Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make The Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make The Difference Difference
Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make The Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make The Difference Difference
2020
Part of the Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Leadership Commons,
Elementary and Middle and Secondary Education Administration Commons, Elementary Education
Commons, Special Education Administration Commons, and the Special Education and Teaching
Commons
Suggested Citation
McMillan, Megan Robinson, "Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make the Difference"
(2020). UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 999.
https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/999
by
Doctor of Education
December 2020
This dissertation titled Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make the Difference
DEDICATION
To my brother, Jarrod, you inspired me to become a teacher and taught me why this work
matters. To my mom and dad, your love and support throughout this and every other journey in
my life have made my who I am. There are not enough words to express my love and gratitude
for the gifts you all have given me. Thank you.
To my husband, D.J., your consummate love and encouragement, even in my frustration, carried
me through this journey. You are wonderful and I love you so much.
To my son, Benjamin, you are the most magnificent and important gift of my entire life. I love
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
committee. I continue to remain starstruck by all of you and the privilege to have been able to
work with you all is extraordinary. I offer my deepest and most sincere gratitude to Dr. David
Hoppey, an ardent supporter, critic, editor, and friend. Thank you for taming my “righteous rage”
and teaching me how to do this work well. You helped me challenge assumptions and hone my
craft. For all your work and support throughout this process, I am eternally grateful. Dr. James
McLeskey, thank you for your guidance and feedback throughout this process. It was truly an
honor to learn from you and have your voice inform my work. Dr. Linda Skrla, you challenged
me throughout this journey in ways I never knew I needed. Thank you for pushing me to go
further and to not be afraid of taking risks. Dr. Anne Swanson, thank you for helping me through
the initial stages of the dissertation process and your support throughout this program. Dr.
Pamela Williamson, thank you for your guidance and kindness. Your input in the latter portion
I also want to offer thanks to my friends in Cohort 26, thank you for your support and
commiseration. This was hard but it was worth it! To my formal principal, Marianne Simon, you
showed me what excellent leadership looked like and encouraged me to embark upon this
Finally, to my family, you all have stood by my side from the beginning and without you,
I would not be here. Mom, Dad, Jarrod, D.J., and Ben, you are the best and most wonderful
people in my life. I love and appreciate you all. Thank you for everything!
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Introduction .........................................................................................................10
Problem Statement .....................................................................................................................24
Purpose Statement......................................................................................................................25
Overview of Conceptual Framework .........................................................................................26
Overview of Methodology .........................................................................................................29
Significance of the Research......................................................................................................31
Organization of the Study ..........................................................................................................34
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ...........................................................................................36
Historical Context of Inclusion ..................................................................................................37
History of marginalization in education. ...............................................................................37
Education in segregated classrooms. .....................................................................................38
Evolution from self-contained placements toward inclusive placements. .............................40
Understanding Inclusion ............................................................................................................42
Defining inclusion. .................................................................................................................42
Functional definition of inclusion. .........................................................................................46
Perceptions of inclusion in practice. ......................................................................................46
Full inclusion model. .............................................................................................................47
Continuum of services model. ................................................................................................48
Inclusion as a place. ..............................................................................................................49
Inclusion as a mindset of community and belonging. ............................................................50
Intersection of Special Education Law and Accountability Culture..........................................51
Increased rates of inclusion. ...................................................................................................52
Accountability pressure and inclusion. ..................................................................................54
Principal’s Role in the Effective Inclusive School ....................................................................55
Understanding effectiveness as juxtaposed with inclusion. ...................................................56
6
Abstract
these schools possess a commitment to leading schools adept at delivering high academic
achievement outcomes and providing an inclusive education for students with disabilities. This
ethical and meaningful educational experiences to all students, but especially those with
disabilities. The purpose of this study was to understand how four elementary-level public school
principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their
leadership of effective inclusive schools. Data were collected using a basic qualitative
methodology and a series two of semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed via the constant
comparative and cross-case methods of data analysis. Findings indicated that how principals (a)
defined inclusion; (b) exhibited a disposition for inclusion; and (c) engaged in effective and
an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. The
further research.
10
Since the advent of compulsory education for students with disabilities in the 1970s, the
practice and understanding of special education has evolved to become more equitable and
relevant for people with disabilities (Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 2006; Ballard &
Dymond, 2017; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003; Kavale & Forness, 2000). Moving from
educating the vast majority of students with disabilities in isolated, self-contained classrooms
with a focus on instruction in life skills to instruction on general education academic standards in
a general education classroom alongside peers without disabilities, education for students with
disabilities has made measured progress toward equity in access and experience (Ainscow, 2007;
Billingsley, McLeskey, & Crockett, 2017; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; McLeskey, Landers,
Hoppey, & Williamson, 2011; McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012; Stone,
Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk, 2016; Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006). This access,
however, has not come without cost. Effective inclusion of students with disabilities has been
the special education law, and a series of barriers framed in this study as gates of access, in order
Catalysts for the movement from segregated environments to less restrictive settings are a
series of landmark legislative actions including The Education for All Handicapped Children Act
(EAHCA) (PL 94-142, 1975), the Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Individuals
with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA, 2004) (Ballard & Dymond, 2017; McLeskey et al.,
11
2012; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011; Olson, Leko, & Roberts, 2016; Salend & Duhaney, 1999 ).
Over time, these laws built upon one another to facilitate a shift in the treatment, understanding,
placement, and education of people with disabilities nation-wide, with specific regard to
improving access and limiting segregation of people with disabilities (Ainscow, Booth, &
Dyson, 2006; McLeskey et al., 2011; McLeskey et al., 2012; Obiakor et al., 2012; Olson et al.,
2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2018; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Williamson et al., 2006).
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) established formal expectations and
thresholds for placement of children with disabilities into special education programs. The law
required written parental consent for placement, annual review by a school-based team of a
formal educational contract referred to as an individual education plan (IEP), and perhaps the
most explicitly beneficial to students with disabilities, consideration for placement in a general
education classroom. Under EAHCA (1975), a student’s IEP team came to consensus on the
extent to which a child could participate in a regular education program. This consideration of a
child’s ability to participate in learning with peers without disabilities directly addressed the
issue of access for students with disabilities through the inclusion of the concept of the “least
restrictive environment” (LRE) (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2003; McLeskey,
Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004; IDEA, 2004). As it is written in the most current iteration
public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are
nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity
12
of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary
The provision of the LRE mandate brought about questions for practitioners regarding
how to best interpret and implement the new directive (McLeskey et al., 2004; McLeskey et al.,
2011; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011; Olson et al., 2016). Educational stakeholders were now
charged with embracing an ideological shift in the service provision and education of students
with disabilities for which many schools were unprepared (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011;
Frattura & Capper, 2006; Olson et al., 2016). The call to educate students in their least restrictive
environment, for many, meant moving students with disabilities from self-contained, special
education-only classrooms into general education classrooms (Fisher et al., 2006; Gandhi, 2007;
Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Kavale & Forness, 2000). This concept was known to educators
originally as mainstreaming, and later, inclusion (Florian & Rouse, 2001; Kavale & Forness,
2000; Manset & Semmel, 1997). It is important to note that mainstreaming and inclusion are not
synonymous but that both terms have been used in research and practice to refer to the inclusion
of students with disabilities in classrooms that had traditionally been reserved for students
without disabilities (Artiles et al., 2006; Gandhi, 2007; McLeskey et al., 2012). The concept of
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms led to changes in physical
placement for students with disabilities (McLeskey et al., 2012) but once the students were
formally placed in general education settings, stakeholders were faced with a conundrum: How
were schools going to be able to meet the needs of students with disabilities in general education
classrooms?
13
The call for inclusion in the least restrictive environment placed significant challenges at
the feet of educational leaders that were further complicated by the ambiguity of inclusion as
both a practice and an idea (Cameron, 2016; Carter & Abawi, 2018; Crockett, 2002). Unlike
LRE, inclusion is not explicitly defined by federal law. Researchers and practitioners have yet to
come to consensus on a definition of inclusion and, as such, are apt to interpret the concept, most
often, in one of two ways: (a) inclusion as membership in an educational community (Billingsley
et al., 2014; Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Carter & Abawi, 2018; Connor & Ferri, 2007;
Devecchi & Nevin, 2010; Obiakor et al., 2012; Wisniewski & Alper, 2004); or, (b) inclusion as a
physical space (Artiles et al., 2006; Harrower & Dunlap, 2001; Praisner, 2003). Most educational
stakeholders tend to agree that inclusion means, at minimum, the education of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom (Artiles et al., 2006; Salend & Duhaney, 1999;
Stone et al., 2016; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011; Williamson
et al., 2006). Disagreements arise when the conversation shifts from students with and without
disabilities co-existing within the same four walls to considering students with disabilities as
equal and valuable members of the school community (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Connor
& Ferri, 2007; Lewin, 2014; Obiakor et al., 2012). For some, the concept of inclusion extends
DeMatthews, Kotok, & Serafini, 2019; Devecchi & Nevin, 2010; Mallory & New, 1994; Stone
et al., 2016). This sense of community and belonging is characterized by providing students with
disabilities the same academic and social opportunities to which they would be entitled if they
did not have a disability (Ainscow et al., 2006; Artiles et al., 2006; Causton & Theoharis, 2014;
14
Connor & Ferri, 2007; Devecchi & Nevin, 2012; Obiakor et al., 2012; Williamson et al., 2006).
the practice of inclusion from state-to-state, within different districts in one state, and even
within individual schools (Ainscow et al., 2006; DeMatthews, 2015; Florian, 2012; Gandhi,
2007; Williamson et al., 2006). Unfortunately for students with disabilities, lack of a common
definition and shared understanding of what inclusion looks like in practice allows for
unpredictable and inconsistent access to the myriad benefits inclusion has to offer (Ainscow et
al., 2006; Timberlake, 2014; Williamson et al., 2006; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995).
The disharmony in understanding what inclusion is, or should be, presents a significant
dilemma for researchers and practitioners, with specific focus on school principals, because
dependent upon how one understands a concept will determine the degree to and the manner in
which it is applied (Crockett, 2002; Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014; McLeskey & Waldron,
2000; Praisner, 2003; Timberlake, 2014). With some local education agencies choosing to adopt
the interpretation of inclusion as a physical space, students with disabilities are often integrated
rather than truly included in general education spaces and the school culture, overall (McLeskey
& Waldron, 2002; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). While sharing the same physical space as students
without disabilities offers some access to the general education experience, simply placing
students with disabilities in the same room with their general education peers does not truly
embody the spirit of inclusion as a function of community and belonging in school nor does it
offer reliable access to the academic and social benefits of belonging to an inclusive community
(Connor & Ferri, 2007; Harrower & Dunlap, 2001; Timberlake, 2014). When focused on
15
encouraging a sense belonging to a community rather than existing in a physical space, inclusion
offers a multitude of social and academic benefits to students with disabilities (Artiles et al.,
2006; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Murawski, 2009; Murawski, 2010; Timberlake, 2014).
Relying only upon the idea of inclusion as a physical placement deprives students with
Research has consistently demonstrated that the interpretation and definition of inclusion
for students with disabilities is inconsistent and often dependent upon stakeholders’ perceptions
of disability (Crockett, 2002; Lynch, 2012; McLeskey & Waldron, 2000; Praisner, 2003; Schulze
& Boscardin, 2018; Timberlake, 2014). Even though a substantial and continually growing body
of research has identified inclusion as a highly effective method by which to educate the vast
majority of students with disabilities (Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Causton-Theoharis et al.,
2011; Florian, 2012; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, 2013; Szumski, Smogorzewska, &
education for students with disabilities varies widely (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; US
Local policies as barriers to inclusion. State and local education agencies are
responsible for implementing policies that define the process of determining educational
placement and these methods of determination are often highly variable (Olson et al., 2016;
Williamson et al., 2006). McLeskey et al. (2004) cited that often, in the United States, “student
placement is not based on the individual student’s needs, but rather is most influenced by where
the student lives” (p. 114). Nationally, states include students with low and high-incidence
16
Williamson et al., 2006). Placement can vary based on any number of factors and either facilitate
or reduce access to the general education classroom based on disability category, behavioral
needs, medical concerns, or cognitive capacity (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Olson et al.,
2016; Peters & Oliver, 2009; Williamson et al., 2006). Rates of inclusion for students with
disabilities are also impacted by funding and budgetary policies that separate general and special
education (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2004; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013). In some states,
and at the local educational level, budgets for special education and general education programs
that are partitioned to foster a mindset of separation between the two departments while overt
budgetary practices like funding self-contained programs at higher rates than their inclusive
As a result of the variable nature of the structure of inclusion and inconsistent direction
on expectations for inclusion in federal law, inclusive opportunities for students with disabilities
are frequently contingent upon a series gatekeepers and state and/or local policies that can act as
barriers or bridges to inclusive experiences (Crockett, 2002; Lynch, 2012; Kavale & Forness,
2000; Peters & Oliver, 2009; Schulze & Boscardin, 2018; Timberlake, 2014). Federal, state,
district, and school-based decision makers stand between a student with a disability and access to
education in an inclusive general education environment (Crockett, 2002; McLeskey & Waldron,
2000; Praisner, 2003; Timberlake, 2014). Part of this guarded structure is the function of
government accountability, educational policy, and oversight of compliance with federal law to
provide a continuum of services that can meet the needs of students with all types of disabilities;
however, much of the conversation about access to general education settings and experiences
17
for students with disabilities is determined by how gatekeepers understand and interpret the
concept of inclusion as well as the gatekeepers’ own personal beliefs about and experiences with
people with disabilities (Ainscow et al., 2006; Billingsley et al., 2014; Devecchi & Nevin, 2010;
inclusive education begins at the state-level where, without explicit federal guidance on, or
formal expectation of, implementation for inclusive practice, more specific directives for
inclusion in practice are developed (Billingsley et al., 2014; Cosier, White, & Wang, 2018;
Williamson et al., 2006). These policies include state-wide and local processes for identifying
and classifying students suspected of having a disability using response to intervention (RtI) or
the multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) system, state-specific definitions of inclusion, and
standards in general education classrooms (FL DOE, 2016). State regulations are then handed
down to individual school districts where special education designees interpret and disseminate
their concept of and expectations for inclusion to school-based leaders (DeMatthews &
Mawhinney, 2013; Rinehart, 2017). These school-based leaders, most frequently school
principals, refine even further, through their own lenses of life experience and expectations, the
directives provided to them by their district leaders throughout their school (Garrison-Wade,
Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007; Lynch, 2012). Principals, then, begin supporting inclusion through the
filters of district and state directives, federal special education law, and their own personal
perception of capacity in or value of people with disabilities (Praisner, 2003; Vaughn &
teaching a person with a disability, has a direct impact on how likely a person with a disability is
to have access to or be successful in an inclusive setting (Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Praisner,
2003). In fact, a principal’s expectation of and experiences with people with disabilities has been
identified as one of the most critical components for deciding whether a leader will work to
establish an inclusive school climate (Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole,
2013).
desire to lead an inclusive school, principals also need to feel that they are capable of leading for
inclusion (Day, 2005; Patterson, Marshall, & Bowling, 2000; Rinehart, 2017). Praisner (2003)
wrote that “for inclusion to be successful, first and foremost, the school administrator must
display a positive attitude and commitment to inclusion” (p. 136). For many principals,
committing to inclusion can be a daunting task because most principals do not receive any
formal training in special education before being charged with overseeing special education
Theoharis, Orsati, & Cosier, 2011; Patterson et al., 2000; Pazey & Cole, 2012; Roberts &
Guerra, 2017; Zaretsky, 2004). Without training and education in how to do so, interpreting what
inclusion should look like and how it should operate in their own school is an intimidating
hurdle. Without a concrete idea of how inclusion is supposed to work in practice, it is inherently
difficult for principals to lead in ways that support inclusion, or to improve inclusive culture in
their schools, much less to lead schools that are both inclusive of students with disabilities and
19
able to produce improved academic outcomes for students with disabilities in the inclusive
setting (Rinehart, 2017). For these reasons, school-based administrators often feel unprepared to
lead effective inclusive schools (Billingsley et al., 2017; Billingsley et al., 2018; Patterson et al,
2000; Rinehart, 2017). They are unaware of how to best support effective teaching for students
with disabilities (Praisner, 2003) or how disabilities affect student progress (Roberts & Guerra,
2017), making leading effective and inclusive schools very challenging (Castro-Villareal &
Nichols, 2016; Levin & Bradley, 2019). Research suggests that most principals receive very
characteristics of learners with disabilities (Crockett, 2002; Lynch, 2012). Often, when principals
do have training in special education, their knowledge is limited to a brief overview of disability
as a whole and negotiating legal concerns related to the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process
(Pazey & Cole, 2013; Rinehart, 2017; Roberts & Guerra, 2017).
not formally trained with regard to understanding disability or the impact of specific types of
disabilities on student social growth or academic development (Garrison-Wade et al., 2007). This
lack of understanding of the characteristics of disability, creates a knowledge gap for leaders
where students with disabilities are concerned that is problematic for both the leader and the
students with disabilities in their school because a principal’s impact on a school is so immense
(CCSO, 2012; Crockett, 2012; Dotger & Coughlin, 2018). This is especially true given that
students with disabilities are being identified and served in inclusive settings at greater rates than
in past decades (McLeskey et al., 2011; McLeskey et al., 2012; US DOE, 2018) and are
achievement testing (Castro-Villareal, 2016; Levin & Bradley, 2019). Schools require leaders
that are aware of how to meet the specific needs of students with disabilities to lead effective
dilemma (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Leko et al., 2015).
Now charged with the task of educating students who, often by nature of being identified as a
student with a disability, struggle to meet academic demands, principals experience increased
pressure to move improve rates of inclusion in general education classrooms and to ensure that
all students, including those with disabilities, achieve at higher levels (Castro-Villareal &
Nichols, 2016; Leko et al., 2015; Villa & Thousand, 2017; Waldron et al., 2011). Reaching the
accountability goals outlined in both state and federal law and policy, even for learners without
disabilities, can be difficult but for students with disabilities, the quantitative achievement
standards function as inaccurate metrics that can misrepresent a student’s capacity and prevent
their entrance into inclusive settings (Ballard & Dymond, 2017). For many principals, unaware
of special education evidence-based practices and the benefits of an inclusive school in making
academic gains in teaching students with disabilities, self-contained classrooms and alternate
standards tracks are attractive options when considering students with disabilities (Billingsley et
al., 2018; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Crockett, 2002). Many leaders operate under the
assumption that special education classrooms are the most appropriate spaces for students with
disabilities because these classes are intended to provide specially designed instruction but often
demands of inclusion directives and high achievement policies leave principals struggling to re-
conceptualize their role as leaders for general and special education students alike (Lynch, 2012).
Because, most leaders are underprepared for special education leadership, they are not
adequately equipped to develop effective, inclusive schools, making their jobs even more
complicated (Villa & Thousand, 2017; Waldron et al., 2011). Reconciling the inclusion of more
students with disabilities in general education spaces and the persistent need for all students to
meet rigorous academic demands forces principals to make an important ideological decision
about their leadership and whether they will consider the needs of students with disabilities when
making choices about how to lead their school (Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Hoppey & McLeskey,
2014; Lynch, 2012). Principals influence school culture and impact the overall climate of the
school (Day, 2005; DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). By utilizing what this research refers to as an inclusive
inclusive school, principals are sending the message that students with disabilities are valuable
members of the school community (Goor & Schwenn, 1997). The degree to which principals
consider the needs of students with disabilities in their leadership has a direct impact on the
school’s culture and outcomes for all students, both academically and socially over time, by
communicating the worth of students with disabilities and their value in the school community
(Ainscow et al., 2006; Boscardin, 2007; Day et al., 2008; Garrison-Wade et al., 2007; Goor &
that principals, nationally and across all levels of PK-12 education, are largely undereducated in
foundational concepts of special education, evidence-based practices for inclusion, and have
little to no formal training in educating students with disabilities, building inclusive culture, or
creating equitable learning environments for students with disabilities, some leaders still employ
leadership practices that lead to an effective and inclusive education for students with disabilities
(Bon & Bigbee, 2011; Crockett, 2002; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Lynch, 2012; Patterson et al., 2000;
Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Timberlake, 2014; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010; Waldron et al., 2011).
Principals who demonstrate inclusive consciousness engage in behaviors that support inclusive
leadership like: (a) build inclusive vision; (b) practice distributed leadership; (c) maintain core
values that support inclusion, like open-mindedness and a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006); (d)
development; (f) use resources effectively; and (g) encourage collaboration (Billingsley et al.,
2017; Waldron et al., 2011). These principals also engage in research-based practices for leading
effective schools including: (a) establishing and conveying a vision, (b) facilitating a high-
quality learning experience for students, (c) building professional capacity, (d) creating a
supportive organization for learning, and (e) connecting with external partners (Hitt & Tucker,
2016).
effective inclusive schools, others struggle. Current literature has identified effective leadership
practices for producing excellent academic achievement (Hitt & Tucker, 2016), inclusion of
23
students with disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2014; Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Day, 2005;
McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995) and explicated how effective inclusive
schools benefit students with and without disabilities (Gandhi, 2007; Manset & Semmel, 1997;
Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 1999) but this information does not always reach its intended
audience and falls into the gap between research and practice. This is the case for many
principals who have not acquired, developed, or demonstrated an inclusive consciousness, or the
dogged determination (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015) to lead schools that are both effective and
inclusive (Cameron, 2016; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Pazey & Cole, 2013).
Research has established that utilizing leadership practices that support effective
of physical integration improves student outcomes, teacher self-efficacy, and builds positive
school culture; however, there has been little to no investigation into how principals acquire,
develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness that drives their leadership practices
(Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2014; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Day, 2005;
Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Villa & Thousand, 2017). Specifically, research focusing on how
principals’ understanding of and attitude toward inclusion influences their leadership of effective
inclusive schools is needed (Billingsley et al., 2014). Research into why, given the pervasive lack
of formal preparedness systems, some principals are successfully leading effective inclusive
schools is necessary (Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Salisbury & McGregor, 2002; Zaretsky, 2004).
