amendment to the United States constitution,
adopted on July 9, 1868, was groundbreaking in that it granted citizenship “to all persons
born or naturalized in the United States”. This wide-ranging amendment also included
slaves born in the United States. What was also powerful about this amendment is that it
forbade any state from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process
of law” or “the equal protection” of those laws. This declaration has come to affect
students with special needs in the 20th century, because each of them is afforded this
equal protection. Moreover, to deny any student of special need the access to a FAPE for
any reason, without due process of the law, would therefore be unconstitutional (Library
of Congress, 2018).
Brown v. Board of Education. The seminal court case of Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas was decided on May 17, 1954. This case determined that
this Kansas municipality had indeed violated the equal protection clause laid down in the

17
14th amendment. As a result of this ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States
determined that separate educational facilities for White and Black students were
inherently unequal. The court thus unanimously decided that the separate but equal
doctrine was inappropriate for any educational facility (Oyez, 2018).
PARC v. commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972/Mills v. Board of Education
1972. In the early 1970s two critical court cases were decided in Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education. Both cases would have broad influence on
the state of special education in the United States for the remainder of the 20th century.
Before these cases were decided, millions of students who qualified as special needs were
either systematically denied enrollment in public schools, inadequately served by those
schools, or were isolated in institutions whose primary goal was not instruction. In both
Supreme Court cases, the court helped to interpret the 14th amendment due process
clause to accomplish two goals; they struck down local laws that excluded disabled
students from their schools, and ensured that those same students had the right to a public
education (Li, 2013).
Organizational Barriers to Inclusion
Several barriers exist with respect to full inclusion of students with special needs,
in a full day general education classroom. The trend toward wholesale change has been a
consistent theme in special education policy for the last few decades. Michael Kirst, the
current president of the California State Board of Education, highlighted the ongoing
difficulties faced by special education policy. In an interview with Edsource in 2017, he
stated that the current system is rooted in a set of ideas that originated in the 1970s and

18
focus largely on legal ramifications. Kirst specifically stated that in order to effect real
and meaningful change in special education policies, schools must stop addressing
student needs after they become an issue and focus more firmly on early interventions
(Freedburg & Harrington, 2017). This ongoing Band-Aid approach to students with
special needs will not get to the heart of the problem: the need for strong identification
and intervention.
Prominent geneticist Elizabeth Gedge (2008) identified similar barriers to the
current method of special education problem solving. She found that the rush to equalize
all students into one class only served to devalue those students. She felt that the impulse
to offer a one-size-fits-all solution would both devalue student difference and work to
eliminate it. She found that this stance would marginalize and devalue disability and any
form of difference.
In addition to the inherent issues of equity and individualism, there are other
factors such as, too much too soon, creating barriers (Slee, 2008). Roger Slee investigated
this trend for the journal International Studies in Sociology of Education. He felt that the
underlying ethos of inclusive education is at risk of being undermined by school districts’
clumsy approaches to force everyone into the same box. He found that because most
schools and school districts are not prepared to meet the needs of students with special
needs properly, resources that are normally meant for identification and accommodation
are inappropriately structured for basic containment, and not for building school capacity.
There are more barriers to full inclusion of special education students, especially students
with autism, in the general education classroom. Aside from the importance of not
assigning all needy students to a one-size-fits-all program; budgetary issues, teacher

19
training issues, and deep-seated biases, both on the part of teachers and administrators,
create significant barriers.
Budgetary constraints. Slee (2008) identified several aspects of inappropriate
utilizations of inclusive education based on the mismanagement of basic special
education funds; other budgetary barriers can be examined. While many agree that
inclusive education of students with special needs can be beneficial, the barriers can be
too burdensome to allow for effective implementation. Opponents of inclusion will argue
that severe cognitive impairment need and the self-management and social skills that kids
with emotional and physical problems may require, are too much to maintain in the
general education classroom (D. Murphy, 1996). The proponents of inclusion argue that
with the proper foundation laid in the general education classroom, all students with
disabilities can progress. Inclusionists recommend the following strategies:
multidisciplinary collaboration; individualized, data based instruction; peer tutoring;
cooperative learning; team teaching, and modification of materials and curricula. These
modifications and accommodations require careful and creative budgeting. The reality at
the school site is that financial resources will not currently allow for such changes. The
average per-pupil cost of special education has been estimated to be roughly twice as
much as that of traditional general education (Chaikind, Danielson, & Brauen, 1993).
Funding for special education has not kept pace with the increase in identified students.
The most dramatic increase in funding from federal sources occurred between 1977 and
1979, when funding grew from $373 million to $800 million. Since then, growth in
funding has been relatively modest. Many inclusion advocates state that special education
and related services, such as transportation, have become too expensive to continue, and

20
that time and money involved in administering special education programs could be
better spent on improving instruction (D. Murphy, 1996). Indeed, contrary to cost cutting
theories, inclusion may prove even more costly than segregated education (Villa &
Thousand, 2005). Opponents of inclusion point to the issue that the expense of traditional
special education, rather than concern for the needs of exceptional students, is behind the
move toward deeper inclusion (D. Murphy, 1996).
Collective bargaining agreements (teacher readiness). Another barrier to
inclusive education for students with special education needs is the educators’ functional
abilities. As teacher collective bargaining units across the country advocate for educator
rights and working conditions, the threat of appropriate student placement inevitably
emerges. Despite the push for inclusive education by parents and special education
advocates, it is not uncommon to hear of teachers pushing back against the trend. Often
teachers will claim that they are not ready to plan for special needs students, or are ill
trained regarding special education accommodations. According to a 2012 survey by
Delta University, 61% of teachers felt that the training provided by their schools
regarding teaching students with special needs was not beneficial. Moreover, whereas
these same teachers’ attitudes toward special education inclusion differed by their ages,
they all agreed that the current teacher training modalities were found lacking clarity and
coherence (Buford & Casey, 2012). In a 2007 study for the journal Disability and
Society, David Connor and Beth Ferri investigated the conflict presented in the resistance
to inclusive education. They found that general education classes are not prepared to meet
the needs of diverse learners. They also found teachers’ readiness to accommodate for
disabled student learning, to be lacking. They asserted that it is foolish to attempt

21
inclusion of students with disabilities in overcrowded classrooms where the teacher has
received no more than a rudimentary training in special education.
Biases. A bias exists when a person shows prejudice in favor of one person or
group over another in an unfair way. A significant barrier to the inclusion of students
with autism in general education classes is the presence of overt and covert bias. Both
teachers and administrators can be guilty of a deep-seated prejudice against students with
special needs. Even the parents in the community who have dedicated their lives to
promoting their children and advocating for their rights can be guilty of subtle but
corrosive bias towards other children. In History, Rhetoric and Reality, researchers
Denneth Kavale and Steven Forness (2000) analyzed the divisions that exist in the realm
of inclusion. They state that the inclusion debate seems to rage not only because the
philosophies between pro and anti inclusion forces are different, but also, and perhaps
more importantly, because the state of general education itself is under siege. The
empirical evidence regarding the efficacy of special education continues to be equivocal.
The discussion around the efficacy of inclusion education continues to be fueled more by
political and ideological concerns, than by practical student need, which can have lasting
effects on overall belief.
Community biases. Parent and community attitudes make a big difference in
students’ success or failure. If a parent community feels that an inclusion program is the
wrong fit for a school, or if they don’t believe that their children will benefit from being
in an inclusive classroom, conflict may arise. Community and parent beliefs can pose a
major barrier to the successful inclusion of special education children in the general
education classroom. Critics of inclusion programs often state that this practice limits the

22
availability of choice for families, and will negatively impact regular classroom education
(Daniel & King, 1997). In 2009, a team at the University of Mississippi looked at parent
attitudes toward inclusion education using a quasi-experimental design composed of third
through fifth-grade students from a mixture of inclusion, non-inclusion general education,
and non-inclusion special education classrooms. This discriminant analysis led to some
difficult conclusions on inclusive education. In addition to an increase in behavior
problems reported in the inclusion classrooms, the parents of the children in the inclusion
classrooms consistently reported a higher degree of concern for their children’s academic
potential than did the parents of the students placed in the non-inclusion programs
(Daniel & King, 2009).
Teacher biases. Of all the adults a child encounters each day, none has more of an
overall short-term effect than the classroom teacher. Because teachers hold so much
influence and sway over students’ success and failure, it is important to examine the
attitudes and possible biases held by instructors. Studies that highlight teacher attitudes
often mention teacher biases. In fact, teacher bias remains one of the prominent barriers
to successful inclusion of students with autism in elementary general education settings.
Two researchers at Tel Aviv University performed a study with 139 teachers working in
17 elementary schools, finding a clear correlation between how the teachers felt about the
students and how well those students did. The researchers identified several factors that
were necessary in order for teacher attitudes toward special education inclusion to be
favorable. These teachers said they needed supportive leadership, peer collaboration, a
sense of autonomy, and a reasonable workload. The researchers found that if those
criteria were not met, the teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion students suffered. More

23
importantly, the researchers found that much of the teachers’ sense of self-efficacy was
tied to a positive attitude toward special education inclusion. It was clear that if the
teachers were offered strong professional development in special education training, their
sense of self-efficacy was higher, therefore leading to a more positive attitude toward
special education inclusion (Weisel & Dror, 2006).
When contributors to the Journal of Educational Psychology investigated
prevailing reasons for teachers’ referral of students for special education assessment, one
primary reason for referral was the teachers’ feelings about students who were different.
This study uncovered one of the underlying reasons for teachers’ referring to special
education was because the teachers wanted the students out of their classrooms (Mamlin
& Harris, 1998). Additionally, Ysseldyke, Alozzine, and Thurow (1992) found that many
teachers had a deep intolerance for students who were perceived as not fitting the norm.
They found that the teachers’ primary reason for referring students for testing was
because the students were perceived as problematic or bothersome. Gerber and Semmel
(1984) found that although referral for special education assessment should speak to a
summative analysis of each child, the reality is that actual referrals stem from an
underlying bias against the perception of a student’s reachability. Finally, Geidel (2015)
studied teachers’ perceptions of special education students who are included in the
general education classroom, in 2015. She found that when teachers’ underlying belief
systems were analyzed, the way that they saw themselves changed based on whom they
were teaching. Geidel’s team found that if the teachers were teaching traditionally-abled
pupils, they felt they were the transmitters of knowledge. However, if the teachers were
teaching students with developmental difficulties, they saw themselves as less heroic,

24
The teachers were found to employ a more self-centered orientation, if they were
performing in a category that went against their beliefs (Giedel, 2015).
Administrator biases. Due to the essential and ever present nature of a school’s
administrator in assuring the resources and structure of a special education program, it is
important to look at the role administrators’ inherent bias may play. The successful
inclusion of special education students in a general education classroom can conflict with
biases present in the school’s administrator. In an extensive review of school
administrators in Illinois in 2012, a research team from McKendree University examined
the effect of school administrator bias on the success of their inclusion programs. They
found that many school districts in Illinois had traditionally isolated special education
students into special day classes, and that the only time they integrated with their
traditionally-abled peers was during non-academic instruction, such as art and PE
(Alquraini & Gut, 2012). When it comes to making a school’s inclusion program
successful, school administrators’ attitudes toward this goal are crucial; they must be
dedicated to the effective education of all students (Goodman, Hazelkorn, Bucholz,
Duffy, & Kitta, 2011). Although a positive correlation was found between school
administrators’ attitudes with respect to in-service hours and professional development
toward successful inclusion practices, the administrators all indicated that students with
mild to severe behavioral problems were rated lower, according to the survey they
submitted (Alquraini & Gut, 2012). Additionally, in a comprehensive qualitative study of
school leaders conducted for Trident University in 2017, principals described the barriers
to providing quality inclusive educational services, including lack of budget, lack of time,
limited staff, and the need for additional trainings to support teachers (C. Murphy, 2017).

25
This deficit perception, held by principals, should be considered as a specific detriment to
maintaining a positive attitude toward full inclusion of special education students in the
general education setting. Dr. David DeMatthews (2012) performed an interesting study
of principals and the ways in which they make sense of their leadership environments. He
found that principals were heavily constrained by their organizational environments and
that identity construction played a major role in the ways in which principals ordered
their environments and made sense of inclusion. In fact, he further determined that
principals establish habits of mind to better make sense of their environments and their
perceptions of constraints or limitations imposed upon them. They will then construct
alternative narratives to account for the differing information they receive from their
surroundings. Principals’ positive attitudes and beliefs around special education inclusion
are essential for success.
Benefits to Inclusion
Equitable learning environments. If the investigation of successful full-time
inclusion of students who present on the autism spectrum disorder is to gain momentum,
a central focus must be placed on child-centered equitable environments. Not only is
long-term equity possible for the special education student, but also studies are showing
that it is preferable. The goals of education are the same for all, but some children need
different forms of help to reach them (Dyson, 2001). Researchers Dorothy Lipsky and
Alan Gartner (1996) argued that the special education model must not separate those with
special needs, insisting that inclusion provides all students with a high quality education
that, when integrated effectively, can be fully individualized. They asserted that this type
of inclusion is essential to human dignity and the full exercise of human rights. These

26
efforts toward inclusion within the field of education, seek to bring about a genuine
equalization of opportunity. Researcher Alan Dyson (2001) argued for a possible third
way in education, asserting that an alternative approach could be embedded into
mainstream classrooms to ensure equity. He stated that if students are unable to learn
effectively in the context of a standard classroom, then provisions within special
education were unlikely to deliver much benefit. He argued that a conversation must be
to address the underlying issues behind why special education students do not achieve to
their potential in the first place. Dyson called for basic reform of both special education
as well as general education classrooms to ensure a more equitable baseline for all
students. According to Linda Darling-Hammond (2007), the U.S. is experiencing a
decline in educational equity, and the way that this decline will be addressed in the
coming years will largely set the stage for this country’s future well being. Researchers
Artiles and Bal (2008) identified the problem that can come from the seeking of equity
solutions, calling this seeking a dilemma of difference. They asked if educators should
treat all students the same, or make special accommodations for certain groups. They also
wondered whether teachers should teach all students whom we consider different in the
same program or create separate programs for some of them.
Equity in education is a commonly held ideal. However, it has often been used to
discuss the education of racial and language minorities, females, and the poor; equity is
rarely used to discuss students with disabilities. This noticeable absence is probably due
to the general social attitude toward students with special needs, which reflects a medical
model of disability, one that requires special treatment of those afflicted. This stance has
created and maintained a separate and special education system for students with special

27
needs (Triano, 2000). Leading education litigator Frank Laski challenged such prevailing
attitudes by arguing that students with special needs shared common ground with African
American students and other oppressed minorities. He cited the argument made by John
Davis, in response to Thurgood Marshall, in Brown v. Board of Education:
I think if [Marshall’s construction of the Fourteenth Amendment] should prevail
here, there is no doubt in my mind that it would catch the Indian within its grasp
as much as the Negro. If it should prevail, I am unable to see why a state would
have any further right to segregate its pupils on the ground of…mental capacity.
(Laski, 1994, p. 4)
This trend in combining groups with a goal of establishing equity has increased in recent
years. Moses and Chang (2006) asserted that the issue of equity is now fully linked with
the issue of diversity. In some court decisions, achieving equity via removing barriers, so
that people of different groups can be educated together, is not seen as remedial. Indeed,
researchers have found that by increasing the heterogeneity of the groups of students, the
diversity of learners is increased. And as such, diversity is not just a solution to the equity
issue but an asset of an effective education system (Nasir, Rosebery, Warren, & Lee,
2006).
An additional factor allowing for equity in inclusive education can be seen in the
state of assessments. More and more educators and psychologists believe that cultural
biases are playing a part in unwarranted special education placements. Testing can also
implicate a racial and ethnic discriminatory foundation. These assessment foundations are
based on the erroneous understanding of intelligence as fixed and largely inheritable
characteristics that can be measured precisely and used as an effective predictor of life

28
trajectory. However, the Michigan Department of Education performed an intensive
study on the state of evaluation research and found specific patterns to indicate improved
equitable outcomes for students placed in inclusion settings. In a final report produced in
1992, their department stated that although little quantitative data exists to support full
inclusion, there were clear patterns to indicate improved outcomes as a result of
integrated placements (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).
These equitable results for students are not isolated to the United States. In 1994,
92 governments around the world adopted the Salamanca Statement Framework for
Action for Special Needs Education (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization [UNESCO], 1994). The Salamanca Statement asserted that regular schools
with an inclusive design are the most effective means of combating discriminatory
attitudes, creating communities that are welcoming, and building inclusive education for
all. The statement placed the policy of inclusion into a broader framework for policy
development thusly:
Inclusion and participation are essential to human dignity and to the enjoyment
and exercise of human rights. Within the field of education, this is reflected in the
development of strategies that seek to bring about a genuine equalization of
opportunity. Experience in many countries demonstrates that the integration of
children and youth with special educational needs is best achieved within
inclusive schools that serve all children within a community. It is within this
context that those with special educational needs can achieve the fullest
educational progress and social integration. (UNESCO, 1994, p. 11)