24
Problem Statement
Traditionally, principals were expected to focus their attention and respond to the needs
of general education students, or students without disabilities; however, since the passage of the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and, most recently, the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA, 2015), the educational milieu has evolved to demand high expectations and improved
measurable academic outcomes for all, including students with disabilities (Artiles et al., 2006;
CCSO, 2012; Day et al., 2008; Rinehart, 2017). Prior to the passage of laws that mandated high
achievement expectations for students with disabilities, academic expectations for these students
were notoriously low (Olson et al., 2016; Timberlake, 2014). For students with disabilities,
achievement legislation ostensibly “pulled back the curtain” on low expectations and a practice
with which it once been an afterthought (Simpson, LaCava, & Sampson Graner, 2004). At the
same time, special education law aimed to build equity and provide opportunity for students with
disabilities. Under NCLB (2001) and, now ESSA (2015), all students are expected to make ever
increasing academic gains and are held to higher academic standards than in previous years
(Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015; Peters & Oliver,
2009; Waldron et al., 2011). Already contending with the pressure from structures like value-
added teacher evaluation models (Tobiason, 2019), performance pay scales (Bowen & Mills,
2017), publicly advertised school letter grading systems (Adams et al., 2016), and high stakes
testing (Florian & Rouse, 2001; Leko et al., 2015; Peters & Oliver, 2009), the task of
determining how to comingle achievement and inclusion demands can feel insurmountable
(Leko et al., 2015; O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015). For many principals, accountability and
25
inclusion law work in opposition to one another (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016). Including
more learners with disabilities in general education classrooms while also providing an education
rigorous enough to ensure those students can meet achievement outcomes has proven difficult
for that vast majority of school leaders (Leko et al., 2015; O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015).
In summary, the problem addressed in this research is that some leaders are excellently
adept at leading schools that are both effective and inclusive; however, there is very little
research as to how these leaders acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness
that enables them to be both effective and inclusive. This research endeavored to begin to
determine how leaders at the elementary level of K-12 public education acquired, developed, and
demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that allowed them to be both effective and inclusive in
their leadership.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to understand how principals of effective and inclusive
schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their
leadership.
Research Questions
consciousness in their leadership of effective inclusive schools, this research drew from several
bodies of literature to create a conceptual framework. Literature examined included: (a) special
education history; (b) research-based leadership practices for effective and inclusive schools; (c)
research into the intersection of the inclusion mandate and academic accountability expectations;
concepts upon which the framework of this research was built served to create a foundation of
intersections framed principals’ leadership demands including: (a) the history of special
education, including the marginalization of students with all manner of disabilities, and special
education law; (b) special education law and the accountability standards agenda; (c) principal
preparation and special education law; and (d) principal’s preparedness to lead effective
principals lead in a complex milieu riddled with competing demands (Leko et al., 2015) and the
To establish context for the need to implement effective inclusive leadership practices in
schools, special education history gave perspective to the educational injustices faced by students
with disabilities prior to 1975, alleviated to some degree by special education legislation (Artiles
et al., 2006; Fisher & Frey, 2003; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Paul, French, & Cranston-Gringras,
2001). Literature examining the intersection of the high stakes, accountability-focused standards
27
agenda and special education law situated this research in an era of seemingly dichotomous
expectations for principals (Ballard & Dymond, 2017; CCSO, 2012; Hoppey & McLeskey,
2013). Negotiating high stakes, high academic expectations for students with disabilities, legal
constraints, and the inclusion of more students with disabilities led special education researchers
to bring new focus on how principals can successfully lead effective inclusive schools
(Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; CCSO, 2012; Salisbury & McGregor, 2002). Research
demonstrated that principals are often un- or underprepared to lead effective inclusive schools
and that their knowledge is often limited to mandates in special education law alone (Crockett,
2002; Pazey & Cole, 2012; Rinehart, 2017); however, some principals successfully navigate
these intersections and develop an inclusive consciousness that facilitates their implementation
of research-based practices for effective inclusive leadership (Billingsley et al., 2018; Causton &
Theoharis, 2014).
From research-based practices for leading effective inclusive schools, this study shifted to
how principals are prepared to lead students with disabilities, the impact of principal preparation
on knowledge of special education, and their readiness to utilize leadership practices that were
both effective and inclusive (Billingsley et al., 2014; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; McLeskey &
Waldron, 2002). The combination of research into inclusive history and its temporal space,
position from which to explore how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired,
Nichols, 2016; Day, 2005; DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Rawls, 1971)
28
and research into the concept of an equity consciousness (McKenzie, Skrla, & Scheurich, 2006)
offered a framework through which to view the specific type of beliefs surrounding equity
needed for principals to lead effective inclusive schools, known in this research as an inclusive
consciousness.
determination to maintain high academic expectations for all learners, with particular regard to
learners with disabilities, even those with significant cognitive disabilities, and the
(McLeskey & Waldron, 2015). The concept of an inclusive consciousness includes the central
tenets of equity consciousness and builds upon the original criteria identified by McKenzie et al.
(1) that all children-except only a very small percentage, that is, those with profound
disabilities-are capable of high levels of academic success; (2) that this academic success
equitably includes all student groups, regardless of race, social class, gender, sexual
orientation, learning differences, culture, language, religion, and so forth; (3) that the
adults in schools are primarily responsible for seeing that all children reach this success;
and (4) that traditional school practices results in inequity for individual students and
groups of students and that these must be changed to ensure success for every child. (p.
160)
and includes the caveat that effective inclusive leaders with an inclusive consciousness possess
student is capable before presuming otherwise (Biklen, 1999). Inclusive consciousness also
extends ideas of equity consciousness to include even to those students with significant cognitive
default in their leadership to the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984),
or the idea that “in the absence of conclusive data educational decisions ought to be based on
assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that
students will be able to function independently as adults” (p. 141). An inclusive consciousness
focuses on creating a relevant, just, and equitable educational experience for all students with
disabilities regardless of the nature or severity of their disability or perceived level of capacity. It
was posited that the intersections of special education legal mandates, the academic achievement
standards agenda, and effective inclusive leadership practices all converged within effective
Overview of Methodology
To address the research questions, a basic qualitative design was used to co-construct
meaning regarding how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired, developed, and
demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that drove their leadership (Hatch, 2002). In this basic
alongside the participants in order to understand their worldview and lived experience in leading
inclusive and effective schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
inclusive consciousness in their leadership, four public elementary school principals that had led
at least one effective inclusive school were selected. Criteria for selection included a reputation
30
of effective and inclusive leadership, principalship of a K-12 public elementary school for at
least three years, and rates of inclusion and achievement for students with disabilities that were
Data Collection
Data was collected via two one-on-one, semi-structured interviews (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the first of which focused on understanding how principals
acquired and developed their inclusive consciousness while the second addressed how principals
demonstrated their inclusive consciousness. The second interview was also designed to answer
any lingering questions that emerged through constant comparative data analysis (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967) of all participants’ interviews after the first interview cycle, as well as to reach
saturation of data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All interviews were recorded and transcribed as close
to the date and time of the interview as was possible, but no longer than one week after the
interview was conducted. Additionally, a research journal and log were completed (Hatch, 2002,
pp. 113-114) and field notes were made during and after each interview (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
After each interview, data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser
& Strauss, 1967; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This method of data collection necessitated that data
collected were compared to determine similarities and differences, generate themes common
among the participants, and to note areas of the data collection and interview process that did not
produce relevant data. Data for this study was qualitatively coded, with Dedoose coding
software, using open, axial, and selective coding of interviews as they occurred. Coding, in this
research, referred to the practice of assigning thematic names to segments of qualitative data so
31
that the data could categorized according to similar themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
coding process was applied to each interview transcript, with the process of open coding
occurring twice per transcript and the axial and selective processes occurring once (Corbin &
Strauss, 2015). In addition to coding of interviews, field notes were made during after each
interview, a research journal record was composed, and a research log entry was completed
(Hatch, 2002). This method was chosen for data analysis for its inductive, concept-building
The degree to which this research was deemed trustworthy was determined by (a)
member checking, (b) triangulation, (c) peer examination, (d) rich, thick descriptions, and (e)
transferability (Hatch, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Peer review was conducted
by an expert in the field of inclusion to ensure the trustworthiness of the data as it was collected
as well as to ensure the credibility of research methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To add
credibility to this research, triangulation and member checking were performed on interview
transcripts and themes, while rich, thick descriptions were documented in the research journal
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Patton, 2002). Although the sample used in this research was small,
transferability was reached since the research provided enough data to produce a reasonable set
It is critical to understand why, given that most principals have very minimal training in
leading effective inclusive schools, some principals acquire, develop, and demonstrate an
inclusive consciousness that guides their leadership. Because effective inclusive schools provide
32
equitable learning opportunities for all students and facilitate inclusive culture in people with and
without disabilities beyond the confines of the school building, understanding how to develop
Timberlake, 2014). For students with disabilities, effective inclusive schools promote high
academic standards, reduce social stigma, provide increase opportunities for language and social
development, and lead to improved self-efficacy (Day et al., 2008; McLeskey, Billingsley, &
Ziegler, 2018; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Timberlake, 2014; Villa & Thousand, 2017). For
students without disabilities, effective inclusive schools promote understanding and acceptance
of diversity, social justice, and provide access to research-based instructional strategies that
promote achievement for all learners (Gandhi, 2007; Salend & Duhaney, 1997; Szumski,
Smogorzewska, & Karwowski, 2018). Schools that are led by principals who possess an
inclusive consciousness for leading effective inclusive schools and demonstrate that
consciousness into their leadership can improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities
including allowing those students to achieve closer to grade level, demonstrate higher test scores,
and experience lower rates of absenteeism than students without effective inclusive leadership
(Villa & Thousand, 2017). Students without disabilities also reap the benefits of effective
(Billingsley et al., 2014; Gandhi, 2007; Villa & Thousand, 2017). Additionally, fostering an
inclusive school culture creates a shared sense of community and belonging that not only focuses
on formal delivery of academic content but addresses the needs of the whole child by placing
33
explicit value on embracing diversity and making differences ordinary (McLeskey & Waldron,
2000).
Because effective inclusive schools demonstrate so many benefits to students with and
without disabilities, it is important to note that principals are the gatekeepers for effective and
inclusive expectations in their schools (Lynch, 2012; Schulze & Boscardin, 2018; Timberlake,
2014). Their choices set the expectations for teachers and students alike (Causton & Theoharis,
2014; Day, 2005; DeMatthews, 2015; Fullan, 2003; Salisbury & McGregor, 2002; Zapata, 2017).
(Day, Sammons, Hopkins, Leithwood, & Kington, 2008; Roberts & Guerra, 2017) and school
leadership is the number one variable associated with effective schools for students with and
without disabilities (Rinehart, 2017). When leaders demonstrate an inclusive consciousness, they
provide the institutional framework for an equitable, respectful, and relevant education for all
students (Devecchi & Nevin, 2010; Dotger & Coughlin, 2018; Fisher et al., 2003; Waldron et al.,
2011). Through the establishment and continued development of effective inclusive schools,
improved academic, social, behavioral, and post-school outcomes (McLeskey et al., 2018;
Obiakor et al., 2012; Salend & Duhaney, 1999). Principals are responsible for determining and
disseminating school-wide expectations to teachers, students, and other stakeholders within their
school (Salisbury & McGregor, 2002; Waldron et al., 2011). By leading with an inclusive
consciousness, principals are setting expectations for an effective and inclusive school
community (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000; Villa & Thousand, 2017). Principals have a direct and
nearly exclusive influence on the access to the benefits inclusive education can provide to all
34
students (Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Rinehart, 2017). Because principals have the potential to be
singularly influential for students, with and without disabilities, it is critical to understand why,
given similar levels of formal instruction in teaching and leading students with disabilities, some
leaders, even within the same state, acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive
consciousness impacted their leadership of effective inclusive schools. Chapter Two provides a
review of literature into salient themes that underpin the research questions and speak to the state
that gives context to the complicated nature of principals’ roles and responsibilities in effective
inclusive schools including the historical context of inclusion, models of inclusive education,
accountability pressures, the intersection of special education law with accountability, principals’
roles in inclusive schools, and principal preparation are among the crucial concepts explicated in
Chapter Two. Chapter Three provides an in-depth explanation of the research design and
inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership in effective inclusive schools. Rationale for
the selection of effective inclusive leaders, the study design, data collection and analysis
methods, and other methodological structures are explained to bring clarity of understanding to
the research process of the study. Chapter Four offers a detailed explanation of the findings of
35
the research and Chapter Five provides a discussion of results, implications, limitations, and
Chapter Summary
pressures the combination bring to school principals is broadly shared experience among
principals in public schools across the United States (Day et al., 2008; Esposito, Tang, &
Kulkarni, 2019). With so many K-12 school principals underprepared to lead students with
disabilities in ways that are both inclusive and effective, it is critical that research identify the
secret to some leaders’ success. By determining how principals acquire, develop, and
demonstrate an inclusive consciousness, research can begin to demystify the ability to meet both
high academic achievement standards and provide an equitable, inclusive education for students
with disabilities.
36
For nearly half of a century, since the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA, 1975), schools, districts, and educational stakeholders have been charged
with providing students with disabilities an equitable and appropriate education. Inclusion of
students with disabilities in general education contexts alongside students without disabilities is a
central tenet of this quest for equity in education and, as such, has gained increased attention in
educational research and practice throughout the last several decades (IDEA, 2004). At present,
more students with disabilities are being included in general education classrooms than at any
other point in American history (USDOE, 2018). Simultaneously, students with disabilities,
previously excluded from many academic accountability measures, are now included in
& Nichols, 2016; Rinehart, 2017). The increase in the inclusion of students with disabilities in
general education contexts has created a challenge for school principals (Bai & Martin, 2015;
DeMatthews, Kotok, & Serafini, 2019). Principals with limited knowledge of special education,
who are largely unprepared to lead students with disabilities, are tasked with both effectively
leading schools that meet accountability expectations and including students with disabilities
alongside peers without disabilities (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Florian & Rouse, 2001; Hoppey &
McLeskey, 2013). This review of literature examined existing knowledge in current literature to
bring context to the complicated nature of principals’ roles and responsibilities with limited
knowledge of special education leadership and/or practice leading schools that are both effective
and inclusive. The historical context of inclusion, models of inclusive education, academic
37
accountability pressures, the intersection of special education law with accountability, principals’
While inclusive education and effective leadership for inclusive schools are gaining
increased attention in literature (Billingsley, DeMatthews, Connally, & McLeskey, 2018; Fan et
al., 2019; Theoharis, Causton, & Tracy-Bronson, 2016), inclusion has not always been a priority
in the field of special education (Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 2006; Connor & Ferri,
2007; Kavale & Forness, 2000). To build context for principals’ effective and inclusive dilemma,
this review addresses significant themes in the history of special education that led to inclusion
(Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Connor & Ferri, 2007; Harrower & Dunlap, 2001) and explains the
current state of inclusive education; specifically, the history of special education in the United
States including marginalization of people with disabilities and the evolution of special education
History of marginalization in education. Prior to the passage of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act in 1975 (EAHCA, 1975), students with disabilities were not legally
provided with any type of mandatory education or special education services (Mallory & New,
1994; Paul, French, & Cranston-Gringras, 2001; Stone, Sayman, Carrero, & Lusk, 2016).
Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, and Rentz (2006) noted that before EAHCA (1975), “more
than half of all students with disabilities were receiving no educational services” (p. 347).
Students with disabilities were frequently educated separately from non-disabled peers and many
were not educated at all (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Many children with disabilities were sent to
institutions, asylums, and other non-educational facilities that physically segregated them from
38
the rest of society for the majority of their lives (Stone et al., 2016). Paul et al. (2001) recalled
“psychiatric hospitals and centers for people with developmental disabilities as…monstrosities
where people were abused and neglected in what came to be known as ‘snake pits’ and
‘purgatory’” (p. 3). Williamson et al. (2006) referred to these institutions as “sterile” and
“dehumanizing” (p. 347). Cultural perception of disability mirrored the educational options
provided to students with readily identifiable disabilities (physical or cognitive) in that there was
little expectation of any reasonable capacity for academic learning and no perceived need to
provide access to a traditionally educative environment (Ainscow, 2007; Paul et al., 2001; Stone
et al., 2016). Ainscow et al. (2006) noted that students with significant disabilities were “not
commonly recognized as valuable (or even legitimate) members of schools” (p. 70).
public education under EAHCA (1975), students with disabilities were eligible to receive an
education in their neighborhood schools but were often housed in segregated, or self-contained,
classrooms where all students in the class were students with disabilities (Connor & Ferri, 2007).
Kavale and Forness (2000) offered that the rationale for educating students with disabilities in
self-contained classrooms included several benefits like a “low teacher-pupil ratio, specially
increased curricular emphasis on social and vocational goals” (p. 280). On the other hand,
students placed in self-contained settings, often have little to no interaction with same-aged peers
without disabilities (Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003). That lack of exposure to their peers and
the general education classroom precludes students with disabilities obtaining the academic and
social benefits available in the inclusive classroom (Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, &
39
Cosier, 2011; Theoharis, Causton, & Woodfield, 2015). Causton and Theoharis (2014) best
education classrooms where there is little evidence of success. Rather than focusing on
the individual needs of the student and the family preference for placement, some schools
and districts continue to follow an outdated model wherein disability labels, perceived
intellectual levels, and physical needs drive educational placements. (p. 32)
their lack of capacity to demonstrate true advantages for students with disabilities, their habit of
removing students with disabilities from the school community, lack of structure, meaningless
curriculum, and limited interaction with certified special education teachers. These authors also
observed that an endorsement of self-contained settings is challenging in that nearly all of the
educational benefits touted to serve students in special education classrooms could easily be
transplanted into inclusive settings without compromising the integrity of the students’
education. Because self-contained classrooms often fail to deliver the results promised under the
model (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011) and due to the widely reported academic, social, and
behavioral benefits of inclusion, the field of special education has been experiencing a gradual
shift toward a more inclusive model (Frattura & Capper, 2006; Gilmour, 2018; Theoharis et al.,
today, there is more awareness and discussion of inclusion, its implementation is still highly
variable (Cosier, White, & Wang, 2018; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; Timberlake, 2014;
Williamson et al., 2006). Rates of inclusion are often dependent upon state policy and leaders’
attitudes at all levels of access to the inclusive classroom (Billingsley et al., 2018; McLeskey et
al., 2004; McLeskey et al., 2011; Praisner, 2003). However, after EAHCA (1975), several
landmark Supreme Court decisions, and several reauthorizations of the law, educational
expectations for students with disabilities slowly began to shift toward including more students
with disabilities in general education classrooms (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Gilmour, 2018;
McLeskey, Billingsley, & Ziegler, 2018; US DOE, 2018). For example, the 1980s saw the
classrooms through the provision of special education in resource rooms. Resources rooms were
meant to serve as spaces where students with disabilities could receive intensive specialized
instruction but be removed from their general education placement only as long as necessary
(Kavale & Forness, 2000; Manset & Semmel, 1997). The 1980s and the REI also saw the advent
and proliferation of terms like “integration” and “mainstreaming” to refer to physical placement
of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, focusing more on where students
were placed than the services they received (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Kavale & Forness, 2000).
McLeskey, Landers, Hoppey, and Williamson (2011) explained that, despite support for the
movement, research into the REI demonstrated little progress toward educating students with
disabilities in less restrictive settings. For students with learning disabilities, between 1979 and
1989, McLeskey et al. (2011) noted that placement in more restrictive educational environments
41
increased by 25 percent. Additionally, Brinker and Thorpe (1984) lamented that inclusion of
students with significant disabilities was more the exception than the rule under these policies.
With little movement to less restrictive settings, special education experienced great
tension between proponents of full inclusion and those in support of the REI (Kavale & Forness,
2000). McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, and Hoppey (2012), citing Reynolds and Birch (1977)
offered a less polarizing view of the history of special education and its evolution toward
inclusivity asserting that the history of special education has a steady trend moving toward
progressive inclusion. To support this argument, Dukes, Darling, and Bielskus-Barone (2017)
stated that, for students with significant cognitive disabilities “low expectations, lack of
knowledge, and other factors…have changed over time, replaced by a fundamental belief that
students can learn and deserve instruction” (p. 144). However, students with significant cognitive
disabilities still currently experience lower rates of inclusion and access to general education
(Timberlake, 2014; US DOE, 2018; Williamson et al., 2006), as do other students with higher
incidence disabilities, dependent upon policy makers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions of disability
(Connor & Ferri, 2007; Florian, 2012; Praisner, 2003; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). Without
direction and consensus on who should be included and how that inclusion should work,
variability remains high, even when rates of general education placement appear to be growing
(McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004; McLeskey et al., 2011; USDOE, 2018).
Bearing all of this history in mind, it is clear that there is still a significant work to be done and
research to be conducted with regard to effectively including students with disabilities; however,
since 1975, the field has made marked progress in moving from institutionalization to attempting
Understanding Inclusion
education (DeMatthews, 2015; Kavale & Forness, 2000). Artiles et al. (2006, p. 65) called
inclusion “a highly visible yet contentious notion” that is controversial in the world of special
education for varying “conceptual, historical, and pragmatic reasons”. Definitions, perceptions,
and practical models of inclusion are abundant and, often polarizing (Carter & Abawi, 2018;
Zaretsky, 2004). Unfortunately, these differences in opinion on all sides create confusion and
lack of consensus that cause more than a few issues for how to effectively educate students with
disabilities (Cameron, 2016; DeMatthews, 2015; Patterson, Marshall, & Bowling, 2000). Some
of the more widely recognized conceptual divides include defining inclusion, determining who is
included, and how students with disabilities are positioned within the culture of their school.
(DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; Zaretsky, 2004). Extant literature
discusses inclusion as a theory and as a practice (Ainscow, 2007; Ainscow et al., 2006;
Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Mallory & New, 1994). There is a myriad of definitions for the
concept and deep dividing lines between the theory and practice of inclusion. Ainscow et al.
(2006) wrote that “there is no one perspective on inclusion within a single county or school” (p.
14). Further, these scholars synthesized the literature to identify six discrete interpretations of
inclusion including: (a) inclusion as a concern with students with disabilities and others
exclusion; (c) inclusion in relation to all groups seen as being vulnerable to exclusion; (d)
43
inclusion as developing the school for all; (e) inclusion as ‘Education for All’; and (f) inclusion
In presenting these six definitions, Ainscow et al. (2006) sought to address the most
disabled students categorized as “having special education needs” speaks to a widely held belief
that inclusion is about having a disability label and educating students with identified disabilities
in neighborhood or “regular” schools that serve primarily students without disabilities. Inclusion
as a response to disciplinary exclusion supports the idea that inclusion is meant to prevent
students with disabilities, specifically those with emotional and behavioral disabilities, from
being removed from school through disciplinary action and thereby preventing them from
receiving a free appropriate public education. Inclusion as about all groups vulnerable to
19) for any group that may be vulnerable to exclusion, like students with disabilities.