29
Teacher efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), a person’s expectation about
how he/she will attain a goal based upon his/her abilities stems from self-efficacy.
Therefore, self-efficacy is crucial to a person’s ability to accomplish difficult tasks.
Researchers De Mesquita and Drake (1994) found that teachers with a strong sense of
self-efficacy held a more positive attitude toward educational reform and inventive
educational delivery methods. The focus of teachers’ sense of efficacy has centered on
educating special education students; however, less time has been spent on teachers’
sense of efficacy toward educating special education students in the regular education
classroom. In 2007, Dr. Melissa Wood conducted a mixed methods study on this topic for
Capella University, examining the effects of teachers who felt ready to teach and who
had the experience and training to do a good job, as well as what affect their attitudes had
on their view of the inclusion of special education students in general educations settings.
The researcher used a demographic served and a teacher efficacy scale to judge the
overall efficacy rates of over 1,000 teachers in the Phoenix area. She found that there was
indeed a positive correlation between a teacher’s overall experience and training
(efficacy) and more positive attitudes toward inclusion programs. This study is significant
because it helps to link efficacy to teacher attitudes.
Researchers in Germany investigated multiple school sites and overall attitudes
toward special education inclusion, which was labeled remedial education for this study.
This team found that the principal’s attitude had a great influence on the teachers’ sense
of collective efficacy. Additionally, they found a definitive link between teachers’ sense
of self-efficacy and their positive attitudes toward remedial education. In addition, this
sense of self-efficacy among the teachers was shown to have a distinct correlation with

30
overall positive attitudes toward social integration, and therefore the teachers’ willingness
to integrate students with special needs into the general education classroom (Urton,
Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014).
Collective teacher efficacy. Many researchers have commented on the possible
connection between individual teacher efficacy and the larger understanding of collective
teacher efficacy (Goddard et al., 2000). Researchers have demonstrated that, with respect
to academic achievements, collective efficacy is a significant factor in predicting
differences in teachers’ self-efficacy at the school level. The individual teacher is aware
of the social processes and collective attitudes and how that influences the overall
behavioral norms expected of teachers (Urton et al., 2014). Over 800 American teachers
responded to a questionnaire provided by researchers Jo and Joseph Blasé (Blasé &
Blasé, 2000). In it, teachers described the leadership characteristics that enhance their
classroom instruction and what influence those characteristics had on them. The
researchers found that the teachers with the highest ratings of self-efficacy reported being
a part of very specific professional environments. These teachers clearly indicated that
their leaders de-emphasized local control and encouraged competition among their peers.
They also developed professional dialogue and collegiality among educators. This
increase in the teachers’ collective efficacy has an effect on individual efficacy, which
can wield a specific impact when designing interventions in schools with ineffective
inclusion models.
Effective Leadership Practices
The four frames leadership model and how it relates to the issue of inclusive
education for special education students in an urban elementary setting. To produce

31
the best results, a manager must help to create and nurture an organization with creativity,
loyalty, strength, and heart. For an organization to be nimble and self-aware enough to
conquer the larger why of their mission, an effective leader must help to frame the issues
and challenges in different ways so they fit better into the organizational structure; this is
how managers make sense of complex systems. Frames are mental models, or sets of
ideas or assumptions, that help managers make better sense of what challenges they are
facing and how to handle them (Bolman & Deal, 2003). “When managers’ options are
limited they make mistakes but too often fail to understand the source” (p. 13). Most
often, managerial success lies in asking the right question to properly frame the
challenge, and thus enact the most elegant solution. Reframing is vital for leadership;
successful leaders can frame difficult concepts rapidly, build new insight through existing
data, and facilitate teams that can create different future outlooks on present issues
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Each of the four frames is present in every organization. Effective leaders are able
not only to identify the frames’ presence and location, but also to leverage their and their
teams’ skills to effect positive change in their identified challenges (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The following clearly outlines how each of the four frames relate to the present
challenge of educating our special needs students in the urban elementary general
education classroom (see Table 1).

32
Table 1
The Four Frame Model
Frame
Structural Human Resource Political Symbolic
Metaphor for
organization
Factory or machine Family Jungle Carnival, temple,
theater
Central concepts Rules, roles, goals,
policies,
technology,
environment
Needs, skills,
relationships
Power, conflict,
competition,
organizational
politics
Culture, meaning,
ritual, ceremony,
stories, heroes
Image of
leadership
Social architecture Empowerment Advocacy Inspiration
Basic leadership
challenge
Attune structure to
task, technology to
environment
Align
organizational and
human needs
Develop agenda
and power base
Create faith,
beauty, meaning
Organizational
ethic
Excellence Caring Justice Faith
Leadership
contribution
Authorship Love Power Significance

1. Structural: This frame looks beyond the individuals in the group to understand the
overall organization of the group setting. Without this structure, energy and
resources can be misdirected. The right structure depends on the reality on the
ground and considers the organization’s goals, strategies, technology, people, and
environment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Principals in urban elementary schools must
have a clear understanding of what the law requires for inclusive education of
students with special needs. They must help to create accountability in the
organization of inclusion classrooms, as well as be clear and equitable in the way
they design class rosters and devote personnel to each classroom. The effective
manager builds in supports for adverse student behaviors related to special needs,

33
instructional planning, and professional development; which are coherent, simple
to follow, and align with the overall goals built by the school.
2. Human Resource: This frame centers on the power behind what organizations and
people do for each other and to each other. Effective use of human resources
helps to engineer the best fit between human needs and the requirements of the
organization. The relationship between people and organizations can be fraught.
Organizations need people and people require organizations; this symbiotic
relationship makes for a powerful dynamic. When the fit is poor, both suffer
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Principals in urban elementary settings must leverage the
best possible teachers and teacher assistants to work in their classrooms. To
establish the most effective classroom instruction, the teams must be on the same
page—both for the organization in which they work, as well as for the students
they are teaching. The famous psychologist Abraham Maslow believed that
human beings were motivated by more that mere rewards, but by deeper, basic
needs (McLeod, 2007). The Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (fig. 1) shows this
relationship. Effective leaders will develop strong, research-based professional
development that follows the larger organizational goals. They will identify
motivational challenges and establish trust, model instructional leadership, and
help diminish individual and group biases.

34

Figure 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.
3. Political: This frame identifies the necessary issues of politics in an organization
and the inherent power in harnessing this understanding for the organization’s
ultimate goals. Organizations are both areas of political contests, as well as stages
for political players or actors. Both players and overall contests are run by deep
agendas. Effective leaders understand both the overt and covert machinations at
work in their organizations. “Understanding the presence of a trap, leads to its
successful avoidance” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 180). The effective urban school
leader will know what role politics play in the successful implementation of their
overall goals. With respect to successful inclusion of special education students
into the general education setting, they must understand all the players and their
disparate political agendas. These players may be the collective bargaining unit
members, the parents (both general and special education), the students
themselves, or members of the district leadership. The main challenge in
managing and leveraging the politics in each situation is understanding where to
put pressure and where to lessen the leader’s influence and persuasion. The
manager as politician exercises four key skills: agenda setting, mapping political

35
terrain, networking and building coalitions, and bargaining and negotiating
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The subtlety comes down knowing when to build
collaboratively or when to toughen one’s approach. Perhaps most importantly,
however, managers must ensure their organization’s values and ethical principals
drive every decision.
4. Symbolic: This frame helps create order out of chaos, as symbolism helps humans
to make meaning out of the chaotic and ambiguous world in which they live. If
leaders are people who survey the use of materials people use to construct
meaning, then effective leaders will highlight the critical role that the culture
plays in people’s day to day lives (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The creation of
significance is crucial for the effective leader who helps to inspire their teams. In
an urban elementary setting, striving to operate effectively, the leader that
successfully uses symbolic concepts to leverage his/her team dynamics can make
meaningful and lasting change in the face of challenging implementations, such as
the full-day inclusion of special education students into a general educations
classroom. This approach can subvert the routine perception that the right team is
simply the right people in the right place. It is essential that the right team is
engaged in ritual, play, ceremony, and myth while also being engaged in the
difficult work of integrating special education students successfully. “Leaders
serve a deeper and more durable function if they recognize that team building at
its heart is a spiritual undertaking” (p. 277). The key goal here is to create a
community of shared beliefs around the ability of students with special needs to
succeed in an area once considered impossible.

36
How do effective leaders reframe questions, issues, concerns and problems in
a frame that best solves the issues before them? In order for effective leaders to
successfully reframe questions, issues, concerns, and problems, as they arise, they must
maintain a sense of perspective and the larger vision of the school over time. For
example, it is easier to reframe problems around how to provide teacher professional
development with student behavior when one remembers that the school team is
committed to a structural environment where all students will succeed in the general
education setting. Moreover, building and relying on a strong, well-defined team can help
alleviate the political difficulties a lone principal may face.
Summation of Review
Historically, the inclusion of students with special needs in elementary education
has been slow to make progress. Only in the last 40 years has any real progress has been
made toward the recognition of special needs students as having both value and rights
(CDE, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). A historic increase in students
diagnosed with autism has put a slow and steady burden on the special education
resources in public school programs (Wright, 2017). The most likely remedy to an
increasingly high population of special needs students in schools with limited special
education resources is to increase the number of students in inclusion programs in the
elementary setting. Inclusive education has begun to find some successes in both the state
of California, and elsewhere the United States (Kauffman & Pullen, 1989; U.S.
Department of Education, 2017).
Students, who are diagnosed and are then labeled as presenting on the Autism
Spectrum, represent a wide range of disability characteristics. A great deal of information

37
has been researched on the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and its attendant effects on
child development and behavior. Within this research subject, the existence of ASD in
the students in question is represented as a given. However, it would be appropriate to
present resources on ASD as a reference.
To discover more information about what the Autism Spectrum Disorder is and how it
affects children, access the following research as reference:
Baio, J. (2012). Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Autism and Developmental
Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries. Volume 61, Number 3. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

Rachel L. Goldin, Johnny L. Matson, Paige E.Cervantes. (2014). The effect of
intellectual disability on the presence of comorbid symptoms in children and adolescents
with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Volume 8, Issue
11, 2014, pp. 1552-1556

Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2008
Principal Investigators. (2012). Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders — Autism and
Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States,
2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries,61(3), 1-19.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24806043

Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance
Year 2008 Principal Investigators. (2012). Prevalence of Autism Spectrum
Disorders — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14
Sites, United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report:
Surveillance Summaries,61 (3), 1-19. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24806043

For more information on subtypes of Autism and how they present on the spectrum,
please reference: Witwer, A.N. & Lecavalier. (2008). Examining the Validity of
Autism Spectrum Disorder SubtypesL. J Autism Dev Disord 38: 1611.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0541-2

For more information on early detection, please reference:
Ozonoff, S., Young, G. S., Carter, A., Messinger, D., Yirmiya, N., Zwaigenbaum, L., ...
& Hutman, T. (2011). Recurrence risk for autism spectrum disorders: A Baby Siblings
Research Consortium study. Pediatrics, 128(3), e488-e495.

And to better understand the methods of how ASD is assessed in students, please
reference:

38
Luyster, R.J., Kadlec, M.B., Carter, A. et al. (2008). J. Language
Assessment and Development in Toddlers with Autism Spectrum
Disorders. Autism Dev Disord 38: 1426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803 - 007 - 0510 - 1

Inclusive education comes with some distinctive barriers. In order for an effective
school leader to ensure a successful program, he/she must overcome such limits as
budgetary constraints (D. Murphy, 1996), teacher readiness (Connor & Ferri, 2007), and
inherent biases held by staff, parents, and administrators (Daniel, 2009). School leaders’
attitudes and the way they make sense of the inclusive educational environment make a
difference in the success of inclusion programs (DeMatthews, 2012). However, the
benefits that come from including special needs students in the general education
environment can be significant. Schools that create and maintain a successful inclusion
program will enjoy increased teacher efficacy (Wood, 2007) and can offer a more
equitable and egalitarian learning environment for all (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
Effective school leaders must navigate a host of personal and professional obstacles in
order to maintain a strong inclusion program. They must be able to leverage the potential
of their people within a creative structure in order to move their vision through the
potential political ramifications of the urban public school setting (Bolman & Deal,
2003).

39
Chapter 3: Methodology
The number of students diagnosed with a form of autism has been increasing
steadily over the last three decades, from 1990 until 2016. Autism is a developmental
disability whose symptoms lie on a spectrum from mild to severe. Mild forms of autism
can present in relatively benign and subtle ways in students, whereas more severe forms
of autism can manifest in chronic challenges with communication, attention, and
emotion. Public schools can find it highly challenging to handle the behavior and
communication needs of students with autism. However, public elementary schools have
a social and legal mandate to educate all students, regardless of their ability level (Yell et
al., 1998).
Educating students with special needs within a classroom designed for students
who are defined as typical is called inclusion education (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). This type of education can be difficult and fraught with challenges (Winzer,
2009). Inclusion education can strain limited resources, push the limits of teacher
training, and affect deep societal fears. Many urban elementary schools are engaging in
successful inclusion programs within their general education classrooms (O’Leary,
2016). Strong, efficacious leaders who can show others their strategies for success lead
these schools.
Background of Inclusive Education
The heart of inclusive education lies within federal education legislation. In 1975,
Congress passed IDEA, which helped to define and defend a generation of students with
special needs who were being systematically mistreated and underrepresented in U.S.
public schools. The basic tenet of IDEA was the concept that all students deserve a FAPE

40
and that each student has the right to be taught in a learning environment that is as free as
possible from restrictions (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Ideally, the LRE would
be the general education setting with students of similar ages and traditional learning
abilities. Studies have shown that students with mild disabilities fare far better in the
general education setting with specific accommodations than they fare in the special
education setting, which is more restrictive (Madden & Slavin, 1983).
The literature on inclusive education identifies several barriers to inclusion, but
even more benefits to be gained from the practice. Barriers to inclusion include
professional teacher training limits, school budgetary constraints, and inherent biases on
the part of both school personnel and the greater community (Buford & Casey, 2012;
Freedburg & Harrington, 2017; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Slee, 2008). However, the depth
of the literature detailing the benefits to inclusion seems to outweigh the negative aspects
thereof (Artiles & Bal, 2008; Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Chaikind et al., 1993; Dyson, 2001;
Freedburg & Harrington, 2017; Gedge, 2008; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; D. Murphy, 1996;
Slee, 2008). The benefits to running a successful inclusion program include an increase in
equitable learning environments (Darling-Hammond, 2007), a rise in teacher professional
efficacy, and most importantly, a boost in student self-efficacy in general (Urton et al.,
2014).
The focus of this study was to understand the habits and strategies used by
effective urban school principals with successful general education inclusion programs
for students with autism. The desire of the principal researcher was to delve into the
working practices of several successful urban elementary principals, who embrace
inclusive education for their special education students. The Los Angeles Unified School

41
District presents an ideal location for ongoing high level inclusion education for students
with autism.
Statement of the Problem
This study strove to answer the question of how to effectively create a successful
program where students with autism are fully included into the general education
classroom. Currently, special education budgets are shrinking, and the number of special
education students receiving services in public schools is rising (Salem, 2018). Without
significant increases in special education funding, these students will be shifted into the
general education setting. A school that can successfully meet the needs of all students in
the same effective learning space will help to solve one of the most intractable problems
in education: the assurance of a fair and equitable access to curriculum for all students.
Several key factors are known about how to develop these types of special programs.
This study examined these factors in detail, such as inclusion practices (both as barriers
and sources of benefit), teacher efficacy, and effective school leadership.
Research Methodology
The first task in solving a problem is to ask a question. According to qualitative
researchers, the first step in conducting a qualitative study is to raise a question that
challenges the mind (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The issues related to successful inclusion
of students with special needs, specifically students with autism, are wide ranging. When
studying successful inclusion programs at urban elementary schools, one key question
stands out and begins to get to the heart of why an urban elementary school’s inclusion

42
program is successful; what are the habits and behaviors of effective principals at urban
elementary schools with successful autism inclusion general education programs?
This study strove to achieve a deeper understanding of the problem. Researcher
Joseph Maxwell (2013) highlighted the research question as one of the essential
components of effective research design. He stated that the ideal research question
illuminates what the researcher does not know about the things he/she is studying. This
research was designed to determine that strong core instruction helps all children
succeed; and when that instruction is presented in an inclusion model in a general
education setting, with supports and scaffolds from special education, autistic students do
better. The research questions in this study helped to address the following questions:
● What strong leadership practices guide teacher improvement?
● What rights and allowances exist for the instructors?
● How much does collaboration and professional teacher efficacy play a part in
overall student success?
● How much do the biases present in the school setting hinder or limit
successful implementation?
Because the overall purpose behind presenting these questions were to understand how
the school leaders make sense of their lives and their experiences, a specific type of
qualitative study was needed: one that sought not just to understand, but also to build a
substantive theory about the phenomenon of interest. One that was grounded in real data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