These authors (2006), apart from looking at inclusion on the personal level, defined the
concept, what it means for education, and how it addresses the needs of all students. Inclusion as
the promotion of the school for all looks at inclusion as a way to ensure that the needs of all
students are able to be met in any public school. This definition alludes to the tendency of private
schools to exclude students with special needs and provides parents a solution that serves a
diverse community. Inclusion as “Education for All” is a specific critique of UNESCO’s (2000)
“Education for All” declaration and the degree to which students with disabilities are not
included in education to the extent that other marginalized groups may be and offered that the
understanding of “All” in the policy should be expanded to include people with disabilities and
44
the opportunity to participate more fully in their communities. Ainscow et al.’s (2006) sixth and
final definition of inclusion, inclusion as a principled approach to education and society, posited
that inclusion should encompass all aspects of their earlier definitions and be used to demonstrate
Cameron (2016) echoed the sentiment of Ainscow et al. (2006) and their call to envision
inclusion as an essential component of community and access. This author defined inclusion as
Theoharis, Bull, Cosier, and Dempf-Aldrich (2011) functionally defined inclusion as “providing
each student with the right to an authentic sense of belonging to an inclusive school classroom
community where difference is expected and valued” (p. 195). Gilmour (2018) discussed
disabilities while Devecchi and Nevin (2010) asserted that inclusion is understood to mean that
children with disabilities are provided rights and equal opportunities. Despite the myriad
definitions of inclusion, Florian (1998) claimed that no one definition has “gained currency” in
the field of special education because no one definition has been satisfactory to encompass
Least restrictive environment and inclusion. Part of the ambiguity over what inclusion is
and what it means in practice, in the United States, at least, is the lack of a clear definition of
inclusion in federal law (DeMatthews, 2015). The legal basis of the concept of inclusion is borne
of the need to educate students in their least restrictive environment (LRE), a mandate set forth
45
by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA, 1975) and later reauthorized and
extended several times culminating in the current iteration of the law, the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), formerly the Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA, 1997). The LRE provision of IDEA (2004) states that:
public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are
not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or
severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
In addition to provision of services in the LRE, IDEA (2004) maintains that students with
disabilities should have access to the general education curriculum but, as Timberlake (2014),
wrote the law “neither prescribes a definition of access nor set criteria for what meaningful
access should entail” (p. 83). However, stakeholders interpreted the LRE mandate and provision
of access in the form of inclusion. Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) asserted that inclusion is
widely accepted to mean “a process of increasing participation and decreasing exclusion from
the culture, community, and curricula of mainstream schools” (p. 814). Defining inclusion in
theory and practice is contentious because there are so many differing opinions about what
inclusion is and how it should be implemented in practice (Carter & Abawi, 2018; DeMatthews
Mawhinney (2014), inclusion in this research refers to “an ideal to be aspired to and as a
pragmatic policy” (p. 851). Functionally, as a matter of policy, inclusion refers to the equitable
and socially just education of students with disabilities alongside students without disabilities in
the global context of the school community, rather than in the four walls of a classroom. As an
ideal, inclusion is defined by an innate sense of belonging and community in the educational
experience that is characterized not by the othering of assigning students a disability label but by
being included by virtue of having equal value, autonomy, and agency in the school community
overall.
how educators define inclusion, its practice is widely variable and differs significantly between
teachers, schools, districts, states, and nations (Ainscow et al., 2006; DeMatthews &
Mawhinney, 2013; McLeskey et al. 2004; Patterson et al., 2000; Timberlake, 2014; Vaughn &
Schumm, 1995; Zaretsky, 2004). DeMatthews and Mawhinney (2013) criticized the lack of a
formal definition of inclusion claiming that what has emerged, as a result, “is a hodge-podge of
practice and policy across states, districts, and schools that have contributed to
disproportionality, misidentification, and inequitable outcomes for students with disabilities” (p.
6). Timberlake (2014) warned that “the lack of consensus on access could result in varying types
and amounts of special education instruction as well as varying inclusive opportunities” (p. 84).
Even so, there are ideological lines in the sand drawn around the ideas of educating students with
disabilities using a continuum of services and the notion of full inclusion. McLeskey and
47
Waldron (2011) called the divide “a very contentious and divisive issue among special education
professionals and stakeholders” (p. 48) and Carter and Abawi (2018) cited that the lack of
definition and understanding of inclusion has caused an “ideological rift” (p. 49) between full
inclusionists and those favoring a needs-based approach. Artiles et al. (2006) further explicated
the contentious nature of the full inclusion v. preservationist (or those in favor of a continuum of
services) debate and cited that the two differing views served as a lens through which to view
appropriate norms for inclusion, further complicating the ability to understand and define the
term.
Full inclusion model. Full inclusion, as defined by The Arc (1995) in Williamson et al.
The provision of services to students with disabilities, including those with severe
with the necessary support services and supplementary aids-for both children and
free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. (p. 36)
According to Carter and Abawi (2018), full inclusion was initially used to describe the
participation of students with disabilities alongside peers without disabilities in general education
classrooms for the entire school day. Full inclusion proponents liken special education services
inclusion (Frattura & Capper, 2006). Manset and Semmel (1997) noted that proponents of full
inclusion view this method of educating students with disabilities as an ethical, civil rights issue
48
and does not require research to support the practice. These advocates also liken the lack of full
inclusion a civil rights dilemma reminiscent of school segregation in the 1960s (Gordon, 2013;
Continuum of services model. Anastasiou and Kauffman (2011), conversely, argued that
full inclusion, under the constructivist model of disability, “may contribute to not only a zealous
pursuit of inclusion at the expense of effective instruction but also to the demise of special
education” (p. 368). Within the context of this research, the focus on inclusion and understanding
it in practice is framed through the continuum model that is widely utilized throughout the
United States. The continuum of services is another concept, like inclusion, borne of the LRE
mandate of IDEA (2004). The essential understanding of the continuum of services model is that
in order to meet the needs of a student, there ought to exist a variety of services and classroom
placements meant to meet specific student need (DeMatthews, 2015; McLeskey, Hoppey,
Williamson, & Rentz, 2004). In the United States, placements for the delivery of services on the
continuum include: (a) regular class; (b) resource room; (c) separate class; and (d) separate
parentally-placed private schools, and correctional facilities (McLeskey et al., 2004; US DOE,
2018). Ostensibly, using the continuum of services, students can obtain specially designed
instruction in their least restrictive environment that will meet their specific and individual needs.
Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, under this model, occurs
49
as it is appropriate for each students’ own developmental needs and is not rooted in readiness,
In extant literature, there is significant debate as to whether students are truly being
included and served in their least restrictive environment. This debate is due to the confusion
related to what inclusion is and what it means in practice (McLeskey et al., 2004; McLeskey et
al., 2011; McLeskey et al., 2012). In this review of literature, two elements of the inclusion
definition debate emerged as both frequent and significant: (a) inclusion as a place; or (b)
inclusion as a mindset that fosters a sense of belonging in community with peers without
disabilities. Researchers and practitioners debate the nature of inclusion, making its practical
implementation difficult to measure or understand (Ainscow et al., 2006; Carter & Abawi, 2018;
Frattura & Capper, 2006). Without consensus and a universal understanding of what inclusion
means and how it should look, it is difficult to effectively lead for inclusion, much less to lead
function of a mindset that all students are valuable members of the school community (Ainscow
et al., 2006; Cameron, 2016; Connor & Ferri, 2007; McLeskey et al., 2011; McLeskey et al.,
2012; Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). Inclusion is often operationally
defined by educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Ainscow et
al., 2006; Cole, Waldron, Majd, 2004; Gandhi, 2007). Under this interpretation, simply being
placed in a classroom alongside students without disabilities would satisfy the LRE mandate and
provide the necessary access to the general education curriculum; however, as Obiakor, Harris,
50
Mutua, Rotatori, and Algozzine (2012) noted, “the student’s presence alone in general education
classrooms is not to be construed as de facto access to the curriculum” (p. 480). Vaughn and
Schumm (1995) observed that place was becoming more a part of the issue of defining inclusion
and wrote about the confusion surrounding whether inclusion meant special education service
delivery in the general education classroom or if physical inclusion was sufficient to improve
student outcomes. This confusion about place or process has persisted in more recent literature.
Kurth, Lyon, and Shogren (2015) cited that “placing students with disabilities in a general
education setting can increase learning expectations for all students” (p. 262) and continued to
explain that those outcomes may be more related to the what and how (differentiation and/or
effective supports) of student learning than the where (classroom placement). McLeskey et al.
(2012) wrote that “advocates for inclusion have erred by placing too much emphasis on the place
an education occurs and not enough emphasis on the quality of instruction and educational
outcomes for instruction” (p. 132). Hoppey and McLeskey (2014) further underlined this point in
their assertion that “setting may not be the primary variable, but rather what happens in the
setting” that makes the difference for students with disabilities and successful inclusive
programs.
belonging to the community so that a class is structured to meet the needs of all its students”.
Falvey, Givner, Villa, and Thousand (2017) conceptualized inclusion as a “way of life” (p. 15).
Specifically, these authors asserted that “inclusion is not a programmatic set of special strategies,
but rather a way of life that is based upon the belief that each individual is valuable and belongs”
51
(p. 15). Billingsley, McLeskey, and Crockett (2017) discussed the inclusive school as a place that
builds community through ensuring students with disabilities are valued and active participants
throughout their school day. Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) attested that focusing on acceptance
and belonging of students with disabilities is critical as an ever-increasing number of students are
included in general education classrooms alongside peers without disabilities (US DOE, 2018).
Embedded within the concept of mindset for community and belonging, extant literature focused
on conceptualizing inclusion within the context of the inclusive school. When exploring how to
build inclusive schools, Salend and Duhaney (1999) defined inclusion as “a movement that seeks
to create schools and other social institutions based on meeting the needs of all learners as well
as respecting and learning from each other’s differences” (p. 114). Creating that movement of
mindset for community and belonging as a method for understanding inclusion has been
investigated by researchers like McLeskey and Waldron (2011) who defined successful schools
as those schools that provide support for and consider the needs of students with disabilities in
building and sustaining school culture. Additionally, Villa and Thousand (2017) offered that
without an inclusive mindset, that values all students, including those with disabilities, or
supports to facilitate an inclusive culture, schools tacitly teach students that they must earn the
to provide equitable and inclusive education for all students including students with disabilities
(Cameron, 2016; Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; Levin & Bradley, 2019). Special education
law mandates educating students with disabilities in the LRE as well as the FAPE provision of
the law; however, other legislation highlights accountability policies and expectations for all
students (CCSO, 2012; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015).
The pressure for schools to be both effective and inclusive has fashioned a seemingly
dichotomous dilemma within which schools are expected to include students with disabilities at
progressively increased rates while also producing high test scores from students with and
Increased rates of inclusion. Special education law and policy, specifically IDEA
(2004), has had a direct and dramatic impact on increasing the number of students with
disabilities being educated in general education settings. According to the United States
Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (2018), in 2016, 94.9 percent of students with
disabilities, served under IDEA (2004), were included in the general education classroom for at
least some portion of the school day. In the same year, 63.1 percent of students, ages 6 through
21, were educated in the general education classroom alongside peers without disabilities for 80
percent or more of the school day. From 2007 until 2016, the percentage of students with
disabilities being educated in the general education classroom for 80 percent or more of their
school day increased from 57.2 percent to 63.1 percent (US DOE, 2018, p. xxvii). These figures
represent an upward trajectory from past rates of inclusion but still demonstrate a slow climb.
From 1990-1991, the number of students with disabilities receiving their education in a general
education classroom was reported at 32.8 percent (US DOE, 1997, pp. III-3-III-4). During the
53
1994-1995 school year, 44.9 percent of students with disabilities were receiving their education
in a general education classroom even though 95 percent of those students were attending
neighborhood schools. After the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), in the Fall of 2012, 61.5
percent of students were receiving their education in a general education setting for more than 80
percent of their school day with 94.8 percent of students being included for some portion of the
While the rates of inclusion for students with disabilities are trending upward, there is
still significant concern regarding who gets included. In the United States Department of
Education’s 19th Annual Report to Congress, the authors summarized, “gradual progress has
been made toward serving larger percentages of students with disabilities in regular class
placements, resource rooms, and regular schools. However, that progress has been somewhat
inconsistent across disability groups, age groups, and States” (p. III-5). Dependent upon the
nature and severity of a student’s disability, their opportunity for placement in a general
education classroom has varied widely over time. From 1994-1995, only 9.7 percent of students
compared to 17 percent in 2016 (US DOE, 2018). Conversely, between 1994-1995, 21 percent of
students with a specific learning disability were included in general education classrooms as
compared to 70.8 percent in 2016 (US DOE 1997; US DOE, 2018). Whether a function of bias,
lack of training in how to include students with significant disabilities, or any other factor, there
is still a sizable amount of work to be done to continue to increase rates of inclusion across all
categories and across all states and territories within the United States (McLeskey et al., 2011;
Accountability pressure and inclusion. Along with the increased rates of inclusion of
students with disabilities comes increased pressure on schools to adequately meet the needs of
these students with regard to special education services but also to fulfill achievement mandates
first under NCLB (2001) and now under ESSA (2015). Ainscow et al., (2006) explained the
conundrum facing inclusive education: “inclusion and the standards agenda are in conflict
because they imply different views of what makes an improved school, different ways of
thinking about achievements and different routes for raising them” (p. 12). Similarly, Frick,
Faircloth, and Little (2012) asserted that under IDEA (2004), administrators face pressure to
focus meeting the needs of the student with a disability while simultaneously improving
achievement for the student body as a whole. At the intersection of special education law and the
standards agenda, principals must pursue avenues to marry inclusive policy and practice with the
stringent academic demands of high stakes accountability to stay legally compliant (Thompson,
2017). McLeskey, Waldron, and Redd (2014) wrote that “these mandates have put pressure on
schools to be both equitable and excellent in addressing the needs of all students” (p. 59). The
intersection of special education law and general education accountability policy creates a
specific sort of challenge for leaders because, as McLeskey et al. (2014) noted, there is little
evidence in the United States that schools have been able to be both academically excellent and
highly inclusive.
Evaluating the principal’s dilemma, Day et al. (2008) explained the difficulty in attaining
School leaders are, therefore, held accountable for school performance through a highly
setting for each school, the publication of exam results and a national expectation regime
implies that certain students do not have value. Ignoring either or both violates federal law. The
inclusion and standards agendas, as explained by Frick et al. (2012), “pit the collective and
individual needs of students against each other in the drive to obtain adequate yearly progress
The difference-maker in effective inclusive schools is the school principal (CCSO, 2012;
Fullan, 2003; Waldron et al., 2011). Roberts and Guerra (2017) wrote that principal leadership is
second only to a teacher’s influence on student learning. This research confirmed Day et al.’s
(2008) assertion that “school leadership is second only to classroom instruction as an influence
on student learning” (p. 5). A principal’s impact on setting vision and expectation for schools is
evident in extant literature for education, overall, but is emerging as a theme in literature on
inclusion. Waldron, McLeskey, and Redd (2011) noted that “evidence is also beginning to
emerge regarding the important role that the principal can play in the development of inclusive
schools” (pp. 51-52). Praisner (2003) wrote that, “for inclusion to be successful, first and
foremost, the school administrator must display a positive attitude and commitment to inclusion”
(p. 136). Principals also play a significant role in making sure that inclusive programs are
sustained over time (Billingsley et al., 2018; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DeMatthews, 2015;
effectiveness, throughout extant literature, is often understood to mean schools and leaders adept
at reaching academic achievement goals (DeMatthews, 2015; Hawley & Rollie, 2007; Hoppey &
McLeskey, 2013; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Manset & Semmel, 1997). Hehir and Katzman
(2012), identified effective inclusive schools through four criteria, deeming effective schools to
be schools with “higher large-scale test scores for students with disabilities as well as those
without disabilities than what would be predicted by socioeconomic class, race, and disability”
(p. xix). These authors also required test scores to have remained high for at least three years.
effective, schools needed to demonstrate an achievement gap between students with disabilities
and students without disabilities that was less than 10% of the district-wide gap in the same
populations. Principals of effective inclusive schools understand that effectiveness applies to all
students, not just those without disabilities (Hehir & Katzman, 2012).
Frequently, there is some quantitative metric that defines whether a school or a leader is
effectively educating students with disabilities that factors into the degree to which the school is
considered effective. For the purposes of this research, existing literature informed the
scores and other quantitative data deemed relevant by educational stakeholders at the federal,
57
state, district, or school levels (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; DeMatthews, 2015; ESSA,
stakeholders responsible in building effective inclusive schools, extant literature is clear that
principals play a critical role in establishing and maintaining schools that successfully
students with disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2018; Rinehart, 2017; Theoharis et al., 2015).
Research draws attention to the evolving role of the principal in the era of standards-based
education classrooms (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; Lynch, 2012). Billingsley et al. (2017)
explained that changing demands on schools, and thereby school leaders, requires intentional
organizational change and a critical look at how leaders are prepared to lead effective inclusive
schools (CCSSO, 2012). Rinehart (2017) offered that with accountability continuing to be a
priority for education at the federal level, and students with disabilities being included at greater
rates year after year, principals will need to be trained to provide services to students with
disabilities over above the compliance monitoring that is currently the baseline for most
principals (Crockett, 2002; Lynch, 2012; Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Thompson, 2017). Hoppey
and McLeskey (2013, p. 245-246) cited that principals have capacity to direct change and to
meet the needs of all learners in the school, including those with disabilities, through supporting
inclusive practices including: (a) fostering a shared vision; (b) creating collaborative structures;
making; and (e) understanding policies that facilitate school change. Hoppey and McLeskey
58
(2014) also made an important distinction that many effective inclusive schools “downplayed the
importance of high-stakes testing” (p. 23) and that through the use inclusive practices, like data-
based decision making and problem solving, the schools often experienced improved scores on
accountability measures. While there is not an overabundance of research that explains how to
suggest that engaging in leadership that supports inclusion and meeting student need will result
McLeskey et al., 2014; Szumski, Smogorzewska, & Karwowski, 2017). This knowledge that
effective supports the need for professional development on leading effective inclusive schools
for both sitting and aspiring principals. Because lack of knowledge and preparation for inclusive
leadership was one of the most prevalent themes in literature, professional development for
effective inclusive leadership is critical in developing great leaders (Crockett, 2002; Fullan,
2003; Lynch, 2012; Patterson et al., 2000; Rinehart, 2017; Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Thompson,
2017).
education have emerged as common themes in schools that have been deemed successful.
Hoppey and McLeskey’s (2014) review of the literature on the qualities of effective inclusive
schools characterized the role of the principal as “multifaceted” (p. 21). Additionally, these
authors identified inclusive leadership practices inherent to effective, inclusive leaders: (a)
buffering teachers from external pressures; (b) building teacher capacity by providing a low-risk
59
environment for innovation; (c) holding a coherent inclusive vision that communicates high
expectations for the school community; (d) balancing social equity and external accountability
demands; (e) practicing distributed leadership; and (f) developing collaborative decision-making.
Billingsley and McLeskey (2014) identified similar practices used by leaders of effective,
inclusive schools, including: (a) building vision and setting directions; (b) understanding and
developing people; (c) redesigning the organization; and (d) managing teaching and learning.
Waldron et al. (2011, p. 52) identified: (a) developing a shared vision; (b) using data-based
decision-making; (c) developing and supporting leadership roles for teachers; and (d) actively
promoting the development of learning communities as steps leaders can take to support and
Hitt and Tucker (2016) identified qualities of effective leaders, adept at improving
student achievement including: (a) establishing and conveying a vision, (b) facilitating a high-
quality learning experience for students, (c) building professional capacity, (d) creating a
supportive organization for learning, and (e) connecting with external partners.
Leaders who successfully lead effective inclusive schools also, according to Salisbury
and McGregor (2002), are visible and promote a culture of collaboration, high standards for
students, value input from parents and other stakeholders, and voice a clear vision that values
diversity. Hoppey and McLeskey (2014, p. 22) wrote that “effective inclusive schools often take
these effective inclusive schools find “creative” and “pragmatic” ways to solve problems within
the organization without allowing the tensions to develop into polarizing problems, rather, they
are viewed as complex tasks in need of a collaborative solution. Boscardin (2007) wrote that
60
practices demonstrate that “the underlying premise is that administrators who are able to
equitable, and just educational opportunities for students who have disabilities” (p. 190).
Other scholars identified similar effective and inclusive principal leadership practices
(Billingsley et al., 2017; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Day, 2005; Goor & Schwenn, 1997;
Waldron et al., 2011) but the dominant, overarching theme in literature on the principal’s role in
effective inclusive schools is intentional, active, and vocal support from principles for inclusion
in every facet of school culture and leadership. Billingsley et al. (2018) wrote that “schools that
function inclusively do so for a reason…[and] the principals in these schools were the reason” (p.
67). Billingsley and McLeskey (2014) wrote, that for effective and inclusive principals,
“inclusion was not negotiable” (Keyes, Hanley-Maxwell, & Capper, 1999; Waldron et al. 2011),
yet principals “were flexible about everything else” (p. 71). The unwavering dedication to
inclusive culture is the difference maker in inclusive schools and principals are in a unique
position to set the expectation for unyielding commitment to including students with disabilities
(Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2017; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Cruzeiro &
Morgan, 2008; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013).
Instructional leadership. Extant literature is clear that the role of principal is evolving to
necessitate that principals engage in behaviors that improve outcomes for all students (Esposito
et al., 2019; Fullan, 2003; Lynch, 2012; Rinehart, 2017; Thessin & Seashore Louis, 2020). In
addition to leadership specifically tailored to effectiveness (Hitt & Tucker, 2016) or leadership
behaviors meant to support inclusive practice (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Hoppey &
McLeskey, 2014), principals also have the responsibility of serving as instructional leaders
61
(Blasé & Blasé, 2004). Instructional leadership, as defined by Shaked (2020, p. 82), is “the
pattern of behaviors that school leaders exhibit in order to ensure improved teacher practices and
student performance”; however, Boyce and Bowers (2018) cited that instructional leadership has
been criticized in literature for lacking a consistent definition, problematizing its implementation.