43
Qualitative Methods
To more thoroughly understand this budding phenomenon—the development of a
school’s successful implementation of full inclusion of special education students in the
mainstream general education setting—qualitative methods were deemed necessary.
Paleontologist Neil Shubin (as cited in Maxwell, 2013) described the necessity of using
qualitative analysis most efficiently by quoting General Dwight D. Eisenhower, “facts on
the ground may change our best laid plans” (p. 2). Presented in 1967, by sociologists
Strauss and Glaser, grounded theory posits a qualitative study that is grounded in the
data. Rich description is important, but not the primary focus (Meriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Any researcher will attest to the fact that that well-crafted research questions are
essential, but the data one gathers will drive one’s understanding of the problem.
Obtaining rich and accurate data that paint a clear picture of the problem is the goal.
Moreover, because this was a grounded theory, qualitative study, the developing theory
of practice was based in the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, in-person
interviews were deemed a more sufficient data source than quantifiable minutiae. The
interview questions were crafted in such a way as to allow for elaboration from the
subjects in the moment of data collection. The researcher carefully chose to intersperse
interpretive questions with questions that spoke to ideal position or the hypothetical. In
qualitative design, several types of questions can be effective, when used correctly.
Interpretive questions are ones in which the interviewer advances tentative explanations
of what the interviewee has said. Hypothetical questions are ones in which the
interviewer asks what the interviewee might do, or might do in a particular situation. And
ideal position questions are ones in which the interviewer challenges the interviewee to

44
describe an ideal situation. This array of different question types gave the respondents
room to expand further on their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To paraphrase
Shubin, choice of question type may change once one is on the ground. Researchers do
not have unlimited time with their subjects. If they do not allow for flexibility and
adaptation in their data collection methodologies, they may lose valuable research data.
The observations help to flesh out further findings tied to the research questions.
Research Questions
1. What student data are used, and how do school leaders of urban elementary
schools analyze those data with successful inclusion programs for students
with autism?
2. How much time and money is spent on teacher professional learning devoted
to collaboration between special and general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful inclusion programs for students with
autism?
3. How do school leaders, at urban elementary schools with successful inclusion
programs for students with autism overcome the barriers created by unions’
collective bargaining agreements?
4. What are the beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students,
around the inclusion of autistic students into general education, at schools
with successful general education inclusion programs?
5. How will inclusion programs for students with autism in urban elementary
schools be deemed successful?

45
Sampling and Participants
The sample population for this study was taken from a group of elementary
principals within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) who work in an
urban setting, and who have been at the job of principal for at least 5 years. This sample
population was chosen for its proximity to the principal investigator’s professional
network, and its central location within the geographical boundaries of LAUSD. These
principals led schools that have successful autism inclusion programs in place. The
determination of which inclusion programs are deemed successful is an inexact science.
Currently, there is no concrete metric of success used by the entire school district. This
cohort was based upon Individualized Educational Program (IEP) data available on the
Welligent database within LAUSD. The appropriate data set chosen was the rate of goal
attainment for students with autism who are included in the general educational setting.
Each annual review of IEP goals for students with disabilities is the driving determiner of
progress made for that student. The school leaders approached for participation had
proven records of these high IEP success rates.
Six elementary principals were interviewed for this study. The principals were
chosen through consultation with and permission from the department of Special
Education for the central downtown and northeast region of LAUSD. This permission
was given through a formal invitation via email. The researcher then contacted the
principals via personal phone calls to invite them to take part in the study. A letter of
invitation that outlined the purpose of study and the estimated time requirement followed
these personal phone calls. A letter of informed consent (Appendix A) accompanied by a
self-addressed stamped return envelope was then mailed to the selected participants.

46
Once the letters of informed consent were received, the researcher contacted the
participants to set up the interviews. A confirmation message was sent via email to each
participant, including the interview questions (Appendix A) so that the participants could
preview the questions. The interviews took place at the interviewee’s school district, by
phone, and by Google Hangouts, based on each participant’s preference and convenience.
In addition, the interviews took place in a quiet and private setting, during a break in the
schools’ instructional calendar.
Instrumentation
A semi-structured interview format was used for this qualitative study. This
combination of structured and unstructured questions allowed the interviewer not only to
probe deeper if the situation warranted it, but also to be able to present a foundational
standard to the research subject to better ensure authentic responses. The questions were
previously field tested through a gap analysis on teacher professional development in the
delivery of instruction in autism inclusion classes. The two previous LAUSD principals,
who were led through a field test study, during the summer of 2017, provided authentic
feedback and helped the principal researcher to better gauge these final interpretive
interview questions.
Table 2 is a matrix of presenting each research question alongside the interview
questions related to it, providing a cross reference of research questions to interview
questions. This matrix ensured that the interview questions were relevant to the research
questions and was used as a guide when analyzing data from the interviews. During data
analysis, it was important to match interview questions to research questions during the
coding process to properly memorialize the points of correlation that emerged.

47
Table 2
Connection between Research and Interview Questions
Research Question B Interview Questions
Type of Question (e.g.,
Devil’s advocate,
opinion, etc.)
How much time and money is spent on
teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and
general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with
autism?
1. Walk me through a
typical professional
development session related
to differentiated instruction
about special education
students at your school.

Interpretive
How much time and money is spent on
teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and
general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with
autism?
2. Do the professional
development sessions at your
school follow a typical
pattern or protocol?

Could you elaborate on that a
bit?
Interpretive
How much time and money is spent on
teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and
general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with
autism?
3. In an ideal setting, how
much time would be devoted
toward collaboration
between the general and
special education teachers, in
the planning of your
professional development
sessions?

Ideal Position
How much time and money is spent on
teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and
general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with
autism?
4. How are your professional
development learning
sessions connected to your
grade level budgeting and
time allocation priorities?

Interpretive
How much time and money is spent on
teacher professional learning devoted to
collaboration between special and
general education teachers, at urban
elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with
autism?
5. In a perfect world, how
much time during your grade
level planning sessions,
would you devote to special
education mainstreaming
planning?
Ideal Position

48
Interview Questions
The following interview questions were designed to align with each of the
research questions that helped guide this study:
Research question 1. What student data are used, and how do school leaders
of urban elementary schools analyze those data with successful inclusion programs
for students with autism?
Interview questions.
1. Walk me through a typical data analysis session related to differentiated
instruction about special education students at your school.
2. Does the data analysis sessions at your school follow a typical pattern or
protocol? Yes or no.
3. How are special education data collection priorities determined at your
school?
4. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward data analysis
between you and your superintendent or instructional director, and does it then
factor in the planning of your professional development sessions?
Research question 2. How much time and money is spent on teacher
professional learning devoted to collaboration between special and general
education teachers, at urban elementary schools with successful inclusion programs
for students with autism?
Interview questions.
1. Walk me through a typical professional development session related to
differentiated instruction about special education students at your school.

49
2. Do the professional development sessions at your school follow a typical
pattern or protocol? Yes or no.
3. How are professional development resources determined at your school?
4. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward collaboration
between the general and special education teachers, in the planning of your
professional development sessions?
5. In a perfect world, how much time during your grade level planning sessions,
would you devote to special education mainstreaming planning?
6. How are your professional development learning sessions connected to your
grade level budgeting and time allocation priorities?
Research question 3. How do school leaders at urban elementary schools
with successful inclusion programs for students with autism overcome the barriers
created by unions’ collective bargaining agreements?
Interview questions.
1. In a perfect world, how much decision-making power around special
education instruction, would you grant to the bargaining units at your school?
2. How are your professional teacher hiring priorities linked to the teacher
bargaining unit?
3. Tell me about the role of special education teacher assistants bargaining unit
priorities at your school.
4. What role does special education inclusion play in the collective bargaining
decisions made by your leadership team at your local school district level?

50
5. What is the biggest impact bargaining unit decisions have made on your
ability to run a successful inclusion program at your school?
Research question 4. What are the beliefs of parents of both autistic and
general education students, around the inclusion of autistic students into general
education, at schools with successful inclusion programs?
Interview questions.
1. Walk me through a typical parent meeting related to the inclusion of special
education students at your school.
2. Do the parent meetings at your school follow a typical pattern or protocol?
Yes or no. Do you hold specific meetings just for the parents of special
education students?
3. How are the parent concerns around special education inclusion handled at
your school?
4. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward communication
between the general and special education parents? How much time is devoted
to disseminating information to all parents of the specifics of special
education inclusion?
Research question 5. How will inclusion programs for students with autism
in urban elementary schools be deemed successful?
Interview questions.
1. Does everyone in your local school district have a metric by which special
education inclusion can be rated? Yes or no.

51
2. How do you and your administrative team determine your inclusion programs
are successful?
3. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward communicating
the successes of your inclusion program?
4. If you have a specific set of rubrics to judge the success of your inclusion
program, do you include those in your vision and long range planning?
Data Collection
This study relied on one-on-one interviews to determine the overall success of
principal behaviors and strategies at urban elementary schools that have a strong special
education inclusion articulation in their general education setting for students with
autism. The interviews were held with six identified urban elementary principals who run
small schools with a proven track record of successful autism inclusion programs. The
data were culled into like and unlike categories so as to determine patterns and develop a
theory grounded in the data patterns that emerged.
Sampling
The most appropriate sampling method was to specify the group of targeted
interviewees. This non-probability sample was chosen specifically for their proven results
up to this point. This purposeful sample was chosen primarily for its convenience with
respect to the researcher’s limits on time and resources. This convenience sample of
successful small school principals was chosen from the central downtown and
northeastern portion of LAUSD, which comprises a geographical area of 25 square miles.

52
Access/Entry
The process for obtaining approval married the process for finding the
observation locations neatly. The researcher approached the special education
departments encompassing the central downtown, and northeastern sections of LAUSD.
Both directors provided the names of several elementary schools whose documented data
of special education goal attainment per student per year were very high. They also
helped to craft the list based upon positive anecdotal records of having strong special
education inclusion programs, especially for autism. These directors were both graduates
of the USC Rossier doctoral program, and felt that this was a worthy study. They helped
the researcher isolate six likely candidates for the interviews. The candidates were then
emailed or called and presented with the proposed study. The six who consented to the
interview did so willingly and were not remunerated for their time.
Data Collection Approach
Interview data were captured in a one-on-one setting at the principals’ schools,
via phone or google hangouts. Each interview took place after school around 4:00 pm.
The subjects were encouraged to be comfortable. The researcher recorded the interviews
with the subjects’ permission on a recording device that was either positioned on the table
in front of the researcher or near the speaker, if on phone or computer. The researcher did
not take notes. The goal was to maintain either eye contact, or if over the phone or
computer, a smooth and efficient rapport. When in person, the interviewer adopted a
casual, yet attentive body posture. The researcher kept a list of interview questions in
front of him on a single sheet of white paper. The interview recordings were then

53
transcribed, after which the researcher then combed through the interview results for
mistakes or missing data. The data were then coded using a combination of open, axial,
and selective coding. A codebook was then devised and followed (Appendix B) while
compiling the transcribed interview data from the recordings. The data were kept
according to strict International Review Board (IRB) protocols; after 3 years, all data will
be destroyed, and any identifying personal data will be expunged immediately so as not
to infringe on the anonymity promised to the subjects.
Data Analysis
The data were organized by research question. Each response from each
respondent was given a code. These codes were compiled into like and unlike categories
to determine if patterns existed in the data. The researcher opted to use this comparative
method to determine what data patterns was present. This constant comparative method
of data analysis was useful to ensure that a clear cohort of data was present in a routine
analysis of posed interview questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This method of data
analysis was necessary to build a substantive theory involving the identification of the
core categories of data present. The core category of communication by school leader
was found to be central to the other categories; all other data points were directly related
to this category. The relevant factors regarding a likely predictor of successful autism
inclusion programs seem to lie in the communication capacity of the school leader. In the
following chapter, the relationship between leader communication capacity and interview
data will be defined clearly, as well as the emerging theory that strong leader
communication determines inclusion program success.

54
An emerging problem with this analysis lies within its understood limitations. The
fact that the researcher identified only six leaders for the study limits the extent of the
data correlation. To establish a clearer and deeper causality between autistic students’
success and school leader’s ability to communicate effectively across the spectrum of
internal and external issues at a school, additional interviews across a wider population of
school types would be needed.

55
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to explore how to create a successful program to
include students with autism fully into general education classrooms in public urban
elementary schools. Currently, the number of special education students receiving
services in public schools is rising (Salem, 2018). If present trends with special education
funding persist, students with disabilities will continue to be moved into the general
education setting in greater numbers. If schools can meet the needs of both general and
special education students in the same effective learning space using similar resources, it
will help to solve a real challenge in public education: the assurance of a fair and
equitable access to curriculum for all students.
The first task in approaching such a challenge is to ask the important question,
how can it be done? The issues related to successful inclusion of students with special
needs, specifically students with autism, are wide ranging. When studying successful
inclusion programs at urban elementary schools, this question stands out. Understanding
the how begins to get to the heart of why an urban elementary school’s inclusion program
is successful. What are the habits and behaviors of effective principals at urban
elementary schools with successful autism inclusion general education programs? It was
the aim of this study to promote a deeper understanding of the problem. This research
was designed to determine the core idea behind true included student success, instruction.
The research questions in this study investigated the following concerns: What strong
leadership practices guide teacher improvement? What resources do the teachers pull
from? How much does collaboration and professional teacher efficacy play a part in daily
instruction? And, how much do biases present in the school setting hinder or limit

56
successful implementation? Through a comprehensive qualitative study of these issues in
specifically targeted elementary schools, the researcher attempted to reach a conclusion
by pursuing a theory that was grounded in the qualitative data. The selected school
leaders showed a history of success in their inclusion programs. Through a series of
interviews, the researcher sought to build a coherent understanding of what leadership
characteristics underlie their ongoing success with the inclusion of students with autism
in the general education setting. A select group of school leaders were chosen as the
subjects of the study. These principals had already demonstrated a history of autism
inclusion program success.
Participating Stakeholders
This qualitative study targeted six identified elementary school leaders for
participation. These individuals were chosen because each of their schools demonstrated
a marked success rate in the rates of progress over time, of their students with autism.
The data showed that at each elementary school chosen; the students with autism, who
were included into the general education setting, showed consistent goal attainment over
time. Their supervisors and peers consider these six school leaders, to be strong and
effective leaders. These selected leaders were subjected to a qualitative interview
consisting of 25 questions of varied design. The interviews were designed to cull rich and
detailed qualitative data about aspects of their leadership style, as well as decisions and
strategies in which they engage routinely. These data were then coded and patterns were
isolated and analyzed.
Research Questions
The research in this study was guided by the following research questions:

57
1. What student data is used, and how do school leaders of urban elementary
schools with successful inclusion programs for students with autism analyze
that data?
2. How much time and money are spent on teacher professional learning devoted
to collaboration between special and general education teachers at urban
elementary schools with successful inclusion programs for students with
autism?
3. How do school leaders at urban elementary schools with successful inclusion
programs for students with autism overcome the barriers created by unions’
collective bargaining agreements?
4. What are the beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students
around the inclusion of autistic students into general education at schools with
successful general education inclusion programs?
5. How will inclusion programs for students with autism in urban elementary
schools be deemed successful?
Findings
This section is organized based on the five major questions explored during the
study. Each research question was specifically chosen to get to the heart of what
leadership skills and strategies may lend themselves to the successful and maintenance of
a strong elementary inclusion program for students with autism. For each main question,
patterns began to emerge as to what strong leadership characteristics were most likely at
play. Within the examination of each question, the study ties in four main aspects of this
study: barriers to autism inclusion, benefits of autism inclusion, effective leadership at the

58
schools under investigation, and overall teacher efficacy found within the classroom.
Using the four frames leadership framework as a guide, the leadership data that follow
creates a clearer picture of what makes for an effective school leader in these chosen
locations.
Student data utilization for autism inclusion in general education: What
student data are used, and how do school leaders of urban elementary schools with
successful inclusion programs for students with autism analyze those data? The
principal interviews led with a discussion of student data, and how those data play a part
in the creation and daily running of a school with a successful autism inclusion program.
The research question addresses what data from students with autism are used and how
those data are analyzed for effectiveness. The principals were asked about their data
analysis practices, what constituted a typical data analysis session regarding their students
with autism, how that analysis lent itself toward differentiated instruction, what priorities
are determined when analyzing the data, and finally, how the data analysis leads to
improved professional practice and teacher training.
The interview participants stated that their data analysis followed a routine
pattern. Each participant stated that he/she devoted time to analyzing student data, and
that analysis was grounded in a routine analysis protocol toward improved instruction.
Each principal interviewed stated that during his/her data analysis, he/she works directly
with the teacher to differentiate the needs of each student, emphasizing how the data can
highlight what is working and not working. Every school leader stated that he/she relied
on some form of standardized data platform, which is used throughout the district. These
standardized platforms, which are all online and available to all schools, include: The

59
Dynamic Indicator of Basic Literacy (DIBLs), the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium (SBAC), Interim Assessment Block (IAB), and Welligent (online IEP).
These assessment data platforms helped each school team to guide instruction and better
assess each child as he/she progressed. Two school leaders who were interviewed
mentioned the importance of using these data points to help determine how the autistic
students were doing in relation to their typically developed peers. Three interviewees
specifically stated that these data analysis sessions were instrumental in driving ongoing
discussions of what needed to change or improve in daily classroom instruction. Two
leaders who were interviewed discussed the specifics behind how the data are used to
help design instructional groupings within the classroom and how those groupings
catered to the fully included autistic students.
Benefits of inclusion. As stated previously, any and all efforts put toward teacher
development and overall school efficacy help to drive successful inclusion programs. A
school leader’s attitude toward special education inclusion matters greatly (Ball & Green,
2014). Having a successful inclusion program would lend a higher profile to the leaders
of those schools, as well as allowing those teachers to benefit from the added sense of
professional success. In this study, the high leverage use of data analysis to both cement
the instructional team as well as drive effective differentiated instruction in the
classrooms provides a clear benefit. The understanding that effective school leaders must
consistently attend to the overall structure of their program further supports the benefit.
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frame Model helped to highlight the importance
of structure in the development of a successful school program. The structural frame
looks beyond the individuals in the group to understand the overall organization of the

60
group setting. Without proper structure, energy and resources can be misdirected. The
right structure depends on the reality on the ground and considers the organization’s
goals, strategies, technology, people and environment. Careful data usage is key to the
development of this structure. The creation of data analysis routines to drive instruction,
as well as to improve teaching and learning, seems to be a key factor in these leaders’
overall efficacy in running a successful autism inclusion program.
Teacher collaboration for autism inclusion in general education: How much
time and money are spent on teacher professional learning devoted to collaboration
between special and general education teachers at urban elementary schools with
successful inclusion programs for students with autism? In an environment that relies
on differentiated instruction, a successful inclusion program requires carefully planned
learning opportunities. The principals who participated in this study were asked about the
resources they devote to teacher training, specifically teacher collaboration. This study
asked question whether dedicated professional collaboration between general education
and special education teachers plays a role in the success of autistic students who are
included in the general education classroom. The interview questions centered around
several aspects of professional learning for teachers, such as, how are the level of
resources determined for teacher professional development (PD) and are they connected
to grade level priorities, how much PD time is devoted to face to face collaboration
between general education and special education teachers, and do the PD sessions
devoted to differentiated instruction follow a typical protocol or pattern.
The results of the interviewed principals on the issue of the allocation of
resources, uncovered a common strategy. All interviewees stated that they engage in a

61
strategy called Bank Tuesdays, a time allotment strategy that is endorsed by both the
teachers’ and administrators’ collective bargaining units. Additional minutes are added
onto each school day so that every Tuesday allows for an early release of students. This
additional non-instructional time each Tuesday allows for increased PD time for all
teachers each week. All principals interviewed also stated that they have a collectively
run leadership team, which helps to determine PD resources priorities. With respect to
PD priorities around collaboration and time spent planning, five of the six interviewees
allowed teachers to determine the need for themselves. Two of the five principals who
mentioned teacher preference in PD priorities specifically discussed data analysis by staff
as a leading indicator of how much time to then devote to face-to-face collaborative
planning. When asked about a typical protocol for each PD session, the leaders
interviewed, all made mention that the sessions following a typical weekly routine. One
principal described her team following a PD learning cycle; the analysis of each action
and goal attained then drove the need for additional learning. This learning cycle would
repeat every few weeks, depending on the data.
Collective teacher efficacy. The focus on teacher learning is an important aspect
of the teachers’ feelings of success or overall efficacy. Collective teacher efficacy refers
to a staff’s communal belief that by working together toward a shared goal, they can
achieve that goal and thereby enhance the achievement of students student, especially
students who are disengaged or disadvantaged (Goddard, 2000). The nature of
professional learning at these schools helps to foster this overall belief structure. Because
of this overall belief, high collective teacher efficacy would help to reinforce the
successful inclusion of students with autism. Additional research highlights the

62
importance of how groups of teachers perceive their school leader’s promotion of
teaching and learning success at their schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2000). When examining
the underlying strengths within an organization, teachers play a major role. Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four frames model highlights human resources as a powerful leadership
frame. This frame centers on the power behind what organizations and people do for each
other and to each other. Effective use of human resources helps to engineer the best fit
between human needs and the requirements of the organization. The leaders of these
select urban elementary schools all rely heavily on their teachers to drive strong
differentiated instruction for their included students with autism. These leaders seem to
understand the importance of the human resource potential at their schools and the
benefits of fostering and maintain strong communication within and among those human
resources.
The impact of collective bargaining for autism inclusion in general
education: How do school leaders at urban elementary schools with successful
inclusion programs for students with autism overcome the barriers created by
unions’ collective bargaining agreements? Collective bargaining is a fact of life in all
public elementary schools, and urban schools are no different. School leaders must
carefully negotiate the systems and procedures established by each union’s collective
bargaining unit. If a school leader were to violate any mandate agreed upon by the
contract, he or she could face severe consequences. Due to the detailed nature of each
union’s contract, the administration must consider many factors when dealing with
personnel. Most specifically, when dealing with the inclusion of autistic students, the
contracts of both teachers and teacher assistants (TAs) must be navigated carefully. The

63
selected principals in this study were asked about the unions with which they work and
how they affect both staff hiring decisions as well as what is taught to the special
education students. The school leaders were asked how much of a role these unions play
in their leadership teams’ decisions, and what overall impact they had on these school
leaders’ ability to run an effective program.
The interview findings regarding collective bargaining units’ influence on the
principals’ schools was minimal. No school leader stated that the unions played a major
role in allocation of resources, hiring priorities, nor curriculum or professional
development design, nor did the leaders feel unions had a strong influence on their ability
to run an effective program. No participants stated that either the TA or the teacher
unions had a negative effect on the smooth running of their inclusion program. Five of six
interviewees stated that the unions played an important role in their leadership
committees. However, no interview participants stated that the collective bargaining units
were instrumental in determining the curriculum taught to the special education students.
Three of the six interviewees mentioned that the union representative on staff had a say in
the schools’ hiring procedures. None of those three stated that phenomenon this had a
negative effect on their program effectiveness. These same principals all mentioned the
necessity of continual communication with those representatives. This careful attention to
communication may be the reason for unions’ minimal impact on these principals’
inclusion programs.
Effective leadership. The political landscape at schools with strong union
representation can dramatically affect inclusion programs. The leaders at those schools
have either inherited or developed successful special education inclusion programs and

64
must navigate contractual agreements at every turn. Through strong and effective
leadership, those leaders have helped to continue those programs or make them stronger.
Solid managerial effectiveness is related to an emphasis on rationality and structure. A
more distributed leadership structure speaks to a strong team. It is possible that school
leaders who follow these tenets would effectively build a successful team. For school
teams to run successful programs, leaders must instill and promote a change in
perspective. For new learning to take root, the atmosphere must enable growth and
adaptation. Strategy, experimentation, and adaptability are essential parts to leading in a
style described as more symbolic (Bolman & Deal, 1991).
According to Bolman and Deal’s (1991) Four Frame Model of leadership, leaders
must be engaged in the political frame to manage effective programs. This frame speaks
to the necessary issues of politics in an organization and the inherent power in harnessing
this understanding for the organization’s ultimate goals. Organizations are both areas of
political contests as well as stages for political players or actors. Both players and overall
contests are run by deep agendas. Effective leaders understand both the overt and covert
machinations at work in their organizations. It seems that in this study, effective school
leaders could manage complex union bargaining unit contracts without difficulty and
conflict. The use of communication and an understanding of the players at work seem to
have helped these school leaders to manage and maintain strong autism inclusion
programs.
Parent beliefs regarding autism inclusion in general education: What are the
beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students around the
inclusion of autistic students into general education at schools with successful

65
general education inclusion programs? The parent community at any school makes up
a large part of the school culture. The parents of both the general education students and
the students with autism can affect the culture and climate of that school. Their beliefs
and biases can have an impact on a school leader, for good or ill. The principals in this
study were asked about the parent groups at their schools, and what impact their beliefs
had on the overall success of their inclusion programs. These school leaders were asked
about their dealings with parents, especially about parent meetings they hold, and
whether those meetings follow typical patterns. The principals were asked whether they
targeted parents of special education students specifically, or if they tended to focus on
all parents in general. Finally, this study looked at how parent concerns were handled
typically, and how much effort was spent on parent communication in general around
matters related to the inclusion of students with autism.
The principals who were interviewed felt strongly about their parent groups.
Principals A1 and A2 specifically stated that they had parents of special education
students in mind, when discussing their dynamic parent groups at school. A1 stated that
some of the more prominent and vocal members of her councils were parents of special
education students, so she felt that their needs often got more air time than others. Leader
A2 stated that during routine parent meetings, she would reformat her topics to meet the
needs of special education students if she saw that there were special education parents in
attendance. Principals A3-A6 did not have a typical format or protocol that they used for
parent meetings other than to hold them regularly and post agendas and topics in a
transparent manner. These leaders all stated that they did not specifically target a certain
parent group or hold special education only meetings for parents. Aside from IEP

66
meetings, which are mandated by law, no meetings for special education parents were
routinely held by the principal as a regular event The IEP meetings, like their child’s
needs, were highly individualized. Parent concerns did not seem to represent a real
problem for these principals. The schools in the study had parents who did not show great
concern for the inclusion programs at their schools. Principal A2 and principal A3 stated
that if there were concerns, they almost always came from the parents of general
education students. When these concerns were voiced, the topic was always how much
time was taken away from instruction to deal with behavior management. Principals A1,
A4, and A6 all stated that they relied on their communication skills to solve any problems
before they began. Four of the six principals made mention of their use of parent
communication—especially at the beginning of school or during Open Houses, Back to
School Nights, or school tours—to properly inform parents of the structure of the
inclusion programs, as well as the possible impacts on and benefits to their children. They
specifically mentioned that they felt this practice was helpful in maintaining parent
satisfaction at their schools.
Barriers to inclusion. Potential barriers to successful inclusion programs are the
inherent biases held by both parents and staff members. In 2009, a group of parents of
traditionally abled children taught in inclusion classrooms were adamant that their
children were negatively influenced by the experience (Daniel, 2009). Successful school
leaders must manage parents’ expectations and their deeply held beliefs. A strong leader
who understands the political reality behind the understanding that different people have
different realities, with respect to their children, can forge a school’s culture. Often,
principals will encounter parents who disagree with their decisions to pursue policy or

67
curricular pathways that are controversial or poorly understood. School leaders will need
the strength of character to enforce policy decisions that may cost them politically. This
political will may help them overcome the biases present in school communities around
special education inclusion. Both teachers and administrators will need to engage in this
level of political will for inclusion to be successful. Adults who help lead the charge
toward greater inclusion may have to push back against or help inform parents or
community members who are less than supportive.
In the four frames model, Bolman and Deal (2003) speak directly to managing
and leveraging the politics in every situation, which can relate directly to school
communities and the expectations placed on the school. In this study, the school leaders
showed that they worked to maintain a deeper level of communication and expectation so
that parent meetings and information were managed well. The manager as politician
exercises four key skills: agenda setting, mapping political terrain, networking and
building coalitions, and bargaining and negotiating. The subtlety comes down to
knowing when to build collaboratively and when to toughen one’s approach. The most
important element for the manager, is understanding their own their organization’s
values, and the ethical principles which drive every decision. The principals in this study
did not have trouble with ether general education or special education parents. Their
dedication to consistent communication and a firm hold on the belief in their culture of
inclusion helped them to maintain schools that were free from parent discord.
Measures of success for autism inclusion in general education: How will
inclusion programs for students with autism in urban elementary schools be deemed
successful? This section of the study proved most challenging. To choose the best cohort

68
of school leaders, the principal investigator isolated the schools with the most successful
inclusion programs. Two main criteria were applied in selecting the participating schools.
Both criteria had a high degree of commonality mong the district special education
administration, as well as a high degree of autistic student goal attainment, as measured
by IEP progress reports. Unfortunately, these measures are not considered universal
measures of inclusion program success. However, within the LAUSD, they are widely
accepted as verifiable.
The goal of this research question was to explore what these successful leaders
considered to be metrics of success. For them to move forward and strengthen their
programs, it was hoped that they might have strong rubrics in place. The interview
questions centered on whether the district leadership or the school administrative team
had an agreed-upon metric of success for autism inclusion. The questions also included
the extent to which these metrics played a part in the long-term vision and goal planning
for the school, and whether these metrics were communicated to the stakeholders.
None of the interviewees had a set universal metric by which they measured
autism inclusion success. Neither their district leadership nor their school site leadership
teams had an agreed-upon rubric that looked the same across schools. In each case, when
the IEP team was engaged in the measures of success, that school’s principal stated that
their local school leadership team was in agreement. For example, principals A1, A4, and
A5 stated that the service providers from the district as well as the IEP team members
would all agree on student progress based on the IEP goals. They then stated that
progress over time within these goals, sufficed as a solid measure of success. Principals
A2 and A6 also relied on the IEP team a great deal to measure student success; however,

69
they stated that there were no district-wide agreed-upon measures in place. In addition to
the questions of success, the participating principals made specific mention of the
importance of communicating their successes and incorporating that practice into their
goals moving forward. However, four out of the six principals interviewed did not have a
strong communication plan in place for communicating their successes. Principals A2
and A5 stated that they specifically tout the successes of their inclusion programs.
Principals A1, A4, and A6 stated that programmatic success promotion, is a goal of their
programs, and that it would be a good idea to spend more time and energy sharing their
programs’ successes of their programs.
Benefits of inclusion. Inclusion success can be difficult to measure universally.
The school leaders chosen for this study all ran successful inclusion programs, as agreed
upon by district leadership and their students’ goal achievement. To maintain these rates
of success and encourage other schools to achieve along similar levels, school leaders
should adhere to an agreed-upon metric to be adopted by their school district at large. If
strong schools take the lead and adhere to a full inclusion model, it seems likely that
other programs that follow suit would begin to experience gains as well. Efforts put
toward teacher development and overall school efficacy would continue to help drive
these successful inclusion programs. As stated previously, a school leader’s attitude
toward special education inclusion matters greatly to the overall success of the school’s
special education mission (Ball & Green, 2014). Communicating these successes to the
school stakeholders, as well as applying these gains toward the greater vision of growth,
could only drive increased student achievement.

70
The careful leveraging of their successes will help these school leaders create a
deeply held understanding of their schools’ overall efficacy. This type of leadership can
be viewed through a symbolic lens. Bolman and Deal (2003) emphasized the importance
of this symbolic type of leadership. The creation of a sense of significance within the
school setting is crucial for the effective leader who helps to inspire his/her teams. The
leader who successfully uses symbolic concepts to leverage his/her team dynamics can
make meaningful and lasting change in the face of challenging implementations, such as
the full day inclusion of special education students into a general education classroom.
This approach can subvert the routine perception that the right team is simply the right
people in the right place. Rather, it is essential that the right team is engaged in ritual, and
ceremony while engaged in the difficult work of integrating special education students
successfully. This study observed school leaders who routinely utilized team identifiers,
like LSLC and ILT to further this sense of ceremony and ritual within the school setting.
“Leaders serve a deeper and more durable function if they recognize that team building at
its heart is a spiritual undertaking” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p 277. ). This leadership skill
set will lead to stronger community building. Leaders, who attempt to build an inclusion
program within their special education setting, will need to embrace the symbolic nature
of leadership. The creation of a community of shared beliefs around the ability of
students with special needs will be necessary to succeed in an area once considered
improbable.
Synthesis
The results of this study point to a clear linkage between communication and a
successful autism inclusion program. An overriding understanding from the results was

71
that each school leader is different and unique. Although they are all successful at
running autism inclusion programs, the subjects of this study have different approaches to
their practice. One consistent aspect of leadership practice that emerged for each leader
was the importance of communication. Each leader in this study relied on clear and
consistent messaging between himself/herself and his/her stakeholders. Each principal
referred to his/her reliance on a developed communication structure at his/her school,
whether in the form of common messaging within leadership teams or consistent
messaging to the parent groups. Each respondent carefully considered each interview
question. They covered each area of inquiry thoughtfully, and were effusive in the detail
they provided. Among the respondents, the most repeated refrain, to help explain their
overall program success, was their reliance on clear and consistent communication.