Regardless, principals are no longer expected to simply manage, rather, they have been charged
2013). The call to instructional leadership, catalyzed by the accountability movement, requires
that principals lead schools that can produce acceptable achievement outcomes (Sheng, Wolff,
Kilmer, & Yager, 2017; Thessin & Seashore Louis, 2020). Additionally, instructional leadership
has been cited to have a stronger positive impact on student achievement than other leadership
behaviors (Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Louis, Dretzke, & Wahlstrom, 2010; Robinson, Lloyd, &
Rowe, 2008). For principals of effective inclusive schools, there is an understanding that
instructional leadership must be applied to students with disabilities as well as to those without
that improves the outcomes of all students (CEEDAR Center, 2020; Esposito et al., 2019;
Over time, several scholars have reaffirmed the importance of effective, inclusive
leadership practices, but added that principals, although powerful, are often underprepared to
engage in these highly effective research-based practices (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014;
Billingsley et al., 2017; Bon & Bigbee, 2011; Boscardin, Schulze, Rude, & Tudryn, 2018; Carter
62
& Abawi, 2018; Crockett, 2002; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Lynch, 2012; Patterson et al., 2000;
Billingsley et al. (2017) identified a host of barriers to principal readiness including: (a)
lack of preparation; (b) lack of experience with students with disabilities; (c) uncertainty about
inclusion and how to lead an inclusive school; (d) viewing inclusion as the responsibility of
another; and (e) concerns related to time and resources necessary to be inclusive. Billingsley et
al. (2018, pp. 65-66) further named barriers to effective inclusive leadership including factors
like: (a) attitudes toward people with disabilities; (b) myths about the negative impact of students
with disabilities on other students; (c) the lack of a clear definition of inclusion; (d) inadequate
preparation for inclusion; and (e) insufficient resources. Despite the concerns of principal
readiness in literature, special education knowledge and practice has “long been a neglected area
within administrator preparation programs” (Pazey & Cole, 2012, p. 167). Understanding that
knowledge of special education leadership is lacking, Pazey and Cole (2012) recommended that
“knowledge of special education, special education law, and legislative requirements pertaining
to children with disabilities be incorporated into the preservice training of every teacher and
administrator, not just individuals within the field of special education” (p. 168).
Although researchers like Pazey and Cole (2012) recommended training and instruction
in teaching students with disabilities for all teachers, there is a pervasive lack of preparation
among both teachers and administrators in the field of special education but especially in
inclusive schooling. Zapata (2017) reported that most inclusive schools in the United States were
Overall a lack of pre-service training and professional development has also created a
knowledge gap that prevents principals from leading effective inclusive school (DeMatthews et
al., 2019; Fan, Gallup, Bocanegra, Wu, & Zhang, 2019; Frick et al., 2012; Thompson, 2017).
Billingsley et al. (2017) cited that principals often have “little course work” (p. 6) related to
leading inclusive schools and Lynch (2012) reported that 53 percent of principals in a study
conducted by Angelle and Bilton (2009) received no formal special education instruction. On the
lack of adequate preparation most principals receive, Praisner (2003) lamented that:
Too often, principals who are well prepared to administer general education programs are
made responsible for a broad range of special education program in areas in which they
have had minimal training and/or experience…principals require specific training that is
Roberts and Guerra (2017) named principal preparation as the cause of lack of principal
capacity in effective inclusive leadership, “school principals are not adequately equipped to
oversee special education services due to the deficiency of special education courses in the
curriculum and internship of their university programs” (p. 5). Regarding this disparity in
Attention paid to the training and preparation of educational administrators in the topics
of special education and special education law has been limited. Moreover, many
building administrators have indicated that they lack the knowledge and necessary
training on how to address the needs of students with disabilities. (p. 185)
64
What is troubling is that many principals are wary of inclusive programs because they
may not view students with disabilities as “their responsibility” (Billingsley et al., 2017, p. 5).
Principals note feeling helpless due to their lack of knowledge related to special education and
how to lead schools that effectively include students with disabilities and, as a result, often
choose to remain less involved (Patterson et al., 2000). To understand special education and
inclusion, principals require instruction in special education law, evidence-based practices, and
instructional strategies that work best for students with disabilities (CCSO, 2012). Boscardin
(2007, p. 189) wrote that there is “something special” about principals who are trained to lead
schools in the delivery of special education services and to support instructional staff but these
calls to improve principal preparation have gone largely unheeded, potentially due to lack of
research into how the use of inclusive practices and leading inclusive schools has intersected
with research into educational leadership and effective schools (Bateman, Gervais, Wysocki, &
Cline, 2017; Boscardin, 2007; Templeton, 2017). Therefore, moving forward, principal
preparation programs and ongoing professional development for sitting school leaders must
include opportunities for leaders to grappling with understanding how to inclusive practices and
schools in today’s society (Billingsley et al., 2017; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Garrison-Wade,
Chapter Summary
Principals are the gatekeepers of inclusion and the implementation of effective inclusive
practices (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Lynch, 2012; Schulze & Boscardin, 2018; Theoharis
et al., 2015; Timberlake, 2014; Waldron et al., 2011). Artiles et al. (2006) cited that a decision-
65
powerful inhibitors or facilitators” (p. 85). The motivation behind how and why principals
inclusive schools is of utmost importance for understanding why some principals are effectively
implementing inclusion and also meeting accountability demands while others struggle. Because
programs as well as in professional development offerings for school leaders, understanding the
reasons behind why some principals possess and foster a dogged determination (McLeskey &
Waldron, 2015) that promotes effective academic achievement alongside inclusive practices can
inform the literature and make a significant difference for developing leadership programs that
enhance school leaders knowledge, skills, and dispositions for providing effective inclusive
This research utilized a basic qualitative interview methodology (Patton, 2002). In this
study, the researcher was primarily concerned with co-constructing meaning with the participants
to understand their worldview and lived experience in leading inclusive and effective schools
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The phenomenon under study in this was acquisition,
schools. Basic qualitative methodology allowed the researcher to co-construct meaning with four
elementary level public school principals with regard to how their inclusive consciousness for
leading effective inclusive schools was acquired, developed, and demonstrated in their leadership
Functional Understandings
research, functional understandings were developed for the meanings of effective schools,
Effective schools. For the purposes of this study, effective schools were defined as
schools that maintained high rates of achievement and/or demonstrated positive changes in
achievement of students with disabilities once an effective inclusive leader became principal of
the school.
Inclusive schools. Inclusive schools, as defined in this research, were schools that
consistently demonstrated a habit of and reputation for placing most students with disabilities in
the general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day (US DOE, 2018).
67
Additionally, inclusive schools were schools that regarded students with disabilities as equal and
Inclusion. The term inclusion, in this research, referred to the practice of educating
students with disabilities alongside students without disabilities such that all students felt an
innate sense of belonging and community in the educational experience that was characterized
not by the othering of assigning students a disability label but by being included by virtue of
having equal value, autonomy, and agency in the school community overall (Florian & Rouse,
for academic achievement and the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education
settings while simultaneously fostering belonging and a sense of community for all students
(McLeskey & Waldron, 2015). Principals with an inclusive consciousness possessed a stubborn
and unwavering persistence (Riester, Pursch, & Skrla, 2002) in the implementation of inclusive
for effective leadership for academic achievement of all students. For the purposes of this
research, inclusive consciousness also referred to a principal’s leadership style that demonstrated
that was both effective and inclusive (Billingsley, DeMatthews, Connally, & McLeskey, 2018;
DeMatthews, Kotok, & Serafini, 2019; Theoharis, Causton, & Woodfield, 2015).
Research Questions
The purpose of this research was to co-construct meaning with four public elementary
principals who possessed an inclusive consciousness and to understand how they acquired,
developed, and demonstrated that inclusive consciousness in their leadership of effective and
inclusive schools (Hatch, 2002). In order to make meaning and look deeply enough into the
represented, a small sample size, in line with accepted qualitative methodology (Patton, 2002), of
four elementary school principals was utilized. The sample, although small, did allow the
researcher to reach saturation and reach a point of redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
A purposeful sampling procedure was used to identify the four participants. This
sampling procedure was selected for its ability to allow the researcher to gain insight into the
how they acquired, developed, and demonstrated their inclusive consciousnesses in their
leadership of effective inclusive schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because the researcher
69
endeavored to make meaning with a very specific subset of elementary school principals,
purposive sampling was necessary to ensure that the data collected appropriately addressed the
(LeCompte & Schensul, 2010; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), was necessary to identify a unique
sample that captured the atypical attributes, including leading with an inclusive consciousness,
associated with principals who were both effective and inclusive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Patton, 2002).
To identify the selected participants from within the larger population of public school
elementary school principals, the researcher consulted leading experts in inclusive education in
Florida and solicited recommendations for principals with an inclusive consciousness, known to
have excellent rates of inclusion, and high rates of academic achievement. In addition, the
researcher consulted with leading experts at the university level with specific knowledge of
inclusive education and leadership of effective inclusive schools regarding potential participants.
Recommendations for participants were reviewed by the researcher to determine if the potential
participant met the criteria for inclusion in the study. Those that met the qualifications for
participation were contacted via email and offered the opportunity to participate. Of the eight
Participants. Four public elementary school principals that had led effective inclusive
elementary schools in Florida participated in this study. Three of the four were employed as
school principals at the time of this research, and one participant was employed was a district-
level principal supervisor, one year removed from a principalship in an effective and inclusive
school. All participants included in the study had been employed as principal in at least one
70
effective and inclusive K-12 public elementary school. All but one participant had led at least
two effective inclusive schools over the course of their careers. All participants were white
women with undergraduate degrees from colleges of education, but not degrees in special
education specifically, and had experience as a school principal ranging from six to eighteen
years.
Table 1
Site selection. The schools included in this research were inextricable from the
principals. Schools were included in this study by virtue of being the school in which the
principal with an inclusive consciousness had led. Because the phenomenon under study was
leadership of effective inclusive schools through the lens of an inclusive consciousness, the
schools served to demonstrate each principal’s inclusive consciousness and how it was enacted
in their leadership. For this reason, the schools were selected by virtue of being the schools to
which each principal was assigned; however, the types of schools included in this study varied
widely. Schools included in this study were all elementary public schools in Florida, but they all
had different characteristics. Some schools to which the leaders were assigned were Title 1
schools, others were not. Populations of students with disabilities in each school ranged from
10.7% to 22.7%. Two principals led only one effective inclusive elementary school while two
71
moved of their own volition, to four different elementary schools during their careers. Even as
they moved from school to school, the participants disseminated their inclusive consciousness
effective inclusive elementary school. One school included in this research was not effective but
was included in the table to retain transparency in reporting. The school, Mason Elementary, is
chronically underperforming and the participant was placed at the school to improve the
dramatically low performance and, after two years, the participant relocated to another district;
however, all other schools under that participant’s leadership were exceedingly effective.
Another principal, after having led an effective inclusive elementary school, was moved to a
middle school placement. Because this research focuses on effective inclusive leadership of
elementary schools, information pertaining to the participant’s one year as principal in a middle
Table 2
Inclusive schools. For schools operating within districts that practiced clustering, or
transporting students with disabilities to site schools and concentrating resources, the term
inclusive was also defined by the principal’s espoused practice of and reputation for limiting the
have been determined using least restrictive environment data that was disaggregated by school,
to identify schools with rates of inclusion that were at or above the state’s target of 85%;
however, in the absence of publicly available school-level least restrictive environment data,
inclusive schools were identified by each participant’s reputation for and history of inclusive
leadership of students with disabilities. Specifically, inclusive schools that housed a cluster site
encouraged students from self-contained classrooms moving from segregated settings into less
restrictive environments and included students with disabilities, not only in general education
testing data, published by the state of Florida (FL DOE, 2020a; FL DOE, 2020b). Because the
participants in this study led effective inclusive schools at different points in time and under
different accountability and achievement expectations, there was no fixed threshold at which
each school was deemed effective, rather, data were examined on a case-by-case basis and
interpreted within the context of time, place, and expectations for students with disabilities. Data
tests were compared against the state and district averages for each year in which a selected
participant led one of the schools included in this research. If, before being led by an effective
inclusive principal, achievement data for students with disabilities reflected low standards and
poor achievement gains and after the school was under new leadership, performance measurably
improved, the school was considered effective. Additionally, all selected effective schools had
(FL DOE, 2019d). This method of defining effective schools was selected because of the
74
variability in methods of data collection, changes in state reporting, and changes in state testing
over the span of time in which the selected participants led effective inclusive schools, which
Angela. Effectiveness, for Angela, was determined using data from statewide
standardized assessment proficiency data in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics for
students with disabilities. From the time Angela began leading an effective inclusive school to
her participation in this research, students with disabilities proficiency, scoring a level 3 or
above, on statewide standardized tests improved from 6 to 40 percent. For three of the five years
that she served as principal, ELA proficiency score for students with disabilities were higher than
the district average. Also considered in Angela’s ability to lead an effective school, was her
history of moving students in the bottom quartile of performance from Level 1 to Level 2. She
was able, with the help of teachers and stakeholders, to move students with disabilities toward
proficiency in a shorter span of time as compared to the state or district averages in ELA. This
trend repeated itself in math and for this reason, Angela’s leadership, through the lens of her
school data, was judged by the researcher to be effective. In addition to testing results, Angela
Jacqueline. Jacqueline had a reputation for turning around underperforming schools. She
led four schools throughout her career and maintained grades of A-C throughout. In one case,
she moved a school from a D to a B in one year. Though her leadership, the first school in which
she was principal produced proficiency results on the statewide standardized test for students
with disabilities at 66%, 25 percentage points higher than the state average. In her next school,
students with disabilities reached proficiency in both ELA and math higher than the state average
75
all four years she was principal. In her third principalship, lasting only two years, students with
disabilities’ math proficiency more than doubled, from the previous year. During her last year as
principal, Jacqueline was moved to a fourth school where she moved the school from an F to a C.
Lillian. Lillian had a long history of effective leadership. She also led several schools to
which she brought her effective leadership. For eleven of the twelve years in which she led at her
first school, students with disabilities scored proficiently on statewide achievement assessment in
ELA and math at least as proficient as the state average, sometimes doubling the state’s
proficiency statistic in ELA. At her next school, Lillian did not have as much success
demonstrating effective leadership but students with disabilities in her school still made scores of
proficient that were close to the district average in ELA at least one of the two years during
which she was principal. In her third placement, students with disabilities in Lillian’s school
outperformed the district average in ELA and math during her two years as principal. In her last
Pamela. Pamela’s effectiveness was evident not only in her student’s proficiency scores
on state tests, but by her school earning the distinction of being a National Blue-Ribbon School
in 2015. National Blue-Ribbon Schools are determined based on “overall academic excellence or
their progress in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups” (US DOE, 2020).
Pamela’s school maintained an A school grade during her entire career as principal. In her
school, students with disabilities outscored the state average for proficiency, as compare to other
students with disabilities in math and ELA by almost double every year she was principal.
76
Data Collection
inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools, data were
collected via two, one-on-one semi-structured interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition
to interview data, minimal document analysis of information about each principal’s school
occurred (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This limited analysis consisted of reviewing the Florida
and Florida Standards Assessment data on the Florida Department of Education Edudata portal
to determine effectiveness before including a participant in the research (FL DOE, 2020a). Data
on school grades and other school effectiveness data were also included in document analysis as
they pertained to determining an effective school (FL DOE, 2020b). Finally, data were also
collected via field notes taken (Patton, 2002) during each interview and a researcher journal and
log which were used to document the researcher’s experience and record the unfolding data
method of data collection for this research for its inherent ability to enable the researcher to learn
information that cannot be directly observed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Patton (2002, p. 341)
wrote, “the purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow us to enter into the other person’s
perspective”. Because this research was focused on a principal’s inclusive consciousness and
how it influenced their leadership in effective inclusive schools, interview was the most effective
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). The interviews conducted in this study were meant to
77
capture each principal’s ideas about how they acquired, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive
consciousness in their leadership for effective inclusive schools, an entity unknowable to the
researcher, as it was unique to each principal. Presuming that each participant had differing and
unique ways in which to view their world and their own inclusive consciousness, the interviews
allowed for flexible wording of interview questions and did not dictate that all questions were
asked in a specific order. For the first round of interviews, the semi-structured style of interview
required the same set of questions to be asked to all participants, so that all participants would be
prompted to answer all of the same questions; however, not all principals required the same
probes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Probing was a benefit to the researcher in that it allowed for
information that most effectively addressed the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The flexibility in semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to follow the lead of the
participant and be open to digressions that more deeply and adequately informed understanding
of the participant (Hatch, 2002); however, the semi-structured style allowed the researcher to still
Creswell, 2018). All participants were provided with written copies of interview questions prior
to each interview session and informed that the interview questions or direction may change
78
because of their responses (Hatch, 2002). For Jacqueline and Lillian, the initial interview was
conducted in person at a location selected by the participant. Lillian’s first interview took place
in her school, while Jacqueline’s took place in a district office of her choice. None of the
principals lived in the same city and most lived at least an hour away from the researcher. For
this reason, participants were given the option to participate in virtual interviews (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Salmons, 2012). Virtual interviews were conducted synchronously via Zoom®
using video conferencing technology and recorded with the participant’s consent. After each
participant had been interviewed once, a second round of interviews was scheduled via email.
The second round of interviews were all conducted synchronously via Zoom ® (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Salmons, 2012). Each interview lasted from forty minutes to an hour and twenty
minutes. Each interview was set to last from forty-five minutes to an hour but went longer than
the predetermined limit if the participant wanted to spend more time talking about their
experiences than originally allotted. Each interview’s length was dictated by the participant’s
responses and willingness to share their perspective and experiences (Patton, 2002).
demonstrated an inclusive consciousness for leading effective inclusive schools. The first of the
two interviews focused on the principal’s leadership practices and acquisition of their inclusive
consciousness that supported effective inclusive schools. The purpose of the initial interview was
leadership, their history, their understanding of inclusion, and how their leadership reflected an
inclusive consciousness. Interview questions also addressed how their inclusive consciousness
intersected with the accountability agenda and how they negotiated leadership for both effective
79
and inclusive schools. In addition to interview questions, there were several probes included in
the interview protocol and were used at the discretion of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell,
Because qualitative research is inherently inductive (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), and
this specific research study operated under the constructivist paradigm, it was critical that the
researcher co-construct meaning alongside participants and not assume that there was one
consciousness that guided their leadership (Hatch, 2002). The researcher did, however, assume
that a principal’s perspective was knowable and able to be made explicit (Patton, 2002). The
second interview consisted of questions that were participant specific and addressed the
identified questions specific to each participant after the completion of the first round of
interviews, after each participant had been interviewed once. Each participant’s second interview
protocol is included in Appendices B-E. Through mutual engagement with the participants, the
researcher identified themes common to leaders with an inclusive consciousness in the first
interview cycle and developed questions to address those themes more deeply in the second
interview in an effort to fully understand and make meaning of how leaders acquired, developed,
and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive schools. Some of the
questions in the second interview were extensions of the first interview protocol including
questions related to what caused leaders to be determined or why they demonstrated an inclusive
consciousness. Additional questions included how leaders developed knowledge and skills
Recording interviews. Auditory recordings of all interviews were collected using at least
two voice recorders, one simple hand-held recorder consisting of a microphone with playback
feature, the other device used was the voice recorder application on the researcher’s password
protected cellular telephone. For the two face-to-face interviews, two recorders were used to
ensure that the interview was successfully recorded, and that no data were lost to technical error
or malfunction (Patton, 2002). For interviews conducted via Zoom ®, audio was recorded using
the Zoom ® platform and on the hand-held voice recorder used for face-to-face interview. Once
each interview was recorded, they were transferred, as audio files, to the researcher’s personal
They documented the entirety of the conversation with the researcher (Patton, 2002).
Transcriptions were written into a scripted transcript format and included the pseudonym of each
participant as well as the point in time at which each response was given (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). All questions, interruptions, and responses were recorded in electronic written form using
word processing software. For the first round of interviews, the researcher transcribed each
interview by hand starting and stopping the voice recording of the participant. For the second set
of interviews, the researcher utilized Trint ® online transcription software which uses a computer
to transcribe voice files into transcripts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The researcher
reviewed each transcript completed by Trint ® and edited any errors. The process of verbatim
transcription ensured that all conversation was captured and preserved for analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
81
Document analysis. Limited document analysis was conducted to gather data regarding
the degree to which a school was determined to be effective and how each leader’s inclusive
consciousness contributed to the school being identified as effective and inclusive (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis is beneficial to data collection in that it allows for “accidental
uncovering of valuable data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 175). The documents analyzed in this
study were purposefully selected to assist in establishing effectiveness but, in one case, led to an
accidental discovery about one participant’s experience in which their leadership did not improve
academic outcomes for students, as measured by the state. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) wrote that
when using documents and artifacts for qualitative research, a researcher must keep an open
mind to what may be discovered in the analysis. The researcher in this study maintained that
open mind and looked critically at documents to determine what the information contained
within revealed about a principal’s inclusive consciousness in leading effective inclusive schools.
Specific documents analyzed in this research included state report cards provided by the
Florida Department of Education and archived testing data mined from government-provided
sources that related to a school’s effectiveness (FL DOE, 2019; FL DOE, 2020b; Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These data allowed for thick description of each
school’s record of effectiveness under each participant (Patton, 2002). Analysis of documents
were also beneficial to triangulation and supportive of participants’ interview responses (Hatch,
2002). Merriam and Tisdell (2016, p. 181) wrote, “ if documents are found to be illuminating to
the topic of research and incorporated into the process of inductively building categories and
theoretical constructs in the first place, they then become evidence in support of the findings”.
The use of document analysis allowed the researcher to access information about a leader’s
82
history of effective inclusive leadership in an unobtrusive manner and represent data to which
participants have given attention, including state achievement reporting and school grades
Field notes. Field notes were composed at the conclusion of each interview. The
researcher utilized jotting to take field notes during each interview (Patton, 2002). Taking field
notes allowed for: “(a) formulation new questions as the interview moves along, especially when
returning to a topic at a later moment in the interview; (b) the researcher to possess a written
record of thoughts that occurred during the interview that ensure that subsequent interviews will
steer future interview questions in the desired direction; (c) facilitation of later analysis,
including locating notable quotes; and (d) a backup source of data should recording methods
fail” (Patton, 2002, p. 383). All these elements of using field notes supported the researcher in
In this study, field notes were not a verbatim account of the participant’s responses, as
that responsibility lay with the interview transcript; rather, field notes were strategic and focused
so as to reflect only salient elements of the conversation that seemed critical to the researcher at
the time of the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher made notes on a printed
copy of the interview protocol and on a legal pad using a personal style of shorthand. After each
interview, these jottings were expanded to ensure ease of understanding and recollection of
meaning of the researcher’s shorthand during data analysis (Patton, 2002). The process of
collection and analysis of field notes was be completed for all interviews conducted in this study.
Research journal and research log. Research journals are records of “experiences,
ideas, fears, mistakes, confusions, breakthroughs, and problems that arise during fieldwork”
83
(Spradley, 1980, p. 71). To document the researcher’s experience throughout the completion of
this study, a research journal was maintained (Hatch, 2002). Keeping a research journal allowed
the researcher to document personal biases and feelings, in addition to providing a place to
honestly reflect on the research experience and practice reflexivity (Hatch, 2002). A reflexive
researcher, through the use of a research journal, strives to “make it clear how the researcher’s
own experiences, values, and positions of privilege in various hierarchies have influenced their
research interests, the way they choose to do their research, and the ways they choose to
represent their research findings” (Harrison, MacGibbon, & Morton, 2001, p. 325). A research
journal provides a medium for documenting these values and experiences and controls the
researcher by offering a space to bracket assumptions and create “a research trail of gradually
altering methodologies and reshaping analysis” (Ortlipp, 2008, p. 696). The implementation of a
research journal during data collection is invaluable to the qualitative researcher because the
largely to this role as a research instrument, the qualitative researcher is responsible for
maintaining a reflexive mindset and behaviors. The research journal provides an opportunity for
the researcher to be reflexive about their process as well as give and receive feedback to
In this study, research journal entries were kept in a password protected electronic
document. Entries were completed as immediately as was possible after each interview. In most
cases, they were conducted within minutes, but no more than twelve hours post data collection.
Journal entries were used by the researcher to bracket assumptions, document information that
was not audibly recorded, including body language, facial expressions, and other nonverbal
84
communication, as well as to honestly reflect on the research experience (Hatch, 2002; Ortlipp,
2008). The research journal provided a place for the researcher to document initial
perception of the participant, ideas for further inquiry, any concerns that arose during the
interview, methodological decisions made during the interview and the rationale behind those
decisions, reflection on the researcher’s perceptions of each participant’s behavior and responses
after each interview, as well as a place to document observations or ideas that had no other place
in the data collection but were worth capturing to maintain the integrity of the study (Hatch,
Separate from the research journal, crafted to capture the researcher’s feelings and
decisions, a research log was also maintained, electronically via word processing software, to
document progress throughout the study as well as to note where, when, with whom, and the
length of interviews conducted (Hatch, 2002). The research log differed from the research
journal in that it was comprised of a running record of logistical information relevant to the
study, including dates, times, and locations of interviews, participants’ pseudonyms and other
codes used to anonymize the participants (Hatch, 2002). The research log functioned more as an
at-a-glance record of the progress of the study, rather than a collection of rich description of
feelings and ideas. Both the research journal and research log were completed as close to date
and time of the interview as was possible, but most often immediately following the interview
and no less than 12 hours after the interview had been concluded (Hatch, 2002; Patton, 2002).
some degree of vulnerability due to the nature of the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
85
In this study, participants were asked to divulge deeply personal information about their personal
and professional views. To honor their trust and willingness to share their lived experience, the
researcher had a responsibility to the participants to keep their identities private to not cause
harm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Confidentiality and privacy in data collection was maintained
throughout this research through the use of pseudonyms, a series of password protected
structures for information stored electronically, and by restricting physical access to paper-based
All participants were encouraged to select a pseudonym to protect their anonymity and
facilitate free exchange of ideas and information from the participant to the researcher without
fear of exposure or retribution as a result of any information revealed in this research (Allen &
Wiles, 2016). None of the participants expressed interest in choosing their own pseudonym and,
as a result, a pseudonym was selected for the participant by the researcher. In service to the
protection of data collected, all information gathered in this research was stored on the
researcher’s personal computer that was password protected and utilized facial recognition
software to access any documents or files. This personal computer was not accessible to others
and remained locked and securely stored in the researcher’s home throughout the duration of the
study. Additionally, all files containing sensitive information were further encrypted and
password protected as an added layer of security for the participants. Passwords were not, at any
point, distributed and access to files was explicitly limited to the researcher.
collect data were stored safely and securely in the researcher’s possession. Recording devices,
including two voice recorders used to record interviews, were locked when not in use and stored
86
in the researcher’s home and/or on their person. One audio recording device was password
protected, as its design possessed the capacity to be secured with a password. The other was
securely stored and set to a lock setting. Audio files were removed from these devices once each
interview had been transcribed. Audio files were stored on the researcher’s computer and
subsequently password protected. The researcher’s journal and research log were kept
electronically and stored on the researcher’s personal computer, also protected by passwords. All
paper-based documentation, including field notes, were securely stored and locked in the
researcher’s home (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
Hatch (2002, p. 148) wrote that “data analysis is a systematic search for meaning”. The
search for meaning in this study consisted of analysis with an open-ended and inductive
approach (Lincoln & Guba 1985). Drawing from grounded theory methods, interview transcripts
were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The constant
comparative method allowed the researcher to “engage in detailed analytic processes that require
repeated confirmations of potential explanatory patterns discovered in the data” (Hatch, 2002, p.
26). Because the constant comparative method is both inductive and comparative, it has been
used widely in qualitative research to generate findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using the
constant comparative method, the study’s themes and patterns were allowed to emerge and
evolve over time to best address the research questions (Creswell, 2013). As each new piece of
data was collected, the researcher analyzed that data and compared it to emerging themes across
Coding. Again, borrowing from grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss &
Corbin, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), data analysis followed a systematic coding structure
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018) beginning with open, followed by axial, and concluding with
selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). To apply codes, the researcher used Dedoose ®
software for coding and analysis. Dedoose ® is a paid, password protected service used for data
analysis (Patton, 2002). All interview data, across both interview cycles, were analyzed and
Open coding. Corbin and Strauss (1990) wrote that “open coding is the interpretive
process by which data are broken down analytically…to give the analyst new insights by
breaking through standard ways of thinking about or interpreting phenomena reflected in the
data” (p. 12). During open coding, the first stage of the constant comparative method of data
analysis, the interview transcript is read and, line by line, codes are assigned to the data. Codes
represent ideas, concepts, and/or interactions in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016, p. 229) wrote of open coding, “open coding is what one does at the beginning of
data analysis…it is tagging any unit of data that might be relevant to the study”. To analyze the
data in this study, the researcher read each interview transcript from beginning to end and
applied open codes, using Dedoose ®, while looking for elements of the data that held meaning
to the research questions. For each interview transcript, this process was completed twice to
ensure that all salient content was captured in an open code. Initial and subsequent open codes
served as what Corbin and Strauss (1990) referred to as the core phenomenon, or a core category.
The core phenomenon is likened to a hub of a wheel to which all other categories are related
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To document the open codes, all coding was recorded via Dedoose ®
88
on the interview transcripts themselves, electronically, and subsequently re-coded during the
next phase of the constant comparative analysis process, axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
Axial coding. Establishing a relationship between the open codes, or “relating categories
and properties to one another, refining the category or scheme” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p.
229), is referred to as axial coding. Axial coding dictates that the researcher groups like open
codes together, further distilling the essence of each concept, idea, or core category identified in
the open coding process (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Richards (2015, p. 135) wrote that axial
coding “comes from interpretation and reflection on meaning”. When axial coding, the
researcher endeavors to reassemble the data into meaningful subcategories and create an
organizational scheme in the data that reflect relationships between emerging themes (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). These categories consist of: (a) causal conditions, conditions that caused the core
phenomenon; (b) strategies, actions taken in response to the core phenomenon; and (c)
contextual and intervening conditions, broad and specific situational factors that influence the
In this research, axial coding was completed once for each interview transcript in its
entirety after the transcripts had each been open coded twice. After open coding, the researcher
moved to axial coding in which the themes that were identified during open coding were sorted
into categories that allowed similar themes to be grouped together in ways that were
conceptually congruent (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pp. 205-207, 213).
Axial codes reflected a refinement, through code collapsing or data reduction, of the open codes
identified in the previous step of the constant comparison method of data analysis and led to
89
significant reduction in data as irrelevant information was culled from the analysis (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
Selective coding. Selective coding, the final step of data analysis in the constant
comparative method, necessitated the researcher taking the model created in axial coding and
developing propositions that “interrelate the categories in the model or assembles a story that
describes the interrelationship of categories in the model” (Creswell, 2013, pp. 86-87). In
grounded theory, selective coding is used to form a proposition, or a hypothesis, but in this
research, selective coding was used to identify prominent research themes that addressed the
consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. The purpose of this
study was not to create a grounded theory, but to make meaning of lived experiences of
principals in effective inclusive schools (Patton, 2002). This research only borrowed analysis
methods from grounded theory to create a framework for refining data down to significant units
of meaning. Therefore, in this research, after completion of axial coding, selective coding was
utilized to develop core themes that emerged during research. Each interview transcript was
analyzed, and significant themes were identified while others were reduced (Patton, 2002),
Cross-case analysis. Borrowing from procedures used to analyze data in case studies, the
researcher used cross-case analysis to draw conclusions about how leaders acquired, developed,
and demonstrated and inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive
schools (Creswell, 2013). This method was selected for its ability to allow the researcher to
creatively synthesize a large amount of information (Patton, 2002). The researcher analyzed each
90
participant’s interviews, assigned codes, collapsed codes as necessary, and identified themes that
were present across all four participants. Then, the researcher conducted a thematic analysis
across the four participants, a practice Creswell (2013) referred to as cross-case analysis. Patton
(2002, p. 57) described cross-case analysis as comparing several cases and then, searching for
patterns that cut across themes. In this study, the researcher was careful to provide thick, rich
descriptions of each participant and compare and/or contrast each participant’s recounting of
their experiences in effective inclusive leadership against the experiences of the other principals
in the study.
To ensure that the research conducted was both trustworthy in its aim and credible in its
findings, several methods were employed to define qualitative credibility and trustworthiness
including: (a) member checking; (b) triangulation; (c) peer examination; (d) rich, thick
descriptions; and, (e) transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Creswell, 2013).
Member checking. Member checking was used to ensure credibility and trustworthiness
in this research. Member checks allowed for the solicitation of feedback from the participants to
rule out misinterpretation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These checks were conducted
throughout data collection, once after the first interview, and once again when analysis was
completed. During the first member check, all participants were provided the opportunity to
review the transcript of their first interview and clarify any areas they felt were not accurate
corrections while all others stated that the transcript accurately reflected their intention. The
second member check involved the participants reviewing all excerpts from either interview that
91
had been included in the first draft of the report of findings. Quotes and the themes to which they
were assigned were reviewed by all participants. One participant provided additional clarification
while all others reported that their quotes were appropriately assigned to each theme.
schools insofar as the schools determined to be effective were also effective according to school
grade and percentage of proficiency on a state mandated standardized measure in reading and
math. Triangulation in data collection also included conducting multiple interviews with each
participant to determine if participants remained consistent in their responses over time as they
employed as a method of triangulation to ensure that what had been recorded and espoused as an
accurate recording of a principal’s responses were, indeed, what the participant intended.
Peer review. Peer review (Patton, 2002) added to the credibility of this research in that
an expert in the field of inclusion oversaw data collection and analysis that was gleaned from this
design and assessed the trustworthiness and credibility of the methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The expert, in this case, was identified as an expert in inclusive teaching, certified to teach both
general and special education, and employed as a specialist in inclusive practice by the state of
Florida. The role of the peer reviewer was to read and review findings of the researcher as they
were collected. The peer reviewer’s role was to assess the strength, credibility, and transferability
of the researcher’s findings, as well as to ensure that the research methodology was being
followed appropriately and to provide feedback as to how to effectively modify the study
methodology when appropriate. The researcher submitted data to the peer reviewer after each
interview, and as concerns arose, maintaining confidentiality of the participants throughout the
92
peer review process. Transcripts, research journal entries, field notes, and the research log were
subject to peer review throughout and at the completion of the study. Additionally, the researcher
submitted a draft of the findings to the peer reviewer for feedback. The peer reviewer provided
insight and direction as they felt it was necessary. The researcher assessed their feedback and
Thick, rich description. In order to impart to the reader a narrative that allowed for a
consciousness in their leadership of effective inclusive schools, thick, rich description was used
throughout this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This practice increased the research’s
trustworthiness and credibility by providing a richly descriptive narrative to explain to the reader
the context in which the interviews occurred, the atmosphere of the environment in which the
data were collected, and built context for the data (Patton, 2002). Additionally, data excerpts
Transferability. Credibility of the research conducted in this basic qualitative study was
ensured through allowing for transferability. Although the sample size of this study was small,
consisting of four participants, and generalizability cannot be determined, there was sufficient
descriptive data to ensure that this study might be conducted elsewhere else as a “working
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 254). In this context, future research should be able to identify
93
effective leaders who possess an inclusive consciousness and lead inclusive and effective schools
Positionality
Qualitative methodology dictates that the researcher is inextricable from data collection
(Hatch, 2002). For this reason, the researcher’s positionality must be disclosed to maintain
transparency and rigor in this qualitative research (Trainor & Graue, 2014). In addition to her
role as a researcher, the researcher is a K-12 special education teacher with nine years teaching
students with disabilities in inclusive settings. She is currently employed as a specialized teacher,
teachers, principals, and district staff regarding improving rates of both achievement and
inclusion of students with disabilities across a tri-county area in Florida, including one very large
urban district. Throughout her career, the researcher had worked under several principals, two of
whom she believed possessed an inclusive consciousness. Witnessing the difference in school
culture and outcomes for students with disabilities under the two principals identified as leaders
with inclusive consciousnesses, the researcher was compelled to investigate why and how some
of effective inclusive schools while others adhered more to an attitude of basic compliance with
special education law where students with disabilities were concerned. She was curious as to
why some leaders accept and expect low achievement from students with disabilities in their
schools.
The researcher has a decided bias toward the inclusion of students with disabilities and
vested interest in their academic success in inclusive classrooms, not only as a special education
94
teacher, but as a sibling of a brother with several high-incidence learning disabilities. Throughout
her life, the researcher has served as an advocate and teacher to her younger sibling, a history
that compelled her seek a career in inclusive special education. Witnessing the injustices faced
by her brother throughout his educational career, the researcher’s position in her role as both a
teacher and a researcher is that effective inclusive education is not only an issue of compliance
and evidence-based practice but is foremost an ethical imperative. Often personally disquieted by
the lack of equity and opportunity provided to students with disabilities, it is the researcher’s
desire to not only include students with disabilities alongside their peers without disabilities but
to provide them with a high-quality academic experience. This desire is a personal calling
passionately executed in all aspects of her life. For these reasons, disclosure of personal biases
was required before embarking upon this study so that the lived experiences of the participants
and their own personal beliefs about effective inclusive education could emerge, rather than
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided detailed descriptions of the basic qualitative research that
endeavored to determine how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired, developed, and
demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership. The content in this chapter reviewed
supplied research questions, and explained data collection procedures including in-depth, semi-
with them as to how they came to possess and how they utilized their own inclusive
consciousness for leading effective inclusive schools. Additionally, data analysis procedures,
95
specifically, the constant comparative method of coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), were included
Einführung
The purpose of this study was to understand how four elementary school principals
acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of
effective inclusive schools. As such, four elementary-level public school principals in Florida
were selected to participate based on evidence of their effectiveness, high rates of inclusion of
consciousness in their leadership. Each participant, over the course of two semi-structured
interviews, discussed their ideas around effective and inclusive schooling. The data were
analyzed by the researcher, through a constructivist lens (Hatch, 2002), using a cross-case
method of analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 234) and constant comparative method of
coding (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Additionally, data were coded using an open, axial, and
selective methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Due to the amount of data collected, codes
were collapsed (Saldaña, 2015) and data were reduced to facilitate reporting of the most salient
elements of information that addressed the research questions. The findings of this basic
qualitative research are reported and discussed in this chapter and were refined to two themes
96
and their subthemes, which included developing a disposition for inclusion and effective
Critical to establishing the context of the findings of this research is understanding how
each leader defined inclusion, as their beliefs about inclusion informed their decision-making
and practice. With so many definitions of inclusion in literature and practice, there is significant
variability in how inclusion is demonstrated across classrooms, schools, districts, and states in
the United States (Ainscow et al., 2006; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; McLeskey et al.
2004; Patterson et al., 2000; Timberlake, 2014; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Zaretsky, 2004).
What inclusion looks like and how it is enacted in schools is largely influenced by the school
principal (Bai & Martin, 2015; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Templeton, 2017; Theoharis
et al., 2015). For the four principals in this study, the way they led for inclusion was directed by
their inclusive consciousness and, while leaders’ disposition played an integral role in their
demonstrated inclusive consciousness for leadership in effective inclusive schools was how they
defined inclusion. Each principal’s personal definition of inclusion drove how the leaders
thought about and how they enacted their leadership for effective inclusive schools. The four
principals in this study defined inclusion on a continuum, all coming from different backgrounds
with different dispositions, and having had widely varied experiences with people with
disabilities, their definitions were, naturally, diverse without being altogether dissimilar. All
participants discussed the developmental process that led to how they formed their ideas about
97
inclusion and how their definitions informed who was included, and to what degree, in their
schools.
Leaders’ definitions. As was evident in a review of current literature, law, scholars, and
practitioners have multiple and varied definitions of inclusion (DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews
& Mawhinney, 2013; Zaretsky, 2004). Because federal legislation meant to inform special
education practice (IDEA, 2004) does not define inclusion, leaders are often left to interpret the
concept for themselves (Ainscow et al., 2006; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; McLeskey et
al. 2004; Patterson et al., 2000; Timberlake, 2014; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995; Zaretsky, 2004).
The principals in this study were each asked to explain what inclusion meant to them. Naturally,
each leader had a different definition, but all four principals viewed inclusion as a valuable,
Lillian. In her definition of inclusion, Lillian revealed her passion for inclusive practice
and what she saw inclusion meaning for the students with disabilities in her school. She framed
her definition of inclusion explicitly, through the lens of presumed competence and as a
[Inclusion means] All means all. That we, as educators, say that we work hard for all kids
and that all kids are gonna learn and so all means all! Every child, whether it’s a child
with a mild disability or significant disability. It also means, to me, cause I’ve seen-had
great examples of this, is that we never predict a child’s success or how much they’re
going to grow…to me, that’s what inclusion is-is that “all children”. We believe in their
1999), and praised the capacity of both to impact student achievement. To Lillian, inclusion was
for and about every student with disabilities, not just the students who were easy to teach.
Inclusion was about practice-not place. For Lillian, it was not enough that a student with a
disability should be educated in the same four walls as a student without a disability, but that a
student with a disability’s experiences in the classroom should be appropriately challenging, rife
with opportunity to meet high academic expectations, and allow them to participate as full and
Jacqueline. Jacqueline spoke of the role physical placement plays in her definition of
inclusion. She also addressed access, planning, and being responsive to student need in her
It’s just trying to meet the needs of all students in a general education setting by
providing them whatever it is that they need in order to be successful in that classroom
and that could be, SwD [student with a disability] or non-SwD, right?...Just doing
whatever we can to make sure that students have access to whatever it is that’s happening
in the classroom, and, if it’s an IQ type issue with the child, that someone is there really
trying to tailor what that child is getting in that gen. ed. class instead of what we see too
often of all the kids are just in there and they’re all doing the same thing and they’re not
getting it but no one’s really supporting it. So, it’s really just having the right supports in
Jacqueline operationalized inclusion as a service, rather than a place. She spoke about
special education services being provided in the general education classroom because she
99
believed that students with disabilities belong, more often than not, in a general education
classroom alongside peers without disabilities. Jacqueline placed responsibility on both the
leadership of a school and on teachers to respond to the needs of all students, but especially those
with disabilities. Jacqueline also included students with significant disabilities in her definition
and offered that these students need intentional planning and support to ensure their success in
general education spaces, not a more restrictive environment. For Jacqueline, inclusion was a
service for all students with disabilities that was supported by teachers and leaders’ behaviors
that led to academic and social success in the general education classroom.
IDEA (2004). When asked to describe what inclusion meant to her, Pamela stated, succinctly, “It
goes back to LRE-providing students with disabilities an opportunity to receive the best
education for them in the best environment for them”. Pamela leaned heavily into the idea of a
continuum of services for students with disabilities to receive their education in the least
restrictive environment. Unlike her peers, Pamela was very clear that not every student would be
successful in an inclusive setting. She held to the notion that some students with disabilities had
needs that could not be met by a typical K-12 neighborhood school and would require a separate
setting, like a school exclusively for students with disabilities. Pamela explained:
I know that the center school here does a great job with children that have daily
functioning needs and that type stuff that we cannot do. We cannot do that. We are still a
typical pre-K to 5 school and our focus is primarily academics...I can't do that. I don't
As she explained, Pamela expressed frustration with the current structures and placement
options for students with significant disabilities in her district. She lamented not being able to
meet the needs of all the students at her school, due to lack of resources, funding, and district
constraints. She was concerned that students with significant disabilities placed in her school
would not get access to the services they needed to succeed because of the way resources were
allocated and the way that programs for students with disabilities were clustered at site schools.
Pamela’s definition of inclusion was nuanced and complex. Having begun her teaching
career at a time in which special education was in its initial stages of implementation, her
perspective of students with disabilities differed from her cohorts in this study. Pamela had the
most experience in the field of teaching, at 39 years, and had seen special education grow from
more restrictive to more inclusive over time. Naturally, her perspective and practice shifted as
the field changed but she still maintained some of her own seminal ideas about students with
disabilities. As she spoke, it became clear that she believed in inclusion, co-teaching, and the
benefits of inclusive education to a point but held that not all students would benefit from
inclusive opportunities equally. Her philosophy leaned more toward demonstrated than presumed
competence in which students with disabilities would demonstrate capacity to benefit from
inclusion before being placed in an inclusive environment; however, Pamela was clearly
emphasis on appropriate. She spoke about her advocacy for inclusive opportunity for a student
with a disability in a self-contained classroom. She explained that when she saw a student she
believed would benefit from an inclusive education, she would encourage the students’ teacher to
begin inclusive trials. She clarified, “I'll go to one of our self-contained teachers and I'll say, ‘I've
101
noticed so-and-so is really doing well in math. Why don't you go...facilitate a little trial period or
Pamela voiced support for access and inclusion for students with significant disabilities
when there was evidence that the student could benefit and she would, often, be the advocate that
allowed a student access to the general education classroom. Because of her commitment to and
belief in the full of continuum of special education service delivery, Pamela advocated for
students to be in what she believed to be the least restrictive environment, even if that was a self-
contained placement. For students with high incidence disabilities, Pamela’s conceptualization of
inclusion for students who could benefit encompassed special education services provided in the
general education classroom alongside peers without disabilities and membership in the school
community. She recalled seeing inclusive practice benefit students educated in a resource room
data, and noted that she believed being included in general education classrooms prepared
students with disabilities for life outside of school; however, for students with significant
disabilities, she held firm to her belief that inclusive placement may not necessarily be the best
Angela. Angela spoke about inclusion as a method of service delivery for students with
disabilities but also addressed the social element of inclusive education. When asked how she
Inclusion means, to me, when you have students that have an IEP, or a 504, who are
struggling academically...with a learning disability, that they feel they are surrounded
with their peers. That they feel connected with them socially, that they are getting in the
102
gen. ed. [general education] classrooms, that they are getting the same services that their
gen. ed. peers could get, and those expectations of what is the standard at a higher
Angela talked about inclusion in the context of the experiences it offered to students with
disabilities and in the impact that students without disabilities had on their peers. She spoke
about inclusion bringing equity for all types of learners. She viewed inclusion as a social
experience in a community, a practice that engendered belonging. Angela, throughout both of her
interviews, returned repeatedly to the idea that students should enjoy school, that students needed
to love school and feel like school was a safe place for them to learn, grow, and be. For Angela,
providing inclusive opportunities was a central tenet of enjoying school for students with
that increased the enjoyment of students with disabilities’ experiences at school. She saw
inclusion as a method by which she could achieve her overall goal of getting students to love
school.
their definitions of inclusion. They all looked at inclusion as a way to ensure students with
disabilities had access to an appropriate, but rigorous, education and had their needs met. Where
they differed was in defining who would benefit from inclusive placement and to what degree.