72
Chapter 5: Conclusions
Summary of Findings
The genesis of systematic inclusive education for students with special needs
began with federal education legislation. In 1975, Congress passed IDEA, which helped
to shine a light on a generation of students with special needs who were being
systematically mistreated in U.S. public schools. The idea that all students deserve an
appropriate education, and that each student has the right to be taught in a learning
environment that is free from restrictions, was revolutionary (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010).
This study of effective autism inclusion programs arose from years of
observations within an urban elementary setting, where schools and school leaders were
offering effective inclusive education to students with autism effectively. The focus of
this study was to understand the habits and strategies used by urban school principals
with successful general education inclusion programs for students with autism. The
researcher’s desire was to understand the working practices of several successful urban
elementary principals who embrace inclusive education for their special education
students. The LAUSD presents an ideal location for ongoing high-level inclusion
education for students with autism, especially since LAUSD was the subject of a class
action lawsuit that would have long lasting implications for all students, both special and
general education, in Los Angeles.
In 1993, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of students with disabilities in Los
Angeles who were being underrepresented. The school district was accused of violating
the requirements of IDEA (Ramanathan, 2004) and was found to be suffering from a

73
“pervasive, substantial, and systemic inability to deliver special education services in
compliance with special education law” (Ramanathan, 2004, p. 2). One of the more
egregious violations was within the district’s inability to comply with the mandates
concerning the least restrictive environment (LRE) clause of the act. LAUSD lost this
suit, and as a result, the courts designed an intervention process known as a modified
consent decree (MCD; Ramanathan, 2004). Once the school district began to implement
the recommendations from the Office of the Independent Monitor (Office of the
Independent Monitor, Los Angeles Unified School District, n.d.), the office responsible
for monitoring the progress toward attaining these goals, school teachers and
administrators were trained appropriately. Schools were increasingly held to high
standards regarding, among other things, the amount of time special education students
were allowed in the LRE. This finding by the independent monitor, called Outcome 7,
established a goal for all schools to ensure that students with moderate to severe
disabilities would participate with their non-disabled peers in general education classes
for an average of 12% of the instructional day; this includes lunch, breaks, and school-
wide activities (Howell, 2012).
Since the dedicated implementation and monitoring of these goals, the district has
dramatically improved the way that special education is both delivered and monitored
(Weintraub, 2008). This study aimed to answer one key question: what does the effective
school leader who runs a strong autism inclusion program do differently than his or her
peers? This question led to a need to understand several key areas within the urban
elementary school setting. To understand the effective school leader and his/her habits or
strategies, the principal investigator asked the following questions to guide the research:

74
1. What student data are used, and how do successful leaders analyze it?
2. How much time and money are spent on teacher collaboration?
3. How do union bargaining units hinder program success?
4. What are the beliefs of the parents regarding special education inclusion?
5. How are inclusion programs deemed successful?
These questions attempted to lead to a deeper understanding of what strong leadership
practices guide teacher improvement, what capacity building exists for inclusion
instructors, how much collaboration and professional teacher efficacy plays a part in
program effectiveness, and how much covert or overt parent biases hinder successful
implementation.
The purpose of this study was to determine how to effectively create a successful
program, where students with autism are fully included into general education classrooms
in public urban elementary schools for most their school day. Today, the number of
special education students receiving services in public schools is rising (Salem, 2018). If
trends continue with special education funding, students with disabilities will continue to
be moved into the general education setting in greater numbers. Many schools, like those
in Los Angeles, will find themselves continually scrutinized to remain in compliance
with the mandates set down in IDEA. School districts found to be out of compliance with
federal special education law can face severe punishment. A school that can successfully
meet the needs of both general and special education students in the same effective
learning space using similar resources will help to solve a real challenge in public
education: the assurance of fair and equitable access to curriculum for all students. The
goal of this study as to closely examine the habits and strategies of school leaders who

75
can successfully navigate the challenges of running an urban elementary school with
inclusion programs for the special education population. Having examined these
successful habits, this study strove to propose high impact practices that will help future
school leaders foster inclusion in their schools. Through careful examination of selected
school leaders and their personal leadership experiences within a small section of
LAUSD, this study highlighted common themes present in each of their successful
elementary experiences, presenting those themes as a potential benefit to future school
leaders.
Implications for Practice
This study presents strong possible applications for school leaders in the urban
elementary setting. Upon interviewing the select principals in this study, one overarching
common element was found to exist among them all. Each successful school principal
with an effective autism inclusion program listed strong, consistent communication as
key to his/her effectiveness. Every basic educational leadership text lists consistency as
essential to success. However, the principals in this study specified how clear
communication was important to their effectiveness in very explicit ways, such as
necessary communication with the union representative to better determine professional
development priorities, careful communication with parents of special education students
on the importance of increased inclusion in general education. Indeed, this study
identified communication as key to strong leadership practice.
Many individuals at the school site would benefit from this understanding. The
adults who are most involved with special education students—the teachers—would
greatly benefit from dedicated communication regarding all areas of their students’ needs.

76
Parents of both special and general education students would benefit from clear
communication from their school. The community must be aware and appreciative of
their school’s explicit commitment to educate their students in the most inclusive
environment possible. Finally, school leaders, who are looking to incorporate an effective
inclusion model into their elementary program, could benefit from a focus on their
communication with their constituents. Over time, as effective leadership practice takes
hold within an inclusive educational environment, school leaders may find themselves at
the leading edge of school reform.
Future Research
This study could uncover a strong correlation between school leaders’ beliefs
about the importance of clear communication and the relative success of their autism
inclusion programs. However, a few questions remain that require further investigation.
For example, the leaders interviewed could articulate how much time and money are
allocated toward teacher training; however, they were not able to deliver enough detail
for the principal investigator to establish a clear link between resources and teacher
success. More information is needed in teacher training resources and whether such
resources may be associated directly with increased teacher efficacy around special
education inclusion instruction. Similarly, the leaders interviewed were unable to clearly
articulate the difference between teacher trainings within the special education and
general education disciplines. While both professional groups teach children, their
populations’ needs are different, and therefore their training needs are different. An area
for further study might be how school leaders are able to reinforce and support those

77
teacher skill sets, which highlight differentiated instruction among differing groups of
students.
The interviewees did clearly articulate their habits of enabling the general
education and special education teachers to meet and plan together. However, they did
not state whether that practice led to a clear increase in inclusion instructional success.
Due to the small number of interviews (6), the results were not as robust. Compared to
the large number of school leaders in LAUSD, a greater number of interview subjects
would be beneficial. Finally, this study did not fully uncover the beliefs held by the
parents of both types of students regarding the use of inclusion instruction at their school.
As the school leaders themselves stated, they had no way of knowing the parents’
feelings, just their actions and statements. These pieces of anecdotal evidence were not
enough to create a clear understanding of the parents’ belief system. Including a detailed
survey of both special and general education parents at those schools might strengthen
future research in this area. In addition, future research might be enhanced if a more
detailed survey were offered to teachers and their professional development coordinators.
Conclusions
This study helped to determine several relevant aspects of successful autism
inclusion programs. This study also partially answered its primary question: what
strategies and habits are necessary for a school leader to facilitate a successful autism
inclusion program at an urban elementary school? The results of this study determined
that according to the school leaders interviewed, a strong team is necessary for a
successful program to run smoothly. Neither teachers nor teacher assistant union
bargaining units were a hindrance to successful inclusion classroom operation.

78
Participating principals demonstrated that a strong belief in the mission of student
inclusion was necessary for success to be realized. However, the primary idea that
emerged in this study was that the school leaders felt communication was critical to
overall program success. The recommendation to continue this study and refine its
findings would involve delving deeper into teacher training needs and results within the
inclusion teaching model, as well as to increase awareness of parent beliefs about
inclusion education, either for their child or alongside their child.
This study aimed to determine how to create a successful program where autistic
students are fully included into the general education classroom. A school that can
successfully meet the needs of all students in the same general education learning space
will help to solve a persistent problem in education: the provision of a fair and equitable
access to curriculum for all students. By examining known factors such as inclusion
practices (both as beneficial and benign), teacher efficacy, and effective school
leadership, this study aimed to improve the overall practice of all urban elementary
school principals. With more study and a further dissection of additional aspects of
schools with successful inclusion programs, this study can be helpful to every school
leader who works in an urban elementary setting.

79
References
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students
with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special
Education, 27(1), 42-59.
APA, American Psychiatric Association (2018). Retrieved from internet via.
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/autism/what-is-autism-spectrum-
disorder
Artiles, A. J., & Bal, A. (2008). The next generation of disproportionality research:
Toward comparative model in the study of equity in ability differences. The
Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 4–14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313603
Autism Spectrum Disorder. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved
from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/autism%20spectrum%20disorder
Baldrige, S. (2014, April 22). Rising autism numbers a challenge for public schools.
Lancaster Online. Retrieved from http://lancasteronline.com/news/rising-autism-
numbers-a-challenge-for-public-schools/article_88b0c58a-c729-11e3-939e-
001a4bcf6878.html
Ball, K., & Green, R. L. (2014). An investigation of the attitudes of school leaders toward
the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education setting.
National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 27, 57-76.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320082
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-
frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.
https://doi:10.1002/hrm.3930300406
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Buford, S., & Casey, L. (2012). Attitudes of teachers regarding their preparedness to
teach students with special needs. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 16-30.
Chaikind, S., Danielson, L. C., & Brauen, M. L. (1993). What do we know about the
costs of special education? A selected review. The Journal of Special Education,
26(4), 344-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699302600402

80
Connor, D. J., & Ferri, B. A. (2007). The conflict within: resistance to inclusion and other
paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63–77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590601056717
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research—The
flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine
our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07308253
Daniel, L. G., & King, D. A. (1997). Impact of inclusion education on academic
achievement, student behavior and self-esteem, and parental attitudes. The
Journal of Educational Research, 91(2), 67–80.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679709597524
De Mesquita, P. B., & Drake, J. C. (1994). Educational reform and the self-efficacy
beliefs of teachers implementing nongraded primary school programs. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10(3), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-
051X(95)97311-9
DeMatthews, D. (2012). Principal sensemaking of inclusion: A multi-case study of five
urban school principals. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI
No. 3517660)
D.O.E. (2018). Department of Education. Retrieved from internet via:
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/index_pg10.html
Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective Teacher Efficacy: The Effect Size Research and Six
Enabling Conditions. The Learning Exchange. Via the internet:
https://thelearningexchange.ca/collective-teacher-efficacy/
Dyson, A. (2001). Special needs education as the way to equity: An alternative approach?
Support for Learning, 16(3), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00199
Freedburg, L., & Harrington, T. (2017). Special education in deep trouble and still needs
reform, says California Ed board president. Retrieved from
https://edsource.org/2017/california-education-board-president-says-special-ed-
in-deep-trouble-and-needs-reform/588436
Gedge, E. (2008). Genetics, disability and symbolic harm. In P. Twohig & V. Kalitzkus
(Eds.), Social studies of health, illness and disease: Perspectives from the social
sciences and humanities (pp. 129-142). New York, NY: Editions Rodopi.
Geidel, A. B. (2015). Factors encountered during student teaching that influence a
student teacher’s perceptions toward inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3895438121)

81
Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the
referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19(3), 137-148.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529290
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479
Goodman, J. I., Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J. L., Duffy, M. L., & Kitta, Y. (2011).
Inclusion and graduation rates: What are the outcomes? Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 21(4), 241-252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207310394449
Hertz-Picciotto, I., & Delwiche, L. (2009). The rise in autism and the role of age at
diagnosis. Epidemiology, 20(1), 84-90.
https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181902d15
Hill, L., Warren, P., Murphy, P., Ugo, I., & Pathak, A. (2016). Special education finance
in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Howell, S. (2012). Update - Modified Consent Decree (MCD). Retrieved from
https://achieve.lausd.net/Page/13544
IDEA Partnership. (n.d.). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA 2004). Retrieved from http://www.ideapartnership.org/topics-
database/idea-2004.html
Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. L. (1989). An historical perspective: A personal
perspective on our history of service to mildly handicapped and at-risk
students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 12-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000605
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the
inclusion debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100505
Kurth, J. A. (2015). Educational placement of students with autism: The impact of state
of residence. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30(4), 249-
256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614547891
Laski, F. (1994). What have we done: An oral history of the disability rights movement.
Cambridge, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Li, L. (2013). PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education,
DC. Retrieved from https://www.rootedinrights.org/15321-revision-v1/
Library of Congress. (2018). 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary
documents in American history. Retrieved from https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=739Lipsky

82
Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American
society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762-797.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.4.3686k7x734246430
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming
America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:
Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 519–569.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004519
Mamlin, N., & Harris, K. R. (1998). Elementary teachers’ referral to special education in
light of inclusion and prereferral: “Every child is here to learn… but some of
these children are in real trouble.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 385-
396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.385
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications
McLeod, S. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students
with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5826.2010.00324.x
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Moses, M. S., & Chang, M. J. (2006). Toward a deeper understanding of the diversity
rationale. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 6–11.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035001006
Murphy, C. (2017). Educational leaders and inclusive education: Perception, roles, and
responsibilities (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI
No. 10744610)
Murphy, D. M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1086/461840
Nasir, N. I. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural
process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of: The learning sciences (pp. 489-504). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Office of the Independent Monitor, Los Angeles Unified School District. (n.d.).
Independent monitor. Retrieved from http://www.oimla.com/im.htm

83
O’Leary, W. (2016, May 4). Solutions for special educators [Web log post]. Edmentum.
Retrieved from http://blog.edmentum.com/five-trending-issues-special-education
Powell, S., & Jordan, R. (Eds.). (2011). Autism and learning (Classic edition): A guide to
good practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ramanathan, A. (2004). The Chanda Smith consent decree [Leadership briefing paper].
Retrieved from http://oimla.com/pdf/history_chanda_smith_consent_decree.pdf
Ratcliffe, R. (2017, January 31). The reality of budget cuts in schools – survey. The
Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-
network/2017/jan/31/the-reality-of-budget-cuts-in-schools-survey
Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to
mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 7-
11. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000604
Salem, T. (2018, June 6). Special education students on the rise. US News and World
Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/education-
news/articles/2018-06-06/special-education-students-on-the-rise
Slee, R. (2008). Beyond special and regular schooling? An inclusive education reform
agenda. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(2), 99-116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09620210802351342
Special education. (n.d.). In Encyclopedia Britannica online. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/special-education
Triano, S. (2000). Categorical eligibility for special education: The enshrinement of the
medical model in disability policy. Disability Studies Quarterly, 20(4).
https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v20i4.263
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (1994). The
Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education.
Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF
Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-
efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities--A Contemporary
Journal, 12(2), 151-168.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Thirty-five years of progress in educating children
with disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/idea35/history/idea-35-history.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

84
Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2005). Creating an inclusive school (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Weisel, A., & Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship
and Social Justice, 1(2), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906064677
Weintraub, F.J., Myers, R. M., Hehir, T., & Jaque-Anton, D. (2008). A contextual
overview of the modified consent decree in the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21(2), 51-57
Winzer, M. A. (2009). From integration to inclusion: A history of special education in
the 20
th
century. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Wister, W. (2012, April 28). Will Wister’s answer to “What is the definition of ‘political
will’?” Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-definition-of-
political-will
Wood, M. J. (2007). Teacher efficacy, teacher attitudes towards inclusion and teachers’
perspectives of training needed for successful inclusion (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3259647)
Wright, J. (2017, March 3). The real reason autisms rates are up in the U.S.: A hard look
at whether the rise comes from more awareness, better diagnosis – or something
else. Scientific American. Retrieved from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-
in-the-u-s/
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education:
What a long, strange trip it’s been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219–
228. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259801900405
Ysseldyke, J., Alozzine, B., & Thurow, M. (1992). Critical issues in special education
and remedial education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

85
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol
University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research
(Study of Urban Elementary Autism Inclusion Program Leadership)

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Brian Grass at the University of
Southern California. Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have, before
deciding whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand what constitutes successful leadership at urban
elementary schools that run successful inclusion programs for students with Autism.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked toanswer a series of interview
questions. This can either be done over the phone, in person, or via email. The interview
contains fewer than 30 questions, and will not take more than 45 minutes. You do not have to
answer any questions you don’t want to.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any compensation for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study, will remain confidential. At
the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-identified data may be
used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should
not participate.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Brian Grass
at brianegr@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

86
Interview Questions: Autism Student Inclusion in Small Urban Elementary
Schools

Brian Grass
USC Rossier School
Fall 2018 Doctoral Study

Good afternoon Principal,
Thank you for offering your time today for this important study. As I mentioned on the
phone, I am conducting a study to better understand certain aspects of successful schools
such as yours. I am specifically interested in understanding what has led to your school’s
successful practices around the inclusion of Autism students in your general education
classrooms. I will ask for your consent to ask a few questions around your practice. I will
also be audio recording you for posterity, if that is ok with you. I will transcribe these
recordings, code the data for my use, then destroy the original recording. Your name, nor
the name of your school, will not appear in any form in my research. If at any time, you
need me to repeat or rephrase a question, please do not hesitate in letting me know. I am
grateful for your time today.