Some principals put more emphasis on the social benefits of inclusion, while others were more
interested in inclusion as a practice that could improve academic outcomes. Some leaders
believed in including all students regardless of the nature and severity of their disability while
others subscribed to a readiness model of inclusive practice. These findings are directly
103
representative of the state of inclusive education today, as there is significant variability in both
understanding and practice of inclusive education (Ainscow, 2007; Ainscow et al., 2006; Bialka,
2017; Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Carter & Abawi, 2018; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013;
Esposito et al., 2019; Mallory & New, 1994; Timberlake, 2014). Despite the variability of each
leader’s concept of inclusion, they were all able to lead effective inclusive schools because they
believed that providing an equitable, inclusive, and rigorous education to students with
disabilities mattered.
State definition. While each of the four principals included in this research had their own
varied and personal definitions for what inclusion meant to them, it is important to note that this
research was conducted in a state with a definition of inclusion written into state statute. The
State of Florida, unlike the federal government, does defines inclusion. Florida’s definition of
A school district shall use the term “inclusion” to mean that a student is receiving
education in a general education regular class setting, reflecting natural proportions and
within the school community; a student with a disability is a valued member of the
classroom and school community; the teachers and administrators support universal
education and have knowledge and support available to enable them to effectively teach
all children; and a student is provided access to technical assistance in best practices,
instructional methods, and supports tailored to the student’s needs based on current
While all principals in Florida are required to comply with state law, it is important to
understand that their individual perceptions of inclusion and how to operationalize the concept
were formed prior to the approval and inclusion in statute of this definition in Florida. All
principals in this study had been teaching and/or leading effective inclusive schools for several
years prior to the legislation. Further, the districts in which the principals worked had also
developed norms for educating and placing students with disabilities that may have directly
contradicted portions of the law or the intent of this statute. For instance, how does the state
monitor that schools and classrooms reflecting natural proportions and employ age-appropriate
heterogeneous groups or how schools and teachers treat a student with a disability as a valued
member of their community? When asked to define inclusion, no principal cited state statue or
even referred to the state’s definition at any time over either interview; however, all principals in
this study defined inclusion in ways that were congruent with many tenets of the state’s
expectation, like instilling a sense of community and being educated alongside peers without
disabilities.
classrooms, creating heterogeneous groups, and providing research-based support for inclusion
placing students with disabilities into general education classrooms alongside peers without
disabilities, including students in academic content areas and during non-academic portions of
the school day (e.g., lunch, recess, assemblies, art), and especially their commitment to inclusion
as it serves to build a community of belonging demonstrated how these four principals’ inclusive
105
consciousness for effective inclusive leadership translated into compliance with state statute.
Additionally, each leader met statutory demands to support teachers through research-based
professional development and capacity building to support inclusive education in their schools.
Each principal, without being told to do so, demonstrated behaviors that were congruent and
After analysis, two prevailing themes regarding how principals of effective inclusive
emerged: (a) developing a disposition for inclusive consciousness; and (b) effective and inclusive
leadership behaviors. These themes and their subthemes are reflected in Figure 1.
Figure 1
consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. Ryle (1949) described
dispositions as a way of explaining how behavior occurs without having to invoke a causal
relationship between mind and body. According to Freeman (2007), dispositions are attributions
that we make about people after witnessing their behavior. Disposition, in this research, was
operationalized to mean how leadership behaviors for effective inclusive schools, like decision-
making, sharing inclusive vision, practicing distributed leadership, etc. (DeMatthews, 2015; Hitt
& Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014), were filtered through each principal’s personality
and personal values structure. Participants talked extensively about engaging in behaviors
of effective inclusive schooling, their commitment to presuming competence and the criterion of
the least dangerous assumption, feeling an ethical call to inclusion, and using shared, data-based
Mindset and mantra. Each of the four principals demonstrated a mindset that was
overtly supportive of effective inclusive leadership. Participants spoke explicitly about the value
of students with disabilities and the need for all students to have access to an equitable education.
Principals’ mindsets became evident in the frequent refrain of, what has been identified by this
researcher, as an inclusive mantra. Inclusive mantras, as defined in this research, were a frequent
verbal profession of the principals’ beliefs in the capacity of and expectations for students with
disabilities in the effective inclusive school. When discussing special education service delivery,
107
disabilities’ place in a school’s culture, among other ideas, principals recited phrases that
captured their mindset around how they valued effective inclusive schools. They used words and
phrases like “all means all”, “all students”, or “everybody” when discussing who mattered in
their schools. These words and phrases worked as a sort of truncated version of their inclusive
philosophies, a catchphrase that helped to share their inclusive vision and demonstrated their
inclusive consciousnesses. These mantras embodied a belief that all students had value in their
schools. This belief permeated every facet of the leaders’ actions and decision-making in their
schools from hiring, to professional development, as well as to the methods by which they
Lillian. Lillian’s inclusive consciousness was underpinned by her mantra of “all means
all”. She also voiced her support for students with disabilities in the simple, yet affirmative,
refrain of “all kids”. Lillian believed that every decision a leader made must weigh the
implications of that decision and its impact on every student in the school, including students
with disabilities, even those with significant cognitive disabilities. She stated “All means all. We,
as educators, say that we work hard for all kids and that all kids are gonna learn and so all means
all! Every child, whether it’s a child with a mild disability or significant disability.”
“all” exemplified her commitment to meeting the needs of every student, regardless of the nature
and severity of their disability. Her “all means all” mantra also appeared in her conversations
with teachers. Lillian spoke about her “all means all” mantra and using it to share her inclusive
108
vision that all students have value by asking teachers which students in their class teachers
…You'll say to a group of teachers, which kids do you want to learn in your classroom?
[Teachers reply] “Well, all kids.” Everybody wants to say “all”. And then we talk about,
“OK. What does that mean?” All means all. Even the kids with a significant disability.
Lillian used this question and answer exchange as an opportunity to demonstrate her
inclusive consciousness, to challenge teachers who may have had a more limited definition of
“all”, and to share her vision that every student in the school had a right to learn. By virtue of
repeating this “all means all”, “all kids”, and “every kid” refrain, Lillian used her mantra to
communicate and demonstrate her inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive schools. Her
mantra frequently and explicitly communicated the message that she thought about her
leadership from a place of equity and inclusion for every single student.
guided her leadership of effective inclusive schools. She repeated the phrase throughout her
interviews and leaned heavily into the importance of enacting leadership that met the needs of
all the students in her school, not just the students who were easy to teach, or those with the
expected capacity perform well on standardized assessments, but “all kids”. Her belief in
educating all children, as well as educating the whole child, was evident in her commitment to
communicating the need to support all students in her school. She made no distinction between
students with and without disabilities as she talked about meeting student need and setting
expectations for high achievement for “all kids”. For Angela, her “all kids” mantra was an
109
effective method by which she could communicate her inclusive vision. She spoke of repeating
the phrase so as to remind teachers, and herself, to consider an individual student’s need and the
steps that needed to be taken to meet that need to ensure that student achieved their maximum
capacity for success, both academically and socially, in her school. For Angela, meeting
academic and social needs of “all kids” was of utmost importance in the demonstration of her
inclusive consciousness. She spoke about her commitment to teaching all students, regardless of
It's not what's best for us. We do what's best for students ...just having that mindset when
I got into the school system was “it's for all kids”. They all have different needs, whether
they have an IEP or not. Some kids will never have an IEP, but they'll struggle… so what
can we do to make that the best learning experience for them and want them to come
Angela noted that she did not need to make the distinction between students with IEPs
and those without when leading an effective inclusive school; rather, she was primarily
concerned with the student experience, students’ perception of school, and overall satisfaction
Jacqueline. Like her cohorts, Jacqueline’s mantra was succinct and encompassed her
belief that every student had value in her schools. She utilized the phrase, “all children” in the
communication of her vision for effective inclusive leadership. Her mantra concisely
communicated Jaqueline’s ethical call to provide an excellent and equitable education to every
student in her school. Her commitment to demonstrating her inclusive consciousness through her
leadership was explained when Jacqueline was asked to describe why she prioritized leadership
110
that was both effective and inclusive. She responded, “I find education of all children very
valuable. Not just some children”. The “all children” mantra was operationalized throughout
Jacqueline’s leadership behaviors and decision-making. She identified and reaffirmed the
concept of “all children” as a core value in her disposition. She described her disposition,
specifically as it related to her leadership for effective inclusive schools in saying, “I think it’s
Jacqueline regularly returned to the idea of “all kids” when speaking about practices she
saw prohibit the development of effective inclusive schools. Eschewing the tendency of leaders
to place teachers and students into silos of “us” and “them” and abdicate responsibility for
teaching students based on a disability label, Ms. Martin stated, “I really don't separate out the
because it permeated all facets of her leadership. Jacqueline explained the importance of
considering all students in daily leadership decisions like hiring. She said, of hiring teachers who
shared her vision, “I knew that they were about all children”. She repeated her concern for “all”
students when making data-based decisions around achievement and expectations for learning,
“you're trying to move your school forward, all of the students forward”. When asked about
meeting the needs of students in their least restrictive environment and special education service
delivery, Ms. Martin explained that she focused on “trying to meet the needs of all students in a
general education setting by providing them whatever it is that they need in order to be
successful in that classroom”. Time and time again, she returned to the inclusive mantra of “all
children” and leaned into her commitment to meeting the needs of all students. Jacqueline
111
espoused that her commitment to “all children” was just who she was, innate, a fundamental
element of her personality and being, and that inherent belief translated itself into practice as she
Pamela. Pamela, unlike her counterparts, did not repeat a phrase that demonstrated her
inclusive consciousness. Rather than echoing an “all means all” refrain, Pamela evoked an image
of carrying all students in a wheelbarrow. She described her idea of her responsibility to meet
student need using an image originally intended to educate teachers about including students in
poverty their teaching practice and decision-making. Pamela noted that the wheelbarrow analogy
fit well into her idea of teaching all learners, “when we’re talking about everybody in your
wheelbarrow, that’s everybody”. A departure from the explicit use of “all means all”,
underwent a more prolonged evolution that that of her peers. The difference in development was
attributed to the length of time she had been teaching and leading, as she was the most
experienced principal included in this research, with 39 years of experience. She was trained in
teaching students with disabilities during a time that expected separation of students with
disabilities from students without (Artiles, 2019; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews,
2015; Fisher et al., 2003; Theoharis et al., 2015) and led in a part of the state that was less
interested in providing opportunities for inclusive education, by her own admission. Pamela led
in a place and time that still viewed inclusion as a trend, rather than an imperative.
As a teen, Pamela worked with adults with significant disabilities and reported that these
interactions negatively impacted her perception of students with significant disabilities; however,
112
she expressed that, through experiences working with students with significant disabilities in
schools, her perceptions shifted. Originally intending to work with students with high incidence
disabilities, she grew, through experience, to learn to lead for all learners. She stated of her
change in practice, “now, I work with all of them [students with disabilities]!”. Pamela’s
transition from a teacher seeking to work with a limited population to a principal tasked with
leading an effective inclusive school expanded her definition of all, from the primary focus of
her inclusive consciousness being on learners with high incidence disabilities, to including
students with significant cognitive disabilities. While her work including students with
significant cognitive disabilities was somewhat limited and based on readiness instead of
unfettered access, she was able to shift her mindset about inclusive opportunity for students with
significant disabilities to a place where inclusive placement became a viable option for at least
some students. The development of her inclusive mindset had been a developmental process that
is discussed later in these findings but is notably optimistic for developing inclusive
Cross-case analysis. All four leaders included in this study had inclusive mindsets that
facilitated their demonstration of their inclusive consciousness. Three of the four had a common
refrain, or mantra, of “all kids” or “all means all” that they recited and referred to several times
during data collection. The mantras appeared to be a succinct and efficient method by which to
communicate their inclusive visions. One participant, Pamela, did not have a phrase that she
repeated or to which she frequently referred, but spoke about considering the needs of every
student in the way she thought about inclusion. Regardless, mindset framed all their perceptions
113
of inclusive placement and opportunity for students with disabilities. What is important to
consider next, are the beliefs about students with disabilities that informed these mantras.
Beliefs around providing access to inclusive education. While all the leaders included in
this study believed that inclusion facilitated equity, belonging, and improved high expectations,
not all the principals shared the same beliefs about including all students with disabilities all the
time. Although some leaders verbally espoused an “all means all” philosophy, the definition of
all was not shared among the participants. The conversation of “readiness” factored heavily into
how the leaders in this research defined who was included and at what rate. Overall, principals
were most concerned with students with significant disabilities being included in general
education settings. There was limited mention of students with high incidence disabilities
negatively impacting other students or preventing their access into inclusive environments.
Principals’ main concerns were that students with significant behavioral difficulties and/or
cognitive disabilities would need to show evidence that being included in the general education
classroom would be appropriate for the student with a significant disability before being offered
an inclusive education. That element of need to demonstrate readiness informed some principals’
implementation of their inclusive consciousness more than others. They voiced concerns that a
student’s disability must not detract from the education of other students in the classroom. Even
if a student was determined to be able to benefit from an inclusive education, the needs of their
peers were a significant factor in the way each leader made decisions about access to inclusion.
alongside their peers without disabilities. A staunch advocate for inclusive access for all
students, Ms. Martin believed that students should be included in general education classrooms
114
unless their presence was preventing other students’ ability to learn. Ms. Martin believed that all
students, including those with significant disabilities, should be included in general education
classrooms unless their behaviors were so significantly disruptive or distracting that, even after
attempting to intervene and problem-solve, the student with a significant disability and/or the
other students in the class were not able to learn. She discussed considering eligibility for
inclusion and cited that her default choice was to include a student in the absence of any
evidence that inclusion was not the least restrictive environment. She stated:
Because why not? What would prevent you from having them in there? I always think
about- take away the autism label. Aren't there other kids in that classroom who are not
doing very well with it either? I mean, we are differentiating every day in our classrooms
with all students. You cannot teach now without differentiating your instruction because
of the different levels of kids in the classrooms. So, unless that child has disabilities that
are causing the other students to not be able to do what they need to do, there is no reason
Ms. Martin’s beliefs, when applied, afforded access to an inclusive education to all
students without needing to meet any initial criteria for eligibility. To Jacqueline, every student
ought to have access to an inclusive education unless they demonstrated a need for a more
Lillian. Ms. Schmidt was a staunch advocate for all students to have access to the
inclusive classroom. Lillian noted that a delicate balance was needed to ensure inclusion worked
well when including “all” students, but especially those with significant disabilities. She said,
“you can’t let a kid with a significant disability, slow their [other students’] growth as well, so
115
it’s a balancing act”. Lillian noted that students with significant disabilities can have an impact
on the inclusive classroom that prevents other students, with and without disabilities, from
accessing an equitable, inclusive, and appropriate education. She underscored the nuance in the
need to ensure that all students could grow but that also acknowledged that, as a leader, decisions
needed to be made that balanced the needs of the student with a significant disability and the
other students in the inclusive classroom. She spoke about her experiences working with students
with significant disabilities in the inclusive classroom and discussed seeing firsthand how
students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings could thrive as part of why she believed
We, as educators, say that we work hard for all kids and that all kids are gonna learn and
so all means all! Every child, whether it’s a child with a mild disability or significant
disability...I know it can be done even with profoundly disabled kids...I saw examples of
classroom:
We had a student that had multiple disabilities and couldn't communicate. So, that child
had to have a way to communicate. And we got some assistive technology put in place.
We trained the paras. We trained the kids in the classroom how to help...a lot of kids did
a lot of the work. They would change his- he started with a switch device... it's a big
button that would speak for you. He had kids in his group that would record it [the
switch] every morning-however to react or whatever response the teacher needed. So, the
kids learned how to do it, the para learned how to use the technology, and the kids, it was
116
just amazing to watch kids in that classroom that helped take care of that child. And
fully- for that child- the access to fully participate in morning meeting. He had a partner
that would set his button up for him and help make sure that he could mash the button to
be able to participate in the morning meeting just like any other kid. It was just very
profound to watch those kids and all that they learned on working with somebody with
significant disability.
Lillian’s personal experience working with students with disabilities taught her that, with
training and support, students with and without disabilities could reap the benefits of inclusion.
For the student with a disability in her example, the inclusive classroom was his least restrictive
environment but he needed someone to see his potential and to put the necessary supports in
place to help him access and benefit from an inclusive placement. The student did not lack
capacity, but lacked access to the tools that would allow him to demonstrate his capacity to
succeed in the inclusive classroom. Lillian made it common, in her leadership of effective
inclusive schools, to presume competence in students and exhaust all resources before exploring
Pamela. Most vocal about the readiness aspect of accessing inclusion was Pamela. As an
ardent supporter of the continuum of services model of special education, she was clear,
throughout her discussion about effective inclusive leadership that she believed that inclusive
placement was not always appropriate for all students with disabilities at all times. Being
prepared to enter a general education classroom was essential to the way she talked about
including students with behavioral and significant cognitive disabilities. Ms. Howard cited that
students with significant disabilities often do not demonstrate readiness to be placed in general
117
education classrooms. She observed that the inclusive classroom was not always the least
restrictive environment for students with significant disabilities, and, for this reason, they would
not receive the maximum benefit of their education in the inclusive setting. Ms. Howard stated:
I have given the example before that having a child who really is cognitively deficient or
has a lot of cognitive deficits sitting in- I taught high school biology at one time- sitting
in a high school biology classroom while the children are learning the five functions of
the different parts of a cell, and letting that child color a cell, what is-what is that child
truly learning?
Her main concern with including students with significant disabilities was ensuring that
they got the best education possible in the most appropriate setting. She said, of that belief,
“Now do I think that some children who have cognitive deficits, do I think they should be in
general ed. as long as possible? Yes, if they-are truly benefiting from it”. As previously stated,
Pamela’s beliefs about inclusion were nuanced. Although she did not believe that the inclusive
classroom was the best placement for all students with disabilities, she did believe that it was an
appropriate placement for some. Ms. Howard’s concept of readiness still allowed for access to an
inclusive education that was often not possible for students with significant disabilities as long as
the inclusion of that student did not interfere with the learning of their peers. She was especially
vocal about the need to create a distinction that all students, not just students with disabilities,
had rights and that other students’ rights should not be ignored in service to another student’s
I will also say for other children, and this is probably not popular with advocates or
disability rights people, but I do not think that children with disabilities have a right to
interfere with other children’s learning and impact other children’s learning.
She believed in inclusion of students with significant disabilities if the student was able to
behave in ways that were appropriate and expected in the general education classroom. When
asked to further explain the circumstances that would necessitate excluding a student with a
It's [disruptive behavior] distracting to the other children. The teacher is- even if it's two
teachers, they are spending a significant amount of time trying to keep that child tapped
down and other kids are afraid of them sometimes. I've seen it impact grades of other
kids. And that bothers me a lot- a lot. And I do feel that sometimes, children with special
needs, I don't think their need should outweigh other kids' needs. I know advocacy groups
would have a conniption fit hearing me say that. But I think when their issues and needs
are to the severity that it's really impacting the other kids, I don't think they should be in
that class.
Ms. Howard was not the only participant to hold this view; however, she was the most
vocal in her discussion of her belief that students with significant disabilities could negatively
impact other students with and without disabilities in the classroom. To be clear, the application
of these beliefs was student specific and she did not paint all students with significant disabilities
with a broad brush. At times, she served as the advocate for students with significant disabilities
to access an inclusive education. Pamela described needing to be the leader that questioned
teachers’ perceptions of student competence and advocated for changes in placement for students
119
with disabilities, even significant cognitive disabilities. She recalled several instances in which
she facilitated students with disabilities in the self-contained setting moving from the self-
I'll go to one of our self-contained teachers and I'll say, "You know, I've noticed so-and-
so is really doing well in math. You know, why don't you go talk to [general education
teacher] and... facilitate a little trial period or whatever and see how that works...
Sometimes the ESE teacher is afraid to let them go. You know how that is- sweet baby,
Even though Pamela subscribed to the belief that students with significant disabilities
needed to be ready to access general education classrooms, she still believed in making decisions
based on student need. She talked about earning access as a decision based on individual student
performance, stating that there were many students with significant disabilities receiving an
inclusive education in her school, “At this point in time, we have probably about 15 kids on
special standards...some of those kids are in general ed. classes”. The students with significant
disabilities at Ms. Howard’s school receiving an inclusive education had been determined, at the
student level, to be able to ready and able to benefit from a general education placement. Ms.
Howard was committed to including students in self-contained classrooms because she believed
that inclusive opportunities improved outcomes for students with disabilities and that giving the
students an opportunity to try was preferable to assuming inability and limiting student potential.
Angela. Angela also used readiness to talk about who was included but looked at
readiness from the perspective of presuming competence (Biklen, 1999). Angela had a strong
placements within her school. She demonstrated her inclusive consciousness by allowing
students access until they demonstrated that the inclusive classroom was unable to meet their
needs. She discussed having conversations with teachers about making sure students in self-
contained settings had opportunities to access general education. She recalled an instance in
which a student with a disability in a self-contained classroom was being considered for a move
We just had that conversation like, "Let's try it [inclusive placement]!". I mean, "What's it
going to hurt? If she hates it, it's not successful for her? But she needs it. She's going to
seventh and eighth grade and we need to expose her and socially she can. We think she
can handle it now. So, hey, let's try that"… So, it's just talking with all the teachers and
being open like, "Hey, are you open to this?"...So when we're talking...I'm like, I'm up for
that. Let's try it. What's it gonna [hurt]? It was best for them? Just try it! All we can do is
fix it, you know, have another meeting. I mean. We'll have another IEP meeting and
rewrite it again! It is just this paperwork. It doesn't matter. It's just whatever's best for
kids.
Ms. Waters continued her discussion about her willingness to allow students to attempt
inclusive opportunities. She spoke of a student with a disability in a general education classroom
struggling with the demands of the general education environment and the decisions made to
We have [a student with a disability] that's bombing out there in some subjects. So, we're
doing the reverse. Maybe he needs to come in and get the reading instruction with the
self-contained classroom. And then he's fine everywhere else, but he's really shutting
121
down in some subjects more than others. So, what can we do to fix that? Well, we'll do
the reverse. He'll just go get some small group instruction intensive in that room and then
come out.
Because the student had demonstrated that the inclusive classroom was not the best
option for his educational experience, one hundred percent of the day, Ms. Waters was
supportive of scaling back inclusive placement until the student was ready to receive more of his
education alongside students without disabilities. In this way, Angela demonstrated her belief in
For Angela, the only criterion for access to an inclusive education was potential benefit.
In fact, she was the only principal in this research that did not mention the impact of a student
with a significant disability potentially negatively influencing their peers. Ms. Waters’ beliefs
and experiences informed her concept of access to inclusion to the degree that she had minimal
concern that all students, including those with significant disabilities, would be successful in the
inclusive classroom. She was undeterred by the possibility of failure and did not see the
likelihood that a student would need to be removed from the inclusive setting back to a self-
contained placement as an impediment negating the need to try. Her willingness to attempt
inclusive placement for students, even when the effort may be unsuccessful demonstrated her
belief that the inclusive classroom was a place for every student and that all students should have
Cross-case analysis. There was some variability in the beliefs about access to inclusive
environments among the four leaders, especially concerning access for students with significant
disabilities. Concern that students with significant disabilities, behavioral or cognitive, would
122
pose a threat to the success of the inclusive classroom varied widely. Pamela had significant
reservations about students with significant behavioral disabilities while Angela voiced no
concern at all, and Lillian and Jacqueline fell somewhere in between. While all principals did
student placement, they disagreed in their base expectation. Some prioritized placement in the
general education setting before moving a student to a more restrictive environment, while others
relied more heavily on using every option on the continuum of services. Each principal looked at
access differently but, in the end, they all based their decisions on their own understanding of the
best way to meet student need, preferring inclusion when possible. Of course, their own
experiences and expectations filtered through their decision-making process around access. Each
principal had different ideas about how to decide who gained access but all four made decisions
about offering students an inclusive education in ways that seemed, to them, to be the most
equitable and appropriate based on their own inclusive consciousness and how they understood
inclusion.
Presumed competence & least dangerous assumption. The leaders included in this
study shared two beliefs that influenced their effective inclusive leadership. They all
demonstrated a propensity for presuming competence in most students with disabilities and
leading their schools with a strong propensity to make the least dangerous assumption
(Donnellan, 1984). Presumed competence (Biklen, 1999) requires that “educators must presume,
first and foremost, that their students are competent individuals who are ready for and capable of
benefitting from academic curricular content, and then must create the necessary instructional
package to ensure students’ access to that content” (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Kim Reid,
123
2005). Additionally, the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984) demands
that educators behave in ways that, if their assumptions about a student are incorrect, choices
made do the least amount of damage to a student in their quest to live a functional, independent
life. For these four educators, adopting and integrating the ideas of the least dangerous
assumption (Donnellan, 1984) and presumed competence (Biklen, 1999) into their mindsets
shaped their inclusive consciousnesses for effective inclusive leadership. They explained how
their personal experiences with students with disabilities facilitated maintaining high academic
expectations for students with disabilities and engendered an ethical call to inclusive practice that
impacted how they acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that
Personal experiences. All four principals revealed that personal experiences with people
with disabilities, prior to their entrance into the principalship shaped their mindset and influenced
the acquisition and development of their personal inclusive consciousness. These experiences
with disabilities, and working with students with disabilities, both in a school and in their
community.
Angela. For Angela Waters, her acquisition of inclusive consciousness came from a place
of personal understanding and experience as a struggling learner herself. Having been a child
who struggled in school, she empathized with students with disabilities and saw her career as a
wrongs she experienced as a student. Ms. Waters, on meeting students’ academic needs stated, “I
124
think part of it comes from just my own childhood and in classrooms and struggling with math
mainly”. She continued to explain her own challenges with learning, as a child:
I struggled a lot, needed tutoring, but I still loved school and I used to play teacher and
kind of want to be the teacher. And then, when I started teaching, I became passionate
about ...teaching math, then... writing, because I wasn't a great writer either... but just
saying, hey, you know, [these are] the two subjects that I have a hard time with and I had
a hard time in school with it. So how can I make it look different for the kids that do
struggle no matter who they are?...Knowing how they felt and the struggle that they felt-
Angela’s personal educational struggles ignited a passion that influenced the acquisition
of her inclusive consciousness. Owing to her own personal experiences struggling with writing
and math, Angela developed her inclusive consciousness to include making sure students were
well-cared-for, academically challenged, and were valuable members of their school community.
Her commitment to valuing students embodied her belief in making the least dangerous
assumption about what students with disabilities could and should be expected to do. Because
she struggled in school, as a child, Angela was uniquely positioned to understand and empathize
with the students in her class who also experienced difficulties being a student. Her experiences
influenced her to lead in ways that did not excuse low achievement and expectations for students
with disabilities but built students’ confidence in themselves and offered opportunities to be
successful through reframing the way they thought about what it meant to learn differently.
Angela, according to her own inclusive mantra, believed “all kids” could learn and that it was her
responsibility to create the conditions in which students could be successful. Because of her own
125
personal struggles as a student, Angela felt both a personal connection and responsibility to
ensuring that her school was both effective and inclusive for students who struggled.
Pamela. Pamela’s personal experience that shaped the acquisition of her inclusive
consciousness occurred as a teenager while working a popular summer job in her small
hometown. She recalled an early experience working as a lifeguard at Citrus Grove, a residential
facility for adults with significant cognitive disabilities, and the impact that experience had on
I worked at Citrus Grove and was used to working with children with special needs or
adults with special needs…I was a lifeguard... we had beach trips down to Emerald
Gardens Park…and we would take, well, we called them clients then, residents, for a
beach trip... the clients at Citrus Grove at the time were all, I’m sure their IQs were all-
Working with adults with disabilities in her teens led Pamela to pursue a career in special
education. She spoke of being unsure about declaring a major when she began college and was
encouraged by a family member to pursue special education because of her previous experience
I was starting college...I really wasn’t sure what I wanted to do and honestly-I think how
I got into it was my cousin, who had-was at one time the president of Deer River
Community College...and I was wrestling with you know, what should I do? What should
I do? And he says, "Well, why don’t you…there’s a new program at CU. It hasn’t been
going on very long, LD/ED program. Why don’t you apply to that?" So, I did! There’s
Pamela noted that working with people with significant cognitive disabilities did shape
her mindset toward students with disabilities such that she preferred working with students with
high incidence disabilities at the beginning of her career. She voiced that, while her experiences
at Citrus Grove shaped her concept of people with disabilities, she saw greater opportunity in
I worked at Citrus Grove and was used to working with children with special needs or
adults with special needs, but I really didn’t want to work with people who are mentally
handicapped, necessarily. I really wanted to work with children who were a little more
After leaving college and beginning work as a teacher, she became exposed to learners of
all ability and experienced a shift in her perspective of people with significant disabilities. Ms.
It is important to note that Pamela’s career began at a time when people with low
hurdles finding equity in education and in life (Mallory & New, 1994; Paul, French, & Cranston-
Gringras, 2001; Stone et al., 2016). Perceptions of capacity were notoriously low and many
people with significant disabilities were relegated to institutions for substantial portions of their
lives (Ainscow et al., 2006; Ainscow, 2007; Paul et al., 2001; Stone et al., 2016). The perception
that people with significant disabilities should be presumed competent is a difficult concept to
grasp today and would have been even more difficult to communicate four decades ago, when
Pamela began her teaching career (Timberlake, 2014). Pamela’s initial thoughts and perceptions
of people with significant cognitive disabilities would have been widely shared at the time in
127
which she began her career. What is notable, however, is that as low expectations for students
with significant cognitive disabilities persisted in education, Ms. Howard’s perceptions shifted to
become more inclusive. She attributed that shift to having seen the success that coteaching
programs, in which she participated, offered students with disabilities. The more she saw
coteaching and inclusive practice being successful, the more she was able to reframe her
thoughts about students with disabilities. Through her experiences, she started to presume
competence in some students and provided students with high and low incidence disabilities
inclusive opportunities that were coupled with improved academic expectations. Pamela spoke of
her advocacy for students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classrooms,
saying:
They might not be functioning on grade level and it’s too much for them to do the grade
level test, you know, modifying those tests, they’re still getting more if they’re able to be
Later, she continued this thought, saying, “Why are these children sitting in a self-
contained class...? That was not benefiting the children whatsoever. You know, so we pushed
them out.” This advocacy, coupled with increased expectations for students with significant
disabilities, spoke to Pamela having a developmental mindset that was open to reframing her
beliefs in light of experiences. As she learned and progressed throughout her career, Pamela saw
the capacity of learners with disabilities and that exposure influenced the development of her
inclusive consciousness.
Jacqueline. Ms. Martin’s mindset was that of a difference-maker. She believed firmly in
the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984) and the idea of presuming
128
competence (Biklen, 1999). She had a desire to be the teacher and leader who stood in the gap
for students with disabilities who may not have been given a chance to experience success
because of what others believed about their capacity. Her personal experiences with people with
disabilities began, as she told it, as a student in college where she realized that there were very
few people willing to work with students with disabilities. Seeing a need, Jacqueline decided to
They were talking about it in school and I just thought, well, why does no one want to go
teach those children? I want to go teach those children! So, that’s really all it was is.
There was a need and I felt like I could answer the need and ever since, that’s just kind of
been my thing.
Ms. Martin discussed forming a mindset in college that valued students with disabilities
and saw their needs as equally valuable to those of students without disabilities. Speaking about
her unwavering dedication to meeting student need and seeing all students’ value, she said, “I
haven’t changed my belief system since the first day I walked into the classroom”. She
maintained that all students could learn, underscoring her belief in presumed competence, and
should have the opportunity to do so. She maintained that she has held steadfast to this belief
When asked about the how she came to develop and beliefs that formed her inclusive
mindset, Jacqueline explained that its genesis was witnessing students in self-contained
classrooms being marginalized and denied opportunity the beginning of her career. She recalled:
It really stemmed back to that first teaching experience and watching my students (being)
isolated from everything and them asking me why. “Why can’t we go on that field trip?”
129
or “Why can’t we be in that class over there?” The kids really kind of got that in me and
so that’s when I just started trying to do whatever I could to try to build inclusion for
them within that school- and well, it had been a culture that that did not happen. You did
not send your children to us- we send them to you. But really, where it stemmed from is
really the kids and seeing the impact and really the lack of progress that students made in
the [self-contained] program. Learning the behaviors of one another and becoming worse
in the program. I had a teacher I really worked with, a 5th grade teacher, who wanted to
try it [inclusion] with me. She was open to my students and just to see what that did for
them-the change in their academics, the change in their behavior, that sold me on it.
Jacqueline saw inequity in these student experiences and the damage done in other
teachers, leaders, and stakeholders not making the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan,
1984). Witnessing students being excluded, marginalized, and counted out, Jacqueline was
convicted in her call to inclusive teacher leadership and sought out inclusive opportunities that
allowed her students with disabilities to access rigorous and inclusive educational experiences.
Through these experiences, her beliefs about presuming competence and making assumptions
that were the least harmful for students with disabilities crystallized and informed her leadership
Lillian. Lillian discussed multiple experiences that influenced the acquisition of her
inclusive consciousness. One deeply personal and one professional experience were highly
described her formative professional experience with Josh, a student with autism and significant
behavioral concerns:
130
We had a kid... that was our first-my first experience with significant autism- him being
able to manage his emotions and his anger and he couldn’t communicate his feelings and
he came to Millbrook and we all worked very, very hard and at times, people were
looking at me like “You’ve lost your mind. We can’t do this!” And we just kept at it and
we kept trying to figure out. We read articles, we sought experts, we had a discretionary
project specializing in autism come in, we just kept working and kept listening to the
things that research said worked with that child and we finally started making progress.
He, like I said, he graduated the salutatorian of his high school...he gave the most
amazing salutatorian speech about having autism and living in a world that doesn’t
understand you. I mean, it was just that, I cried like he was my own child because I had
been very involved with him daily trying to help teachers figure out how to help this
kid... if we can take a kid that rips bulletin boards and throws furniture daily to the level
Lillian’s experience with that student with autism not only contributed to the
development of her inclusive consciousness but was also was an experience that could not have
occurred without a strong inclusive consciousness. She believed herself to be strongly rooted in
her belief that students with disabilities were valuable and mattered and that belief informed a
mindset that was tenacious and uncompromising when she was tasked with helping Josh access
an inclusive education. Students like Josh often had to earn access to an inclusive education but,
because Lillian used the principles of presumed competence and the least dangerous assumption
in her leadership, while also working diligently to meet his needs, Josh found success and was
131
very effectively educated in an inclusive environment. She continued her explanation of the
To this day, she [Josh's mom] is like, "You know, you saved his life because I was
always afraid he’d end up in jail". That was her baby. It could have been my baby. That
could have been my sister’s children, I mean, that could be anybody’s and I knew that I
had to try...if we can take a kid that rips bulletin boards and throws furniture daily to the
Her experience with Josh was a memory about which was very proud but also by which she was
deeply impacted, as Josh was discussed more than once in our interactions with one another.
Being able to have meaningful impact on a student that was hard to teach was a critical part of
her teaching and leadership skills set but also part and parcel to her inclusive consciousness.
Without a strong inclusive consciousness, experiences like Josh’s would not have been possible.
Personally, Lillian discussed her perspectives about students with disabilities from a
maternal point of view and often referred to the need to treat students the way she would like to
see her own children treated. That maternal pull Lillian felt for Josh was a pivotal factor in the
way in which she demonstrated her inclusive consciousness. She thought about children with
disabilities as her own children as she led effective inclusive schools. This aspect of her
disposition was also attributed to Lillian’s personal experience raising her own children. She
talked about her experiences raising two children with disabilities and how her desire for her
children to have unlimited potential influenced the way she led an effective inclusive school.
When I was a teacher, I’ve always tried to help every kid. I think, as a parent, it-I became
even more passionate about it because I had a child that was hearing impaired and I had a
132
child that ended up having a learning disability and I looked at them as I never wanted
anybody to stifle their potential for them. If I want for my own children, I have to want
Lillian’s personal experiences with her own kids instilled in her disposition an inclusive
consciousness that valued acceptance, inclusion, and high expectations for every child as though
influenced their perception of effective inclusive schooling and students with disabilities. Lillian,
Jacqueline, and Angela all experienced these events from a neutral or positive place of
competence for people with disabilities. However, Pamela had experiences, in her capacity as a
lifeguard at a state-run facility for adults with significant disabilities that engendered negative
feelings about the abilities of people with disabilities. She did not, initially, presume people with
disabilities to be competent or seek to make the least dangerous assumption. Despite her
experience as a teenager, Pamela, through positive interaction and witnessing success of students
with disabilities in her professional career, experienced an evolution of her mindset for effective
inclusive leadership. They all, through their personal experiences, were emboldened to become a
difference-maker, an advocate, and a leader passionately committed to taking what they had
learned from their experiences with people with disabilities and replicating them in their
principalships.
High expectations. Part of adhering to the criterion of the least dangerous assumption
(Donnellan, 1984) and presuming competence (Biklen, 1999), to these principals, was having
133
high academic expectations for students with disabilities. To be both an effective and inclusive
leader, participants needed to focus, not only on ensuring students with disabilities were being
educated in general education classrooms, but that they were also highly achieving. This
commitment to setting and maintaining high achievement expectations for students with
disabilities demonstrated the principals’ beliefs that students with disabilities were capable of
more than just sitting in the same room as their peers without disabilities, but that they could
learn, too. Participants felt a personal responsibility to set the expectation that students with
disabilities be held to high standards because high expectations aligned with their inclusive
incorporating high achievement expectations in their inclusive practice since capability was a
central tenet of their beliefs about students with disabilities. Their ideas about maintaining high
standards, as influenced by presumed competence (Biklen, 1999) and the criterion of the least
Jacqueline. Of the four principals in this study, Jacqueline spoke most passionately about
setting and maintaining high academic expectations for students with disabilities. She discussed
her belief in high academic expectations through explaining inclusive mindset and her tendency
to operationalize the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984). Ms. Martin
stated, when asked why she advocated for students with disabilities to receive effective inclusive
educational experiences, “Why not? What? I mean, what would prevent you from having them in
there?”. She resented the notion that a student would not be provided access to an inclusive
I always think about-take away the autism label. Aren't there other kids in that classroom
who are not doing very well with it either? I mean, we are differentiating every day in our
classrooms with all students. You cannot teach now without differentiating your
instruction because of the different levels of kids in the classrooms. So, unless that that
child has disabilities that are causing the other students to not be able to do what they
During data collection, Ms. Martin reflected on where her belief in presumed competence
(Biklen, 1999) originated. She recalled, as a beginning teacher, a formative moment in her ideas
I saw children wanting to do what the other kids were doing and here’s people saying,
"Well, you can’t do that!". "How do you know I can’t do it? You haven’t even given me
an opportunity to do it!" So, just, I think that experience of seeing the children want
Seeking equity and the opportunity to give students a chance, Ms. Martin consciously
leaned into presuming competence and making the least dangerous assumption. She exhibited a
mindset supportive of students with disabilities and their right to receive an effective inclusive
education. To Jacqueline, high achievement expectations and her inclusive consciousness for
effective inclusive leadership were inextricable, they were an innate part of her belief system.
She opined that high expectations were a student’s right, engendering an ethical demand for high
expectations in her leadership, stating “They all deserve the right to become proficient, if we're
able to do that, or move up to the next level of where they were”. Jacqueline also spoke pointedly
about the habit of schools not considering the needs of students with disabilities in accountability
135
improvement efforts. She took issue with this practice and explained how she made a point to
consider the needs of students with disabilities to improve outcomes for all students.
You're trying to move your school forward, all of the students forward, you're just
noticing that that group that's really not making progress happens to be your students
with disabilities. That's because those schools have not put systems in place to make sure
that they're meeting the needs of all the students…To make a difference at a school is to
be able to go into that school, identify where the weaknesses are, whether it's with ESE or
which is the general population or both, and just help that school put systems in place to
served in such a way as to help them make significant academic gains in schools that were not
effective and inclusive. She spoke about her belief that students with disabilities should be held
to high achievement standards, such that students are pushed toward proficiency, rather than
Academically, it's what I've been pushing a lot lately… having that conversation with
teachers that, when we're looking at our students, regardless if they’re students with
disabilities or not, that we're looking at where they are in regards to proficiency, not just
well, they're making some gains. In the long scheme of things, that is not as beneficial for
them. So, when I say looking at the data, I'm looking at proficiency first... Let's set some
goals so that we are making big chunks of progress, not celebrating four points.
In schools that are not producing satisfactory achievement outcomes for students with
disabilities, growth, in any form, might have been an acceptable goal but, for Ms. Martin, paltry
136
achievement gains were not sufficient. She stood firmly on the conviction that having a disability
was not an excuse to underperform and that it was her responsibility, as a leader, to provide a
learning environment that would facilitate students with disabilities’ ability to achieve while
being included. That tenacious commitment to setting and maintaining high academic
expectations was a strong element of her leadership and a pillar of the ways in which she
Lillian. Lillian held the belief that schools should be both effective and inclusive. She
believed that students with disabilities were capable of meeting high academic achievement
standards in the inclusive setting. She spoke emphatically of her belief, grounded in personal
experience, of her capacity to satisfy both requirements to be effective and inclusion mandates:
I've had success in having both [high rates of inclusion and academic achievement]. I
think because I've had success in having both... I know that you can have both. I'm
always constantly working on both. Are we an inclusive setting? Are we meeting all kids'
needs? Are we looking at individual kids? And we do that while we work to increase
achievement? I know you can have both. So, that's always my track. We're going to
increase both.
Lillian held firmly to a belief that, through her leadership, she could help students with
disabilities in her schools grow academically while also helping them attain and maintain an
equitable place of membership in the school community. Her penchant to be highly engaged in
and reflective of instruction and culture of her schools demonstrated a disposition committed to
perform, Lillian communicated high academic expectations for students with disabilities through
137
her leadership of her teachers. She focused on holding teachers accountable for knowing student
data and adjusting instructional practices to help the students with disabilities grow.
I would sit down with a teacher and look at her class and the data that's produced, kid by
kid. We go through each kid and look at how they're doing… a teacher gets very used to
bringing data to that meeting on kids… we would celebrate that success and talk about,
“OK, how are we giving him some one-on-one or small group support to continue
knowing students’ data and adjusting their practice to improve student progress. During data
collection, she lamented that general education teachers often operated under the assumption that
teaching students with disabilities was not part of their professional responsibility. Lillian’s
belief system was diametrically opposed to the idea of educational silos and she often reminded
teachers that did not share her inclusive mindset that, in her schools, “all means all” and clarified
that every student in a teacher’s class was presumed competent (Biklen, 1999) and was expected
Pamela. Ms. Howard’s high expectations for student progress, like Lillian’s, also
included managing expectations of teachers. Where she and Lillian differed, however, was not in
making sure teachers maintained high expectations but in ensuring that teachers’ expectations
were not unattainable. In her leadership for an effective inclusive school, Pamela encountered
teachers with overinflated ideas of what it meant to be successful. She explained that some
teachers in her school viewed attaining proficiency to be too low of an expectation. She noted
that, because her school had long been a very highly achieving school, she needed to spend time
138
managing teacher expectations about grades, mastering standards, and understanding student
variability. Pamela clarified that, for students with disabilities, meeting proficiency was
We’ve always been a high performing school, even though we have a pretty diverse
school… a lot of teachers will bring a child to our MTSS [multi-tiered systems of
support] meetings who if they were at another school, they would never be brought to
that meeting. It's easy to lose sight of what is an average kind of kid if you have a lot of
high-performing kids...It doesn't mean that they need to be identified as a child with a
disability because they're not at the level that the other kids in your room are.
The bulk of Ms. Howard’s work for high achievement expectations was in maintaining
expectations that were elevated but still attainable. She worked to strike a balance with her
teachers somewhere between expecting every student to exceed standard mastery and allowing
students with disabilities to simply be present in a room for the social benefits of inclusion. She
also spent time helping teachers understand how to build in accommodations and modifications,
where appropriate to help teachers help their students with disabilities meet increased
achievement goals. Her work in communicating her belief about effective inclusive schooling
and presumed competence was rooted more deeply in helping teachers understand how to
integrate accommodations and evidence-based practices for students with disabilities into their
Angela. Angela’s expectations for high achievement demands for students centered on
meeting students where they were and scaffolding instruction. As a leader, she communicated
lofty achievement expectations but remained realistic about the steps required to get students to
139
proficient levels. Understanding that students did not all progress in the same ways, at the same
time, she spoke of maintaining high expectations for teaching and learning even when students
were not demonstrating progress at expected rates. Angela explained, “that is a consistent
struggle because some [students with disabilities] just plateau. We're doing everything we can.