Interview Questions:
1. Walk me through a typical data analysis session related to differentiated instruction
about special education students at your school.
2. Does the data analysis sessions at your school follow a typical pattern or
protocol? Yes or No.
3. How are special education data collection priorities determined at your school?
4. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward data analysis between
you and your superintendent or instructional director, and does it then factor in the
planning of your professional development sessions?
5. Walk me through a typical professional development session related to differentiated
instruction about special education students at your school.
6. Do the professional development sessions at your school follow a typical pattern or
protocol? Yes or No.
7. How are professional development resources determined at your school?
8. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward collaboration between
the general and special education teachers, in the planning of your professional
development sessions?
9. In a perfect world, how much time during your grade level planning sessions, would
you devote to special education mainstreaming planning?
10. How are your professional development learning sessions connected to your grade
level budgeting and time allocation priorities?
11. In a perfect world, how much decision-making power around special education
instruction, would you grant to the bargaining units at your school?

87
12. How are your professional teacher hiring priorities linked to the teacher bargaining
unit?
13. Tell me about the role of special education teacher assistants bargaining unit priorities
at your school.
14. What role does special education inclusion play in the collective bargaining decisions
made by your leadership team at your local school district level?
15. What is the biggest impact bargaining unit decisions have made on your ability to run
a successful inclusion program at your school?
16. Walk me through a typical parent meeting related to the inclusion of special
education students at your school.
17. Do the parent meetings at your school follow a typical pattern or
protocol? Yes or No. Do you hold specific meetings just for the parents of special
education students?
18. How are the parent concerns around special education inclusion handled at your
school?
19. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward communication between
the general and special education parents? How much time is devoted to disseminating
information to all parents of the specifics of special education inclusion?
20. Does everyone in your local school district have a metric by which special education
inclusion can be rated? Yes or no?
21. How do you and your administrative team determine your inclusion programs are
successful?
22. In an ideal setting, how much time would be devoted toward communicating the
successes of your inclusion program?
23. If you have a specific set of rubrics to judge the success of your inclusion program,
do you include those in your vision and long range planning?

88
APPENDIX B: Interview Code Data Analysis
Each data code set aligned with Principal A1-A6 responses.

Code List
Principal Interviews

Data Analysis = DA
DA diff = data analysis differentiation
DA protocol = data analysis (typical protocol)
DA-PD plan = data analysis as part of professional development

Data Collection = DC
DC prior – data collection priorities

Professional Development = PD
PD – diff = professional development as differentiated
PD – protocol = professional development typical protocol
PD – resources = professional development money/time
PD – collab = professional development collaboration among teachers
PD – planning = professional development planning
PD – budget = professional development money/time (linked to above)

Union Bargaining Agreement = UN
UN-inst = Union partners as involved in instructional planning
UN-hiring = Union partners as involved in hiring teachers
UN-ta = Union partners as teacher assistants
UN-lslc = Union partners as involved in instructional leadership
UN-impact = Union partners as impacting decision making as school

Parent Beliefs/Involvement – PAR
PAR-protocol = parent meetings (typical protocol)
PAR-sped = parent meetings targeting special ed parents
PAR-concerns = parent concerns wrt inclusion
PAR-collab = parents as partners
PAR-info = parent meetings to raise awareness of programs

Inclusion Program = INC
INC-success-SUP = Inclusion program success as determined by local district leadership
INC-success-LSLC = Inclusion program success as determined by local school leadership
INC-success-COM = Inclusion program success as communicated by school leader
INC-success-RUB= Inclusion program success as determined by agreed upon rubric

89
DATA SUMMARY

Code DA-Diff
A1: If we're looking only exclusively at Special Ed students them, we would use
primarily the data from their IEP goals, but that's not really most of the data that we use
when we're analyzing data. We basically look at the data for an entire classroom in a
General Ed classroom, and we use DIBELS mostly, and so it would be the same
procedure for our Special Ed kids as for our General Ed kids.

A2: And as imtalking with special education teachers, I try and ask them questions about
the data that relate to their students. For example, how has it, how do your IEP goals
impact what we see in the data? So I try and add additional questions for those
teachers, because a lot of the responses that I get will be around the data;s in the red,
because they have an IEP. And so try to get to the bottom of, okay, well, yes, the child
has an IEP, but it;s a core classroom, so they;re expected to perform at the same level.
What supports are you providing?

A3:So I want to start by saying that our special education population at this school is
really small. We have about, I want to say, maybe about 18 resource students, and that's
all we have. I have students with autism, but they're in the general ed class and they're not
in a specialty class.

A4: Okay. So we conduct data chats, so we do follow a protocol. We always take a look
at what the grade level expectation is of students. So we do look at standardized local
and/or state-wide testing. But we definitely take a look at their IEPs. One of the major
things that we look at is see how they're doing in relation to their peers, right, as well as
to how are they doing with their individual plans. For the most part what I have found
here at Annandale is that in my autistic program the students are fairly doing well
academically. Where students tend to need support or maybe reconsider some of their
behavior goals would be behavior. One of the things that we are also ... so, do you just
wanna like a step-by-step like the protocol? Should I [crosstalk 00:02:01]

A5: Data analysis is done at my school a little differently. We tend to look at all the
aspect data and then we also look at the IEP to make sure that it's done correctly.
Otherwise, we don't know of any other way to see how our kids are doing.

A6: So first, I don't know if you are familiar with the programs at my school, but we have
two [aut 00:00:51] core classes. One is a K1. It's supposed to be a third through fifth, but
right now, we just have fourth and fifth graders.

Code DA-protocol
A1: It is a pretty typical pattern particularly with DIBELS you break the kids into groups
of high, medium and low, those who are achieving and not. Then, within those groups
you look at what their scores are, how close they are to the benchmark, and what sections
they're missing in order to achieve benchmark. We do that for General Ed as well as
Special Ed kids that are in General Ed.

90

A2: And as I;m talking with special education teachers, I try and ask them questions
about the data that relate to their students. For example, how has it, how do your IEP
goals impact what we see in the data? So I try and add additional questions for those
teachers, because a lot of the responses that I get will be around the datas in the red,
because they have an IEP. And so try to get to the bottom of, okay, well, yes, the child
has an IEP, but its a core classroom, so theyre expected to perform at the same level.
What supports are you providing?

A3: so I always like to ... I like to use the ... Oh my God, what is it called? The ... Gimme
... Oh, the critical friends protocol. So I'll ... I like the one where it's just like, what do you
notice? What is the data telling us? What are your assumptions based on what you see?
And then let that kind of guide us and end up with what are your instructional practices
that might be affecting the data? And what are some challenges that you have? Sure. And
let's come up with a grade level goal and a classroom goal.

A4: Right. Yeah, I'd say and in addition to that, all the PD is inclusive. I must say that
here at XXXX, we have a very exemplar mainstreaming. My teachers work together, they
plan together. We actually mainstream. That is a combination. Everything is in a cycle
form. So what we do is PD, how we look at the data, then we think about planning. So,
it's a cyclical approach too and it's very organic as well. That's really what it looks like.
We have a session. We say, "What are the strengths, where are the needs, what do we
need to do?" That happens either before or after each reporting period

A5:Yes, it does follow a very typical protocol, always the same.

A6:They're all, you know, autism is eligibility. It's mild to moderate. We have about
seven to eight students each class. Then we have students with autism, and other students,
just kind of mainstream ... They're in the general ed. We have a good number of students
with autism in the general ed program too.

Code DC-prior
A1: After you get the kids in different groups then the DIBELS information will give you
really specific information about what sections, high or low scoring, and then based on
the low-scoring sections you begin to see patterns with kids. These three kids are missing
the same sections consistently, and so those kids are grouped for targeted instruction.

A2: They have a variety of ways that they look at data that way. They look at it through
the grade level planning. They look at it in one-on-one meetings with the RSP teacher, or
with the special day teacher than mainstreams their students.

A3: Our focus for a couple of years now has been on math because when we look at our
[inaudible 00:05:10] data, math is always ... we're always a little lower in math. Like
meaning at the standard [inaudible 00:05:18] and exceeding standard, where that's lower
than our ELA. And so we always ... That has been our focus, is looking at math and
looking at our math practices.

91

A4: Yes. And then, like I said, it's on a needs basis. When I go in and observe and I say,
"Hmm, this child should be mainstreaming more. Let's talk about it." Right? And then we
meet and we talk about it. And so, "Hmm, this child came from so-and-so school. Is this
the right placement?" Because instructionally they're higher. Or their mainstreaming
minutes, like I mentioned before, need to be increased. So it is on an individual basis as
well, because you know, that's why it's called an IEP.

A5: Data collection priorities are determined based on need, so what we do is we
determine who's making progress and who's not making progress, and that's the data we
[will collect 00:01:30].
A6: Really, I think, for the first question, it kind of depends on the eligibility of the
student, and then what the specific needs are of that student. Besides things like dibble
data, we also TRC, but all our students with IEPs, they have to be dibbled. You know,
our Aut teachers, they track that data pretty closely, and we put an emphasis on progress
monitoring this year, because it wasn't really happening a lot, so making sure, on my end,
that that's happening. Then we have Monday ... So we have YMCA. They come on
Mondays. That's another system we have in place. All teachers get release time on
Mondays in their grade levels. The first Monday of every month is dedicated just to data
and PLPs.
Code DA-PD plan
A1: To speak candidly, I don't think I would need much time with my director on this
particular data analysis. What I would me from my director is the protocol for how to do
it, and then maybe a couple of sessions with example students for how to have a
discussion with teachers, and how to look at that data. In terms of periodic data
specifically about students I don't know that that would be particularly a good and
effective use of my time with my director.

A2: So, a lot of times what we do, whenever we have our regular professional
development, we try and find the supports for our special education students, because at
we're 30% special ed.We have a huge population, so we always have, we do our best to
try and find what are the supports that you're gonna need for your student to make this
applicable?

A3: I mean, I wouldn't say we have spent large amount of time talking about the data.But
definitely looking at our math data with the director. Talking about instructional practices
that we have been implementing. And when we do our observations it's always with that
lens of math instruction. And then, I guess, this year I would say it has affected PD
because we are part of the cohort with UCLA math project with CGI.

A4: And so, one thing that we tend to do, I mean I'm actually speaking how I spoke at the
PD, when we think about intervention we think about, "How do we give access to
curriculum to students who are struggling?" Right? So if a student is auditory, what might
we do to increase access? If a student is visual? So we talked about, most of our students
need visual supports, so we talk about strategies like the use of thinking maps, and how to

92
make connections for students with different graphic organizers. However, like I
mentioned earlier, gifted students are also part of the special ed, and I said, "Well how
much have we invested in learning about how they learn, and their needs? Because they
also have very specialized needs. You know, sometimes students who are high
performing tend to have a different way of manifesting their abilities or their intellectual
levels, right?"

A5:Yes, we spend about two hours a week looking at data, my director and I, and it
directly reflects what our PD then looks like.

A6: We look at that with teachers. We look at sort of the behavior data too. A lot of the
students who are in the mainstream program, they have individualized behavior charts or
tally charts or visual schedules. We collect ABC data. The research teacher actually has a
big part in the data collection, because she'll help set up those systems for thegen ed
teacher. She helps them collect ... You know a lot of our data, the ABC, what's the
behavior, what happens before, and what happens after.
Right.
That's really good information in terms of determining what the student needs, what's
triggering certain behaviors. She knows about our PLPs, but she also is aware of a
certain grade level that, as a whole, that needs attention, so we'll talk about those specific
needs. In terms of special ed though, I think more of the conversations involve the SPED
team at the school site. I think those conversations are a lot more ... Like they have been
kind of day to day. Then my APIS is here Mondays and Tuesdays, so we make it a point
to kind of touch base when she's here. In terms of the director, it would be more like a
school wide kind of analysis.

Code PD-diff
A1: Once again, it wouldn't be exclusively for the Special Ed kids, it would be basically
for Gen Ed and Special Ed kids. We have folks come from Special Ed sometimes to talk
about behavior supports that we can use in the classroom that work for both Special Ed
and Gen Ed kids, but in terms of differentiated instruction particularly it would be
thesame for our Gen Ed kids, talking about groupings, talking about targeted instruction,
process monitoring to see if our instruction has been effective, and scores have risen.

A2: So, a lot of times what we do, whenever we have our regular professional
development, we try and find the supports for our special education students, because at
we're 30% special ed. We have a huge population, so we always have, we do our best to
try and find what are the supports that you're gonna need for your student to make this
applicable? Yeah. Every PD. But really, when we look at specific differentiated PD for
special ed, that usually happens when I can bring in specialists from the district, because
the inclusion piece was not happening here when I first came. And so it's been a struggle
to try and get it moving. And it's sort of coming, it's happening more and more now. And
what has helped is the early language and literacy plan because, with the WIN time, the
special ed teachers will send their students with autism with an aide to the class for that
specific timeframe.

93
A3: So focusing in on math we're also, another big focus for us, is how we
differentiate in the classroom. And one of the things that we are working on is project
based learning. so, how are we differentiating those products for the students? Or their
projects? How are we ... So when we do PD is looking at our students, right? I have the
teachers really think about their classes and think about their students and what are their
interests? And how are you going to group them? And when you're working on a project
based learning, how are you creating those groups? And what's the ... How is it student
led?

A4: So what we did is we've done a PD on depth and complexity to kind of keep the
interest of those higher performing students engaged. So we talked about how might we
need to differentiate instruction not only for those students that are struggling, or students
that have certain, specific learning disabilities but also those students that are high
achieving and potentially gifted or gifted. Right? And what are we doing for them? And
what characteristics do they have to look for? So, that's you know, pretty much a
summary.

A5: PD is never really very typical especially around differentiated instruction. What we
try to do is incorporate as much special education into our differentiated instruction
because those tend to be the students who need it the most. Yes.
A6: Our PD plans are kind of unique because of the way our teachers are
departmentalized. A lot of times, we have to differentiate PD. One thing that we did a PD
survey, staff survey, at the end of the year, and one thing they asked for was more
continuity, because there were so many compliance pieces last year.
Code PD-protocol
A1: Not particularly, no. It depends on what the topic is. Generally though because we
have two hour blocks, if it's a pretty intense subject we'll take the first hour for the
discussion and the training, and then second hour is often in grade level for application
and math.

A2: So, a lot of times what we do, whenever we have our regular professional
development, we try and find the supports for our special education students, because at
xxxx we're 30% special ed. We have a huge population, so we always have, we do our
best to try and find what are the supports that you're gonna need for your student to make
this applicable?Okay. Does that come up in almost every PD you do?I have 16 teachers,
6 of whom are special day. 7 special ed teachers out of 16.

A3:so that's what we've ... That's kind of what our PD looks like. So we'll ... I try to do it
in cycles. So we'll meet, we'll ... Let's say it's on PDL and looking at our driving
questions. And then the next week I give them time to plan and collaborate, not just in
their grade level but ... 'Cause my staff is so small. I have 18 teachers. So collaborate with
each other and give each other feedback on your driving question and then in a couple of
weeks come back to that and let's talk about how's it going in the class. What are you
noticing? Is that question meeting the objectives that you had when you started your
project? Is it not? So we talk, that's how we kinda do it.

94

A4: N/A

A5: We follow the Learning Cycle model, where we introduce content, we then review it.
We have collaborative team meetings around different content planning lessons. Then we
teach the lessons, and then we come back and we review successes or failures.

A6: Then something we're trying, because we have those Mondays is also Learning Labs.
What happens is on a Monday, since the teachers are together, they ... If it's like my third
through fifth teachers, in ELA, they're working on non fiction writing. They're going to
plan a non fiction writing lesson on a Monday. Then on the following Monday, we're just
going to pull ... Keep a few kids back from PE that Monday. One of the teachers will
teach that Monday, this class, and then it's going to be a live sort of coaching session. The
other teachers are observing this teacher deliver the lesson that they've all created
together, but they'll pause. We'll tell the students that this is a learning for us, so don't be
surprised if we stop you or if we chat in the middle of the lesson, but we're going to try
that, sort of [crosstalk 00:11:06]-

Code PD-resources

A1: Yeah, we don't have any instructional coaches. I do have a coordinator who does the
English language learner compliance stuff, so he is a resource that money is put toward
his position, and so he does some of that, but really it is all about time. We have times
throughout the month that is only dedicated to grade level planning. You remember, we
did something like grade level groups, I can't remember what we called it. We called it
something at xxxxxx, but that's the thing that we do a lot of, grade level planning. I
suppose, the time that would be dedicated most would be to grade levels.

A2: So we have our PD subcommittee, which at most schools is the local school
leadership council, but we haven't been able to establish one, so we call it PD
subcommittee, 'cause there aren't any parents on that committee. So, whenever we have
funding or something's coming up, we bring it to the PD subcommittee. We sort of run it
by them. They take it to the teachers, and we come up with a calendar. It's a living
document that we have on our Google drive. We have a basic framework for the year that
we submit to the district as our long term plan. That includes the priorities identified by
the district, and priorities that we identify. And then, the local school leadership and
subcommittee determines how we do that. Now, there are certain things that, like I'll
receive monies for like the [inaudible 00:07:33] money, which is a school[inaudible
00:07:35] index. We receive that money because of our rating on the California
dashboard. So I take that money, and I work with my coordinator and that team, and we
kind of decide if the district says our focus is math, then we're gonna try and spend
money on math.

A3: A3: when I first got here writing was a huge need and that's what the teachers had
identified. And so we spent two years learning and implementing writers workshops so
now we're ... that's what we're doing. Then it was math and the last couple of years we've

95
had a math consulting come in for PD. We've went to the UCLA lab school to observe
their math instruction. And then, now this year, is we're part of the CGI cohort. So that's
kinda how we determine what resources we'll need.

A4: And what I mean by data, it's not just quantitative data. It's not just assessments. But
it's student work samples as well as observational data. So it's very key when I go in or
when my coordinator, when we go into observe classrooms, that we're looking at the
teaching and learning and that we're looking at certain behaviors of students in terms of
their learning and their learning style. So that becomes a way to determine the need for
PD. And I take it back, so I notice that there was a couple of students who were meeting
grade level that were pretty much getting bored, and I said, "Okay, so what are we doing
for ... even though it's a small group but they're still a percentage. What are we doing for
them?" And then again, it's also the growth mindset and the power of yet. You know we
want students to be at this level. Not just grade level, we want them to go beyond.

A5: Resources are based on categorical moneys, so whatever the need is for our PD
development team. That way, we know that our categorical money should be dedicated to
that

A6: Ideally? Probably weekly. Ideally, it'd be weekly. I know I spoke with my research
teacher and she was saying that it happens a lot informally, you know, as needed. It
happens pretty often, but if there was an ideal time or like a certain day that could be
devoted to that, that would be good too.
I guess this question matches that. Would you

Code PD-collab
A1: It's pretty much 100% of time spent in collaboration. Our Special Ed classroom that
is the autistic core classroom that has kindergarten and first grade students in it, and every
single time with the Gen Ed kinder and first grade students. Our other Special Ed
classroom is a preschool class, and she doesn't really have any other instructional peers at
her grade level, and so she really doesn't plan particularly instructional stuff, but will plan
things like cooking and gardening lessons where her students can be included.

A2: I would like for it to be every week, but that's an ideal setting, right? Yeah. No, so for
you, if it was every week, then it would dovetail into a well running system. Yeah, I think
it would be sort of just like we do with the English learners, it would be just a part of our
every day experience. You know, when we talk about strategies we're gonna use, how do
we accommodate?

A3: I will meet with them. So when they have either grade level planning or at PD and
their planning, she will pick a grade level, meet with them, talk to them, and want to
know how to support the kids when she's doing her push in time in their class. So there is
a lot of collaboration.

A4: I never separate them, it's very rare you know. And it could just be for some other
reason. But they collaborate together, they plan together, they're always part of our PD.

96
Whatever it is that I do for general ed is exactly what I do for special ed because the
teachers get to interchange strategies with one another, and I tend to promote that. And so
there's some strategies that our special ed teachers are equipped with that can be very
beneficial, you know in general ed classrooms, and then vice versa. I want the teachers to
be equipped to prepare or to plan instruction, thinking and having in mind what that
expectation is. Because I always tell them, you know, "Being in a special ed program, we
always need to keep in mind, Least Restrictive Environment. How are we going to, you
know what do we need to do as a school? What do we need to do in terms of you know,
the teaching, and the learning that's happening? To eventually get them to the Least
Restrictive Environment which means exiting special ed and getting into a general ed."

A5: Quite a bit. We tend to have our general ed and our special ed teachers spend the
majority of their time together when they're in a grade-level planning or in PD planning.
We rarely have them separated.

A6: Especially try to meet before IEPs, just even with the ... Sometimes if we can bring
the parent in before the IEP to explain that this is ... Especially if it's like a change in
placement, or we're going to recommend different, I don't know, services, so they're not
surprised at the meeting.
Code PD-planning

A1: I would say probably that's her entire focus. While she's sitting there and the others
are discussing the grade level content like the math or the language arts she is listening to
that and working with them with the lens of how is going to be included in that? What
parts of this theme coming up is he going to be able to latch onto? From her perspective,
it's all exclusively how she's going to include her kids in what they're planning.

A2: Yes. So, it depends on the grade level. So, every other week, we have grade level
planning teacher release time, where the teachers get about an hour and a half of
planning. And xxxx is our RSP teacher. She alternates meetings every time, so she'll be
with the upper grade teachers for one meeting, then she'll be with the primary teachers for
another meeting, so that she has time to interact and collaborate with those teachers and
their students. About their students, and what she's doing in RSP. Then we have our
special day teachers, are set to meet with their grade level peers, so that they can work on
inclusion planning.

A3: okay. How would you say that your PD sessions are connected to ... Well, I guess
you told me this already. Time allocation, priority, and budgeting? Do you have a
leadership team? I do. I have a leadership team. I have a first grade teacher, a third grade
teacher, and fourth grade, and then my resource. And would you say that you guys spend
time really linking your PD with your budgeting priorities for the school?

A4: Well, because we're a small school and we basically have, you know two teachers
per grade level in the sense that we have a special ed and then we have a general ed, and
you know we have that. I'm sorry, can you pose the question again?

97

A5: Oh, 100%. All of our special education collaboration planning is around inclusion
especially for our autistic students.

Code PD-budget (tied to above question)

A1:

A2: I, you know, honestly, when it comes to the planning, we, it's almost like we don't
really separate out special ed too much from the other group, because everybody needs
the same learning. So it's really about how do we differentiate within the professional
development. And the bargaining units have their hands in it through the PD
subcommittee. But it, really, the direction of the professional development takes is based
on what UTLA decides, and what we collaborate on.

A3: okay. How would you say that your PD sessions are connected to ... Well, I guess
you told me this already. Time allocation, priority, and budgeting? Do you have a
leadership team? I do. I have a leadership team. I have a first grade teacher, a third grade
teacher, and fourth grade, and then my resource.And would you say that you guys spend
time really linking your PD with your budgeting priorities for the school?

A4: needed some extra time, so that was allocated for them, and how I do that is I provide
X-time. Remember it's not only back Tuesdays, but there's Saturday PD and then there's
after school PD that has been provided to specific groups or clusters of teacher's grade
levels based on their needs. Absolutely. If they could justify the need for that extra time,
then I provide the funding.

A5: Our PD sessions are based directly on grade-level planning. We make sure that each
grade level has autonomy and a say in their own budgeting and time allocation. However,
everyone's limited on how much bank time we get on our Tuesdays, so, obviously, we
can't have as much time as everybody would like because there is just not enough time
ever for that.

A4:A5:

UN-inst
A1: Maybe I don't understand the question completely, but in the way that I understand it
I do give a lot of leeway to my teachers particularly in those two special day classes for
what they instruct. I understand that with the core class there's state standards and we got
to stick to it, but primarily she goes based on what is in the IEP, and the IEP is not
necessarily the standards for that grade level. They may be significantly lower, so that the
kid can access them. She has pretty much free rein as to how she's going to get that
instruction across to her kids, so I rely on my teachers as they're charged with completing
those IEP goals to do whatever she needs to in terms of curriculum, or instruction, or
planning to make that happen.

98
A2: I offer suggestions, and one of the things that we do, and you probably have this in a
later question, or I may have missed it, but one of the things that we do is we look at,
through the professional development planning and grade level planning, we try and
mirror whatever we do in bank time, professional development, we do our professional
learning in that timeframe. And then, we plan, during grade level planning, for that same
topic. So, for example, we had a PD on restorative justice. We have part two coming up
next week. After the part two, the grade level meeting that we have immediately after
that, we're gonna be planning for the restorative justice circles. Right. So, everything kind
of like, whatever we do in PD, there's a follow-up in planning.

A3: I don't have a strong presence of the union here.Our UTLA rep, she's pretty
collaborative herself and she encourages that.She's also very much about what students
need, and that kind of drives her-.. like her, I guess, decision making?

A4:
Well, let me see. So how much do my UTLA teachers, how much input do they put on
PD
Well, on special-
Oh, I'm sorry.
-ed instruction, just special ed instruction in general. Like, do they decide what
curriculum? Do
they decide where the kids go? Do they decide ...
Oh, well the curriculum is state-adopted. None of us have control over that.
Okay.
What we do have control over is how we supplement, right? How do we supplement the
adopted curriculum?

A5: My bargaining units have quite a bit of special education ... of planning and decision-
making power. We want to make sure that we're being fair. We want to make sure that
we're being inclusive, so I include my bargaining units, especially UTLA, in almost all of
our decisions.

A6: Uh-huh. In terms of special ed. She should be in our aut core, and [preschool
00:14:01] recommended aut core. They said no. They're here.
Right.
We had an IEP recommended the same thing.
Right.
They're not listening.
Right.
This is a ... I feel like it's a ... Yes, it's we have to preserve the right of that child, but now,
it's getting to a point of you're affecting the teacher's ability to teach this class... And the
other students' ability to learn. At what point do we say enough is enough? This isn't
working out for anybody, especially to your child. It is a disservice to your child. I don't
know how I would put a percentage on it, but I would say that if after a certain number of
assessments, or a certain number of years, or after some period of time, if nothing is

99
changing, then I feel like there has to be more power at the school side to say, "This is a
disservice to everybody, even your child."

UN-hiring
A1:I don't know if this is exactly what you're getting at, but the bargaining unit does have
specifications in the contract about seniority. It does cross my mind when I'm hiring
somebody where that seniority level fits into the entire scheme of my faculty, and what
that could mean several years down the road whether our school increases or decreases in
enrollment, how that dynamic fits with the entire faculty as a whole.

A2: I do, because they are always part of the hiring [inaudible 00:13:23]. Ultimately the
decision, the final decision is mine, but we try and come to consensus as a team. I try not
to overstep. I make sure that everyone is on the same page.

A3: I don't have a strong presence of the union here.Our UTLA rep, she's pretty
collaborative herself and she encourages that.She's also very much about what students
need, and that kind of drives her-... like her, I guess, decision making?

A4: I think there is a very unique trust and rapport that my teachers and I have. And
again, because of how small we are, and just how fast paced things are going, and not to
add one more thing for them to be part of or to do, so far I'm very transparent as to what
the criteria might be for whoever I'm hiring. And I'm transparent in speaking, but most of
the decisions in terms of hiring is me. I do get input, I do take input. And I do consider
input, I do it very again, organically. But at the end of the day I'm the one that makes the
ultimate decision.

A5: I do almost all of the teacher hiring. However, whenever there's a vacancy, my union
chairs will sit in on the application weeding process and they'll help me bring the
applicant pool down to the top three.

A6: Okay. I see what you're saying. Well we're a pilot school, so there's always a hiring
committee.
Okay.
Which includes myself, my coordinator, and usually we also have different language
programs. We'll usually try to have a couple of teachers from that program, and then also
a representative from the other programs as well.
Oh there you go. Yeah.
You're talking about teachers?

UN-ta
A1: Sometimes there are assistants that really are not necessarily there to be a part of a
team, and will insist on things to the letter of the law. That makes it sometimes difficult
to have a dynamic that is flexible. When you're working in a Special Ed classroom with
Special Ed kids who have good days and bad days, or frankly good minutes and bad
minutes you can't necessarily stick to a contractual schedule every single moment. You
have to be a little bit flexible and give and take. I would say, 85% of my assistants

100
understand that flexible dynamic when working with special needs kids, and there are
maybe in my career have been 3 or 4, over a almost 30 year period, that really don't get
that, and that is very difficult to work with.

A2: You know, they don't really assert them through the bargaining unit. It's really, for
them, it's about the breaks, and the lunch, right?Like making sure that they take their
breaks when they're supposed to, and that they're, they leave when they're supposed to,
and they come on time. When it comes to the actual work that they're doing, one thing
that's been really great is they're super-flexible. We've had some really challenging
students this year, and I've been able to pull aides from one class or another to support
where we need them, for safety.

A3: I get to see the big picture and then they see only their class. So whatever they see as
a need for them may not necessarily be a need for everybody. And so, then I can deal
with that teacher in a different way and provide them with different resources then the
rest of the staff. If that makes sense?Talk to me about teacher hiring at your school.
Would you say that you allow for the teachers to have kind of more of a say in your
hiring priorities? Or would you say that it's primarily on you? I would say it is 50/50.

A4: So my school, you know people feel, you know people have union pride if you want
to say that but that doesn't drive my school climate, or my employees, or my TAs.
Okay.
You know, they're here for students, they're passionate, they're about students and our
climate is not about like, "Oh, well let me see what the contract says." It's like, "No, we're
going to do what's right for kids." And we all agree and that's our team. That's our

A5: My TAs are amazing. I don't know what I would do without them. They have a lot to
say about our special education priorities with our kids, and they definitely get a seat at
the table when we talk about what the priorities should be for our inclusion kids and how
much time they can or cannot function in the general education population.

A6: I think that's an interesting group to look at, because they're sometimes just placed, or
they just come. You hire them.
Yup.
Or there's a vacancy and someone comes in as a sub, and they're just there for the whole
year. What I found with this group of employees is that there's different expectations
based on them, because not only is there the administrator, there's also the teacher that
they work very closely with. Whereas our general ed TAs, they rotate. They work with
four, five different teachers, but these special ed assistants are just in that class.
Right.
I think there's a balance between like giving the teacher a little bit of autonomy and
freedom over how they're utilizing their assistants versus us saying, "Can you do this for
us? Can you do this? Can you supervise this area?" That's where we've had some issues,
where they'll push back a little saying, "Well that's not what I normally do."

101
UN-lslc (linked to above question)
A1: N/A

A2: You know, they don't really assert them through the bargaining unit. It's really, for
them, it would be about the breaks, and the lunch, right?

A3: I just don't ... I wouldn't even know how to answer that, right?I think that if they had
a stronger presence and ... Maybe it would affect? But I feel like it doesn't. That everyone
here is operating under the ... Or, making decisions based on what students need and not
so much on what the district is saying or the union is saying?

A4: team approach. So, yes you know, I do my best so that contracts are not violated so
that we don't have to worry about it. So my TAs are wonderful. Oh my goodness are they
amazing. I have an amazing group of special ed TAs.

A5: I wouldn't say that special education inclusion plays much of a part in the union's
decisions when we meet as leadership. It doesn't impact them directly in that they don't
need to determine the inclusion level of students before they make decisions.

UN-impact
A1: Not necessarily. I think the impact of those bargaining unit expectations has not
necessarily affected the actual functioning of my school program. What it has affected is
my ... I don't know, what could you say? My emotional stability, my emotional efforts it
is used up on worrying about how somebody is going to react, and how I can preempt a
misunderstanding, or a problem, or even a meeting that doesn't necessarily need to be
held in an adversarial way. The program itself, I think, functions pretty well because I'm
taking all the hits.

A2: They have. And one of them, the bargaining, would be UTLA. And the kinds of ...
and also, also the SEIU. And it's about vacation time or absences. That's the biggest
impact. I have, I just got my vacation cap list for my [inaudible 00:15:34], and I have two
special ed aides that have like 14 days that they're supposed to take. And that's gonna be
huge, because they're [crosstalk 00:15:42] ones. So when they leave, I get a sub in. It
becomes very challenging because the sub doesn't know that child, they don't know the
strategies that are in place, and the students who have one-on-one's have them for safety.
And it's challenging. So I'm looking at this vacation list thinking, well, when are they
supposed to take this vacation? That's the biggest impact that it has.

A3: I just don't ... I wouldn't even know how to answer that, right?I think that if they had
a stronger presence and ... Maybe it would affect?But I feel like it doesn't. That everyone
here is operating under the ... Or, making decisions based on what students need and not
so much on what the district is saying or the union is saying?

A4: N/A

102
A5: Oh, gosh, I would say that the biggest impact that UTLA has made and how we run
programs at our school is how much time they're willing to devote to the planning of
lessons, to be honest with you.

A6: Major impact ... Not really. Pilot schools also have an EWA.
Which is a?
An elect to work agreement.
Oh wow. So there you go.
But at the end of the day, if something's not working out, or they're not a good fit, they
have to make sure ... They sign off, saying, "Yes, I'm going to commit to these things
written in this document as a teacher at this school."
Right.
They're making a commitment to the school too, year to year.
Right.
They're renewing their commitment to the school. That, I think, I mean-

PAR-typical
A1: I have to say at my current site I'm really fortunate because the few movers and
shakers that I have in terms of parent involvement also happen to be parents of special
needs kids, and so many times in these parent meetings, that are not necessarily Special
Ed meetings, but just school council or [E-LPS 00:15:19], one of these parents will
candidly say something like, "Well, my son, who is a special needs kid, or has an IEP, or
has this diagnosis," and then will continue on with what his perspective is for the parent
group. Those parents have already built a trust and a relationship with the Gen Ed parents
who may not even know that that guy's kid is a special needs kid. It is really easily
accepted because the parents are very open about their kids who are special needs, and
the others are very accepting about it.

A2: Yeah. I have a coffee with the principal every month. It's like the third Friday of
every month, at 8:30. And we have the regular topics that you have at any school. And I
do have parents of special education students that attend. Whenever I see them in the
room I make sure I try and adapt and mention things that will have an impact for them, or
whatever I'm talking about, how is it, what does it look like for their child?

A3: N/A

A4: Like I said we don't tend to, here at my school everybody is under one umbrella. We
don't categorize. And so it kind of, because everything is pretty blends, you know
everything blends. But I mean, things are always talked about during, I have monthly
open meetings. You know, we have of course, our required meetings. But you know,
specifically just for them, that would happen only at the, perhaps at the IEP. But we're not
that big, or we're not in that big of a school, and we really don't have issues with
mainstreaming where I would have to hold meetings to remedy, or to explain things. I
mean, you know, if somebody has an issue they just come and tell me

A5: I'd say yes.

103

A6: That's kind of great. Alright. What would you say a typical parent meeting is like,
related to your inclusion of special ed students at your school?
Say that one more time.
What would you say a typical parent meeting is like related to special ed inclusion? I
guess this probably really lends itself to IEPs more than anything.
Yeah, I think so.
Yeah. The reason I ask is do you find yourself speaking to groups of parents ever
regarding special education inclusion, differentiated instruction with regard to special
education, you know, things like that?
It wasn't only ... The audience was not targeted to special ed parents only. We had
Yolanda and, I forget. She had somebody that came with her. They've done a couple of
trainings. This was open to all the parents, but kind of around differentiation and different
tiers of learning. It's that kind of thing we've done, but besides like IEP meetings, we
don't have separate workshops just for parents of special ed students.
Right. Right. Have you ever had any situations that were specifically special education
related that were issues with parents before?
Like a program wide kind of issue?
Yeah, or something that came up that you felt got a lot of pushback from the community.
I don't think from parents.
Okay.
We've had, you know, like with teachers with mainstreaming, but conversations with gen
ed teachers about what the right of a student to mainstream, that this isn't a gen ed teacher
[inaudible 00:25:45]. It's not something where ... If the child can mainstream, they're
going to mainstream.

PAR-protocol (similar to above)
A1:

A2: Yeah. I have a coffee with the principal every month. It's like the third Friday of
every month, at 8:30. And we have the regular topics that you have at any school. And I
do have parents of special education students that attend. Whenever I see them in the
room I make sure I try and adapt and mention things that will have an impact for them, or
whatever I'm talking about, how is it, what does it look like for their child?

A3: N/A

A4: At this time, I think I would say for the past three years, I have not experienced a
parent complaint from a general ed parent about mainstreaming special ed students. As a
matter of fact, I've maybe had one parent be pretty vocal about inclusion minutes. And
you know, that gets resolved you know because we have to really look at you know, their
IEP to really consider and see. But I'll be honest, I think I would be the number one
advocate here-

104
A5: Oh, our parent meetings run fairly similarly to other group meetings. We have them
generally meet as they have with the principal or as some other aspect of informational
meeting.

PAR-sped
A1: The only time I remember that there was particularly a Special Ed issue school wide
... there's certainly individual issues. This kid is hitting my kid, or is yelling out in class ...
usually, it's just an awareness and an understanding of what the teacher is doing to help
each child get what they need, and move forward on a continuum from where they were
before.

A2: Other than IEPs, no

A3: for example, there was ... I think right now a first grade classroom with a student
with autism who at the beginning of the year was having a hard time with the transition,
and one of the parents in that class who has an older child with autism came and was very
concerned that that student perhaps was not receiving the right services or the right
supports-

A4: So if a child can do more we always welcome more. But we also want to meet, you
know, the legalities of the IEP and not do less, unless it's going to cause an outburst. You
know, like it's going to cause severe anxiety, where it's going to be detrimental to the
child.

A5: Not yet. We've never really had to need to do that. Because our special ed parents run
so many different aspects of our school, they're everywhere, so it's really hard for us to
determine who we should be meeting out of that group. Again, when we meet with
parents, we meet with them and we discuss the whole child, so we generally don't specify
only certain kid's parents are allowed at certain times.

PAR-concerns
A1: School wide, the only time I do remember having an issue was, actually, at xxxx
when we had the problem with becoming program improvement because at that time it
was an [inaudible 00:16:58], but because of our test scores. The Special Ed group was
significantly lower than the Gen Ed population in terms of scoring, and it's because of
that small population that we were thrown into PI status. I do remember having to have a
parent meeting and discussing the "us" and the "them" mentality, and it's because of them
that now the whole school is in trouble, if you will, and how do we handle that? There
was a big concern about do we keep this inclusivity that we feel about Special Ed kids,
even though it may have a detrimental effect to the school as a whole in terms of ... what
is it? Program improvement.

A2: So you know what's interesting is that the concerns they've had do not come from the
parents of the special education students.The concerns I get come from the parents of the
general education students. Well, you have to use your principaling skills and your
phrasing, and assuming positive intention, and I just basically tell the parents, you know,

105
if there's an issue you can comeand talk to me and we'll work it out, and we'll, I have
parents write statements, and a lot of times if they can just talk to somebody about it, they
sort of let it go. If I just listen and paraphrase and let them know that I'm gonna monitor
the situation, and the classroom teachers are looking out for their children, that's the ...
and it usually comes down to what's going on, on the playground. And it has nothing to
do with the actual including piece, it has to do with-

A3: You know, basically what I say is that we're ... All the teacher, they are well trained
in how to differentiate and sometimes yes, things are gonna happen in the class where
instruction needs to stop to redirect, but it doesn't mean that that's time being wasted. It's
talking about behavior and behavioral expectations in the classroom so that we know
everyone's learning and no

A4: But in terms of having numerous complaints or ... no. No, because I advocate for as
much mainstreaming as possible. And it just happens because we're so small. It just
happens.

A5: We have an assistant principal who is directly in charge of our special education
placement and teacher training, so, if there is any inclusion issues, we can have them
handle directly with that assistant principal who is a administrator.

PAR-collab
A1: I have to feel like I have an ideal setting because I don't have to spend any time
particularly joining those two groups of students or parents. It happens very naturally,
very organically, and I haven't had any issues with division or ill feelings. In an ideal
setting, that I think I'm lucking out in right now, I don't have to worry about it too much
at all.

A2: I kind of think about them all as one. But that would be, that would be a good plan to
kind of think about networking among the parents, I guess you could say. Which they do
during the coffee with the principal. I start that at 8:30, which is about a half hour before
school starts because we wanna let parents who help with breakfast in the classroom
attend. Breakfast isn't usually over until by 8:30

A3:A3: what we do for them and how we make sure they are successful in the general ed
class. And the different supports that we have in place for them. District support as well
as other supports that we do as a school for those students. Like teacher training and what
not. But to say that I put it in a newsletter or announce it, no not really.

A4: N/A

A5: Again, we don't differentiate our different parent groups. We communicate to all of
our parents the same, and so, because we don't pull out specific groups of parents,
therefore, we devote all of our time to communicating between our parent groups.

106
PAR-info
A1: N/A

A2: N/A

A3: whenever I do my perspective parent tour and I have my little presentation for them,
I do mention it.

A4: I would get the prize. No, actually I don't ... I mean I think the only way that they
would probably be able to, there's no metric like you said, but I think the only way that
you would be able to gather data on it is through Welligent and how many minutes, the
servicing minutes, right, that get annotated through Welligent. But I don't believe there's
a metric, or a rubric, or something that is standardized or formalized that I have been
aware of. I don't know of it, if it exists.

A5:N/A

INC-success-SUP
A1: Most definitely and it's exclusively a numbers game. It is percentages of time in
Special Education versus General Education, how many minutes of inclusion, and what
types of inclusion activities. There are two questions. One question is just time, where is
the body seated at what time during the day? The other side of that coin is, is it advancing
that student's understanding? Is it helpful? Is it moving that kid forward? That's a whole
different kettle of fish that is not really rated or other than just the teacher's observation
and explanations through IEP meetings.

A2: If there is, I don't know about it.

A3: what we do for them and how we make sure they are successful in the general ed
class. And the different supports that we have in place for them. District support as well
as other supports that we do as a school for those students. Like teacher training and what
not.

A4: Because the service providers input the service minutes based on, you know, did the
child mainstream? How many minutes did the child mainstream? So, we keep record of
that.
Yep.
Yeah, we keep records of that through Welligent.

A5: Oh, gosh, I wish they did. No, they really don't. A lot of people have very different
methods by which they determine that.

A6: I don't think so. If there is, I'd like to see it.

107
INC-success-LSLC
A1: That is exactly it. It's during the IEP team meeting or during some of these grade
level meetings where those Special Ed kids are included in a Gen Ed letting, and the two
teachers get to talk. "How is it working? Is the kid accessing anything? Is it helpful for
him?" Those informal conversations are where that happens.

A2: We don't. It's, right now, as I said, we're sort of getting in the groove of it. We know
it's successful if the students are making progress on their IEP goals. And that happens
through the IEP team meetings.
Correct. And I think it just kind of depends on sort of the anecdotal evidence of the gen
ed teacher as well. Sometimes we've had to take kids out of the inclusion piece because
of behavioral issues. And sometimes we put other kids into that setting, even if they'renot
necessarily in need of it, because we want them to sort of interact and socialize with the
other students.

A3: N/A

A4: Because the service providers input the service minutes based on, you know, did the
child mainstream? How many minutes did the child mainstream? So, we keep record of
that.
Yep.
Yeah, we keep records of that through Welligent.

A5: I guess we look at the rates of goal attainment. What we tend to do is we tend to see
how many goals are being met and how successful those kids are in meeting their goals.

A6: We'll look at the IEP goals, the tracking goals, making sure that mainstream teachers
and special ed teachers are communicating about the IEP goals and tracking growth over
time. Even social progress, what are their social skills like and what are their goals. Are
they growing in that area? We also, like during YMCA, or we have a different PE teacher
that comes on Tuesdays also, so the ability of students to mainstream well during those
times, like looking at the integration in those social settings also. A lot of data collection.
I guess you can look at hard data too, looking at if the student's mainstreaming for ELD
or ELA, you can look at those grades and see how they're doing.

INC-success-COM
A1: That's an interesting question. I never really thought about advertising that inclusion
part of our school, and we should because that's a really positive aspect particularly at the
school where I am that I think makes us desirable. We are not exclusive at all, and some
schools in our area could be considered exclusive where we are really not. Maybe I need
to capitalize a little bit more on that inclusion aspect like even when I'm giving
perspective parent tours. I'm going to do some more of that.

A2: I would wanna do it, did you say when or how often?
How often? How much time, how often, yeah.

108
I would like ... three months, through a monthly blaster on our website, or just kind of
talk about what are the practices. One thing that's happening right now is I do a parent
tour every single Thursday, and I always talk about our special ed and the inclusion
practices, because I feel like it empowers, it empowers the parents and the students
around the school. And helps create an environment of empathy and compassion. And I
try and sell that to parents who have neuro-typical kids that are, you know.

A3: N/A

A4: I would trumpet as much as I can. Okay.
-because I've been at many places, I mean you know, being that I've been at the district
for over 20 years. I would say that this has been one of the schools with the most
smoothest mainstreaming collaboration between special ed and general ed that I have
ever seen.
That's high praise.
Um-hmm (affirmative), yeah. And I can't take credit because they were doing it before I
got here.

A5: Oh, gosh, I would say 80% of my time, if possible, would be devoted toward
communicating our successes here.

A6: Yeah. No, it probably doesn't happen as much as it should.
Okay.
I think when you look at a school like mine, and you look at the percentage ... You know
how some schools have a much higher percentage of students with special needs.

INC-success-RUB
A1: Yeah. It's a great idea. You have the kid who comes back five years later with his
parent when he's graduating from high school and says, "This was a success and you did
so great, and thank you to the teachers here, and look at my kids now." Sometimes I
forget to include those success, feel good stories in actual planning. I just separate the
two, this is the feel-good humanity end, and then the planning is the actual instruction
district, professional end. There shouldn't be exclusive of each other, they really do go
hand in hand, and that feel-good success should be included in our long-term planning,
which currently it isn't.

A2: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that you ask that, because we are, our special ed
program keeps growing. And I do wanna include that in our long-range plan, and we did
include it in our magnet plan that we just wrote. So we do have that in there because one
of the things that we have in our mission and vision is that all children are successful no
matter their disability or their strengths. Right. So, we just something that we put into
there. Into that planning piece.

A3: what we do for them and how we make sure they are successful in the general ed
class. And the different supports that we have in place for them. District support as well

109
as other supports that we do as a school for those students. Like teacher training and what
not.

A4: I think it's just an expectation really. It's part of our culture. Because it exists and it's
there, we just make sure that it continues. So, you know usually when you create goals
and plans is because there's a deficit and you want to reach it. I know that we should also
maybe create goals to sustain, but because it's been sustained, we just keep moving
forward and getting stronger through PD and collaboration. You know, it takes the team
to do it.

A5:Oh, you know what, I should. That's a really good idea. I've never really thought
about how important that would be for crafting my vision, but I like the way that you said
that, and I think that's something that we're going to start doing.

A6: Well the rubric would be work samples. It would even be those behavior charts that
students are using. Yeah. Yeah. It kind of differs for each child.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore how to create a successful program to include students with autism fully into general education classrooms in public urban elementary schools. By analyzing the habits and strategies of six successful urban elementary school principals, with productive autism inclusion programs, this study’s aim was to develop a better picture of successful leadership practice. Specifically, this study set out to determine: 1) What student data is used, and how do school leaders of analyze that data? 2) How much time and money are spent on teacher professional learning devoted to collaboration between special and general education teachers? 3) How do school leaders overcome the barriers created by unions’ collective bargaining agreements? 4) What are the beliefs of parents of both autistic and general education students around the inclusion of autistic students into general education class? 5) How will inclusion programs for students with autism in urban elementary schools be deemed successful? This study implemented a qualitative method, using a grounded theory approach. A semi structured interview format was used with the study subjects. Through a process of thematic narrative grouping, the study’s findings indicate that these school leaders relied on consistent and clear communication to achieve success. These principals also indicated that the presence of union bargaining units did not directly hinder their ability to achieve success. Overall, this study provides hope that future school leaders can better create and organize autism inclusion within programs within their general education classes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies to create a culture of inclusion for 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

Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

PDF

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

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Middle school principals’ impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

Leadership styles conducive to creative tension in decision making among principals, vice principals, and deans at K-12 school sites

PDF

An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals

PDF

School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study

PDF

Elementary school principals' impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

An examination of the role of high school counselors in assisting college-bound first-generation Latino/a Students in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

An examination on educational management and the fostering of leadership sustainability in Hawaiian Catholic K-12 schools

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Grass, Brian Earl (author)

Core Title 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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/21/2019

Defense Date 03/18/2019

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

Tag accommodations,autism,FAPE,IEP,inclusion,LRE,OAI-PMH Harvest,restriction

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Martinez, Brandon (committee member)

Creator Email begrass@sbcglobal.net,brianegr@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-178310

Unique identifier UC11660555

Identifier etd-GrassBrian-7506.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-178310 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GrassBrian-7506.pdf

Dmrecord 178310

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Grass, Brian Earl

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