We're providing every strategy and they're still; I just call it flat lining. We just keep them keep
pushing them. For Angela, demonstrating her inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive
schooling was about getting down to that “nitty gritty” of high expectations and putting
accountability structures into place to ensure that teachers knew student data and could
appropriately measure progress. She described setting up data chats to help teachers identify
student need, “every Wednesday, I met with a team of teachers and we [ask] ‘Where are you?
What are they [students] doing? How are they? How are we moving them? How we are
motivating them?”. Because teachers cannot meet needs they cannot recognize, making sure
teachers knew how their students were performing so that they could address need was an
integral component of how Angela maintained high academic achievement expectations for the
Cross-case analysis. Each principal set and communicated expectations for students with
disabilities by disseminating their ideas that learning, making achievement gains, and mastery of
standards was not negotiable. For example, Jacqueline stated, “when student achievement is your
number one goal, they're [students with disabilities] included in that”. Pamela remarked, “Even
though they have special needs, we give them accommodations and they need to do their work”.
Additionally, Lillian said, “Wherever they are, whether they're really, really low or not much
below grade level. Wherever they are, they should be growing”. Lastly, Angela Waters noted,
140
“I'm not going to not expect less, but I'm going to be OK if they're giving me their best”. None of
these effective inclusive principals were content to let students with disabilities underperform or
used their students’ disabilities as justification for the student to be excused from achieving. The
only caveat to high achievement expectations, for some leaders, was that, for students with very
significant disabilities, high expectations would look different from those students with high
incidence disabilities but all were expected to perform to the best of their ability and demonstrate
growth. This dogged determination (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015) to ensure that students with
disabilities learned and grew academically was a direct reflection of their inclusive
consciousnesses and underscored their belief that students with disabilities were presumed
competent (Biklen, 1999). It was unacceptable, to these leaders, to have a student in their school
that was not trying to help improve or, more specifically, it was incongruent with their inclusive
consciousness to allow learners to fail without doing all in their power to help the student
succeed. The practice of communicating high achievement expectations for students with
disabilities spoke to each leaders’ values and beliefs that students with disabilities were capable
schooling. Three of the leaders, Angela, Lillian, and Jacqueline, focused their efforts on
communicating high expectations for students with disabilities while Pamela experienced
another facet of setting and managing high expectations for teachers. In Pamela’s school,
teachers expected all students to perform above grade-level with limited intervention or
resources. She needed to help teachers understand that students with disabilities may need
141
accommodations and the ways in which they meet high expectations may differ from other
students in their class but that students with disabilities were still capable and should be
instructed as such. Although their leadership practice for setting a vision for high expectation
varied, depending on the needs of their staff, they all held beliefs that students with disabilities
ought to be held to high academic standards and that it was their responsibility, as leaders, to
Ethical call to inclusion. As data were analyzed, a recurrent theme of feeling an ethical
call to inclusion as a difference-maker for students with disabilities emerged. The need to be a
their inclusive mindset. As a function of principal mindsets and beliefs about effective inclusive
education, they all felt compelled to be change agents and advocates for students with disabilities
in their schools. They spoke about feeling convicted to do what was right for students with
disabilities and right systemic wrongs in inclusive practice in their schools. The most persistent
unethical practice cited by the participants was the practice of students with disabilities being
denied access to the general education classroom; as such, their answer to the ethical call to
inclusion was manifested the principals’ advocacy for students with disabilities being held to
As they progressed through their teaching careers, each principal gleaned that academic
expectations for students with disabilities were lower outside of the inclusive classroom. For this
reason, they favored inclusion for most students with disabilities in their schools. Driven by the
belief that inclusive placement naturally equated to better opportunity for students, these
ensuring that the majority of students with disabilities in their schools were held to high
Lillian. Lillian believed that inclusion offered the best chance at valued membership in
the school community, increased academic expectations, and access to an equitable education for
students with disabilities. As a teacher, Lillian explained that seeing significant disparity in
outcomes for students with disabilities in inclusive settings and those in more restrictive
[As a teacher] I saw kids with disabilities stay in their core and those kids did very, very
well and so I really became interested, at that point, in inclusive practices. So, when I was
named principal at Millbrook, students with disabilities-only like 23% were passing the
state assessment and I would watch those kids. They [Millbrook Elementary School] used
a resource pullout model. So, I watched those kids leave their excellent reading teacher
and go to a resource pullout classroom where the skill level dropped way down low and
there were chronic behavior problems… I thought to myself-this is so unfair! This kid is
leaving a great teacher and going to this room that is a mess for a lot of different reasons
unsuccessful and ineffective, Lillian committed herself to correcting the practice of removing
students with disabilities from the general education classroom, when she was able to lead her
own school. She explained that her commitment to effective inclusive practice came from seeing
inclusion work and witnessing the benefits it had in academic outcomes for students with and
I saw the [inclusive schooling] model evolve, and it worked, and it was good for kids. All
kids... data took off. We became an A school and our students with disabilities grew 30
and 40% passing the state test. We just had this great success and I have continued.
Because of the success she saw inclusion having, in her school, she expressed an explicit
desire to problem-solve student need to ensure no student left the inclusive classroom unless
there was no other option. Occasionally, she was not able to maintain general education
placement and explained the internal tug-of-war she felt on her inclusive consciousness when
Every now and then, we get one [student with a disability] that I just finally got to the
point-it was very hard, and it hurt me to have to say, "we’ve tried everything, and this
child just needs a more restrictive environment. We can’t-". I had to make that decision
and that was hard because I had always told them [district placement office], "We can do
it! We can do it! We can do it!" Sometimes I had to say, "No, we can’t. We can’t do this
child."… We find experts…we listen, and we try to figure it out…there were very few
Because Lillian believed that achievement, positive outcomes, and inclusion were
interconnected, she was visibly disheartened when she spoke of being unable to meet a student’s
need in the inclusive setting. Talking about this belief, Lillian reiterated, “All means all. Every
decision I make, that needs to be in the back of my brain”. Her belief that inclusive classrooms
are better for students with disabilities was compelling and having to send a student to a
classroom that she viewed as, potentially, less rigorous was incongruent with her mindset and
how she desired to demonstrate her own inclusive consciousness. Lillian understood the
144
responsibility of leading in such a way as to ensure the needs of every student in her school were
met. Every choice she made, in her effective inclusive school, was for the benefit of all students
and she leaned heavily into that idea that every student deserved a quality, equitable education.
She was driven to lead in a way that demonstrated her inclusive consciousness not because she is
mandated to do so but because she is intrinsically compelled to provide students with the best
education possible and, to her, that meant students with disabilities being educated alongside
Pamela. Pamela’s ethical call to inclusion included high academic expectations for
students with disabilities in the general education classroom because she, like Lillian, saw
resources rooms and self-contained classrooms as places in which students received sub-par
I’ve seen children who have been in a resource room for several years have a very
difficult time being in a general ed. class and not having attention as quickly as they
would have in the resource room-the demands aren’t quite as much [in the resource
room].
Pamela contrasted her disappointment with separate classrooms with her belief in the
school teacher, in the inclusive classroom, and seeing students with disabilities’ graduation rates
When they started [co-teaching] in the 9th grade, out of the 15 kids that started in the 9th
grade that would have been in the resource room having 12 or 13 graduate. That was
huge! That was huge when in the past, we would have 3 or 4 [graduate].
145
These experiences helped her develop her inclusive consciousness to a place where she
encouraged a culture of high expectations for students that may, in other schools, not even be
disabilities, she was able to witness students with disabilities achieving academic and social
For some children, we have seen growth in those children we would not have seen
before, and it helps them become more independent…. They might not be functioning on
grade level...but modifying those tests, they’re still getting more if they’re able to be there
Because of the equity and access inclusive placements offered, Pamela regularly
advocated for students with disabilities to be placed in general education classrooms. Pamela’s
expectations for students with disabilities compelled her to enact her own inclusive
consciousness for high achievement in the inclusive classroom. Ms. Howard was not content to
incompetence.
Although Pamela believed that inclusion was the best choice for most students, it is
important to note that Pamela framed high expectations through the lens of student capacity, or a
readiness model. She referred frequently to her belief in a continuum of services and providing
achievement directives and inclusion demands, this distinction between her concept of inclusive
education and that of her peers was in the degree to which she believed students with significant
146
disabilities ought to be included in the general education classroom. Pamela cited internal
struggle with her own belief that students with significant cognitive disabilities needed a more
restrictive environment in which they could receive a functional curriculum and that her school
Some of our really low cognitive kids they probably need to be at a more restrictive
school with, where the whole school really- but, you know, that goes back to my
cannot do that. We are still a typical pre-K to 5 school. Our focus is primarily academics.
Ms. Howard believed that her school was not able to provide an appropriate education for
students with significant cognitive disabilities and that the mandate to include these students in
general education classrooms was doing them a disservice. Her stance in achievement
expectations for students with very significant cognitive disabilities was that high expectations
for these students look different than for those with high incidence disabilities. She was firm in
her belief that the general education classroom was not the least restrictive environment for all
students with disabilities and she, of all the four principals that participated in this study, was
most heavily influenced by the provisions outlined in IDEA (2004) in her leadership for effective
inclusive schools.
Angela. Before she became a principal, as a general education teacher, Angela realized
that she had the ability to be a difference-maker for the students with disabilities included in her
classroom. In her experience as a fourth-grade teacher, she described being the teacher that
provided reading instruction to students with disabilities who spent most of their day in a self-
contained classroom and traveled to her general education room for instruction in one subject.
147
She spoke about her experience helping students understand that they were not incapable of
learning simply because they were educated, part of the day, in a separate class. She
remembered:
[Students said] I’m dumb, I’m stupid, I have an IEP. They know they have an IEP. They
know it means, to them, “I’m dumb”-they didn’t get it. I felt like teachers didn’t know
how to have that conversation. You have an IEP, you learn differently…It just means
your brain learns differently... It doesn’t mean you’re dumb. It just means your learning is
going to look different…Knowing how they felt and the struggle that they felt just
became a passion to me. I think it’s because I had those inclusion kids and watching half
my class feel a certain way about their learning and then being able to have a say in how
Her experience working with students from a self-contained setting instilled in Angela a
call to be a catalyst for change in the educational experience of her students with disabilities.
Because she saw the inequity of segregated classrooms and the capability of students with
disabilities, when they were in her classroom, Angela came to know and believe that these
students were competent and needed the opportunity to demonstrate that competence. Angela’s
belief in the potential ability of students with disabilities manifested in her behaviors. She
viewed the students in her room that came from self-contained settings as students that needed a
teacher to care about them and invest effort in helping them succeed. She said of her work with
these students from the self-contained classrooms, “I need to see you [student] every day…I
need to meet with you, and we need to push you…”. Angela built a foundation for inclusive
leadership that favored the inclusive classroom for its opportunity to provide increased academic
148
rigor and high expectations and remove that stigma that students in self-contained classrooms
can feel that sends a message that they are second-class members of the school community.
in the self-contained setting informed her beliefs about the ethics of inclusion and placement of
students with disabilities. Her primary concern with the self-contained classroom and the
experiences it offered her students was their limited ability to make academic progress and
improve behaviors in a classroom that seemed to only make behaviors intensify. She explained
her perspective that inclusion offered access to a more appropriate setting for her students to
[Concerns were] seeing the impact and the lack of progress that students made in the
[self-contained behavior] program. Learning the behaviors of one another and becoming
worse in the program. I had a [general education] teacher I really worked with, a 5th
grade teacher, who wanted to try it [inclusion] with me. She was open to my students and
just to see what that did for them-the change in their academics, the change in their
Ms. Martin attributed her belief in inclusion and propensity to support inclusion for every
student before considering an alternative placement to her early experiences as a teacher. These
seminal events laid the groundwork for her choice to demonstrate her inclusive consciousness, as
a principal, through keeping students with disabilities in general education classrooms as long as
possible. Because she had a reputation for removing barriers for teacher and students to support
inclusion, Ms. Martin was asked to explain why she included students in general education
classrooms and maintained high expectations for these learners when other principals may have
149
chosen to refuse inclusive opportunities to the student because their disability may be more
significant. When asked why she included students that others might not, she explained:
classrooms]. Do I know principals who would not do it? Absolutely. And it goes back to
what I was just saying. Especially our A schools, they feel like they can't get their A, or
they can't do the academic push with the rest of the students if they have to work around
the disabilities of this particular child. My answer to that is we've got to work on
Ms. Martin asserted that it was not the students who are incapable of being successfully
included, but that teachers and leaders need to change their mindset about students with
disabilities. She spoke, on many occasions, of building capacity and putting systems into place to
support students with disabilities. For Jacqueline, an important way in which she demonstrated
her inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership was not placing blame on students
for not learning well enough, but by making schools responsible for building in structures that
bring equity to education of all students through inclusion and high expectations.
included in this research were committed to providing students with disabilities an equitable
education. For all these leaders, an inclusive mindset for placement of students with disabilities
expectation, when considering leading an effective inclusive school. Overall, most principals
believed inclusion was a civil right and took delivery of that service very seriously. The
exception to this belief was Pamela. In contrast to her peers, Ms. Howard’s drive to do what was
150
best for students was influenced heavily by her belief in the continuum of services and readiness.
This belief was part of her inclusive consciousness and added nuance to her ethical call to
inclusion. She was also ethically called to place students with significant disabilities in
classrooms that she believed served them best. For her, it was preferable to place a student in a
self-contained classroom or separate school, even if the academic standards are lower in that
room, as long as the standards were still rigorous to that student. This caveat applied specifically
For the other three participants, eschewing silos, they believed that separation of students
with disabilities from the rest of the school population was not an option unless the student was
not able to have their needs met in a general education classroom with supplementary aides,
services, and supports. Doing what was right for kids looked a little different for each principal,
based on their beliefs and experiences, but, for all four, equity was a foundational tenet of their
inclusive consciousnesses.
The hallmark of a leader with a strong inclusive consciousness was the ability to put their
beliefs about effective inclusive education of students with disabilities into practice. Enacting
effective inclusive leadership meant more than saying that your personal philosophy of education
included all learners, or that every student deserved an equitable educational experience. Such
sentiment was worthless if you were unable to make those beliefs actionable. Principals in this
study put their beliefs into practice with specific intention of demonstrating their inclusive
consciousness. Every leader had a different method by which they came to acquire their
inclusive consciousness, but they each participated in a specific set of leadership behaviors that
151
demonstrated their inclusive consciousness and were exclusively relevant to their role as
principal of an effective inclusive school. These include: (a) sharing and communicating their
vision; (b) building leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools; (c) focusing on
Sharing and communicating vision. Having a vision that made space for high
achievement expectations and inclusive spaces to coexist was a priority for each of the four
principals included in this research. These leaders were keenly aware that effective inclusive
schools did not manifest and thrive by accident, rather, they were developed with intention.
Effective inclusive schools were developed with specific care and consideration for students with
disabilities, along with all students with needs, and their success in the forefront of a leaders’
consciousness. Each leader worked to share their vision for their schools by setting the example
of how to be very effective and inclusive in their own leadership behaviors. Principals, guided by
their inclusive consciousnesses, talked about how they established a shared vision and
demonstrated leadership for effective inclusive schools through shared, data-based decision-
Shared, data-based decision-making. Each principal interviewed for this study spoke
about the importance of shared, data-based decision-making in their leadership for effective
communication and collaboration to support their vision for effective inclusive schooling. Part of
what made these principals effective was that they did not rely on apocryphal beliefs or
perceptions of what students with disabilities could do or needed, instead, they used data to
inform their choices. These leaders collaborated with stakeholders and, together, based on data,
152
made decision that allowed students with disabilities greater access to their least restrictive
environment, improved teachers’ academic expectations, and increased buy-in of the principal’s
improve students with disabilities’ access to the least restrictive environment. Pamela recalled
using state achievement data to reform service delivery and challenge assumptions about where
students with disabilities were best educated. She spoke about how using data to make decisions
helped her improve rates of inclusion and share her vision with the teachers in her school:
We look at the data, honestly and see-and that’s really how we got started on this
[inclusion]… we were looking at our state testing data and the science test. We don’t
even offer science in the resource room and a lot of these kids are doing alright. I was
asked why are we doing this resource room stuff? I need to be pushing them out, not
giving them this safe haven all the time in a resource room.
Looking at testing data allowed Pamela, and school stakeholders, to recognize that
students with disabilities could be successful in general education settings and deliver results on
standardized achievement tests. For Pamela, that understanding precipitated the establishment of
a coteaching program in her school that allowed for inclusive opportunities for many students
with disabilities.
Lillian. Lillian Schmidt talked about using data to share her inclusive vision with a new
school. Having been wildly successful at providing an effective inclusive education at previous
school, when Ms. Schmidt was moved to a new building, she presented data to help teachers
153
understand why she wanted to continue using the inclusive model of education for students with
I share results...I showed Millbrook results. I have a chart that shows kids, regular ed.
kids and kids with disabilities and I said, “I know how to get us to this” and this was an F
school that was under state mandates. And I know how to get us out.
She continued to explain how sharing data and with parents and other stakeholders
supported her inclusive vision when she recalled parents’ reactions to impressive data of all types
I’d show that data at school advisory council, at PTO meeting, here’s a regular ed kid and
they’d ask “Well, why is that?’’ Well, cause in this an inclusive classroom, there’s more
Using data to demonstrate that inclusion yielded academic benefit to students with and
without disabilities, Ms. Schmidt also curried favor from stakeholders and facilitated buy-in for
helped her demonstrate her inclusive consciousness and facilitate buy-in with stakeholders in her
school. Ms. Martin explained that nearly all her decisions about teaching and leading were based
in data. She talked about using data to have crucial conversations about the capacity students
Whenever I think of state testing accountability, I really don't separate out the students
with disabilities. I'm thinking of all the kids and how they all equate into this formula that
154
we have to come up with and when we're talking with teachers about that correlation they
see the impact that the students with disabilities have on their school.
Ms. Martin, in collaboration with her teachers, after looking at data, made decisions
about service delivery and placement for students with disabilities that would be challenging but
We're looking at all aspects of the data, whether it's how they're doing in reading and how
they're doing in math. What is their behavior like? What's their attendance like? What are
their social emotional needs? All of those need to be considered when you're talking
about the placement of students and where they would have the best fit.
Using data to make decisions helped take the emotional charge away from talking about
students. By relying on information that could be collected and quantified, Ms. Martin and her
team were able to make choices rooted in reality that created a clear picture of where a student
with disabilities was functioning and what they needed to be able to continue to grow.
Angela. Angela spoke about using shared decision-making to mitigate concerns over
student behavior. She described collecting interested parties and working together to problem-
solve student concerns using all available information from the people that work with the
It’s just sitting down, calling everybody to the table...we have the teacher, we have the
guidance counselor, we have the instructional coach, myself, the behavior teacher. So, we
have academic and the behavioral side. [We ask] what's going on? Let's look at it from all
Angela’s value in the opinion of others and participation in the decision-making process
sent the message to her staff that she was invested in the outcomes and experiences of her
students, both with and without disabilities. This type of leadership behavior demonstrated her
Cross-case analysis. For all leaders in this study, making choices supported using data
that honored the needs and experience of students with disabilities was a priority. They carefully
analyzed several forms of data to determine student need, and provided students with disabilities
the supports required to be successful in inclusive environments. Pamela used data to inform
inclusive placement, moving students to less restrictive environments, Angela talked about using
data to improve student behavior, Jacqueline used academic data to hold students to high
academic expectations, and Lillian used data to improve inclusive programs by soliciting buy-in
from stakeholders. They each used a shared, data-based decision making process to solve a
myriad of problems related to effective inclusive leadership including, garnering teacher support
for inclusion, currying parent favor for inclusive practice, supporting socially appropriate
Communication. The principals in this study deliberately worked to deliver the message
to their students and stakeholders that they were committed to effective inclusive leadership.
Ensuring that they actively engaged in sending and receiving messages that demonstrated their
156
inclusive consciousness was at the core of each leaders’ values in practice. The four effective
inclusive leaders in this study worked to establish a culture of communication in their schools.
Pamela. Regarding the culture of communication, Pamela noted that she and her
administrative team purposefully presented a united front in the way they communicated with
stakeholders about her vision for effective inclusive schooling. She referred to this practice as
making sure she and her team were “all singing the same song” to support her inclusive vision.
Ms. Howard also valued communication to problem-solve ways to meet student need. She said,
I think we're [the administrative team] all on the same page and we talk about situations
and problem-solve through situations and then meet with the teachers as a team to try to
get a handle on what's going on, what's working, what's not working, what can we do
differently?
Ensuring that she and her administrative team were there to support teachers of and
students with disabilities, Ms. Howard was communicating that she was supportive of the
experiences that effective inclusive education brings. She understood that marrying high
expectations for students with disabilities with higher rates of inclusive placement was difficult
for some teachers to understand but that she prioritized supporting her staff and actively
communicated with others to problem-solve changes that needed to be made to ensure that both
Angela. Building on the idea that communication could improve the educational
experience for both teachers and students, Angela Waters talked about communicating her
157
inclusive vision to teachers who may not have felt they had the skills necessary to support
I just start talking about best practices and that conversation of “we want what's best for
children”. I know this is hard. I know it's not something that you may feel comfortable
with. We'll have trainings and whatever you need, we'll be there to support.
She spoke about explicitly communicating, through weekly emails to her staff, how
support would be provided to teachers in need. Ms. Waters also addressed doing her own
research about what effective inclusive schooling was and how to make it work in practice. She
shared how she communicated what she had learned in her personal professional development to
her staff:
and then telling my expectations of using them...I just say please make sure that this is
By explicitly stating that she wanted to see evidence-based practices for students with
disabilities included in their lessons, Ms. Waters was communicating her inclusive vision for an
effective inclusive school in a way that was tangible and manageable to teachers to understand
and implement. In addition to weekly email communication, Ms. Waters also talked about
communicate her expectations and vision for her effective inclusive school. Communication was
not a one-way street, however, Ms. Waters talked about receiving feedback from her staff and
making changes in her own leadership. She remarked, “It's a constant process. That's the other
part of leadership is staying open to learning from your environment and making adjustments”.
158
That self-awareness and willingness to take feedback as a part of her commitment to open
communication was integral to how Ms. Waters demonstrated her own inclusive consciousness
communication was reciprocal and that her vision for her effective inclusive school shared. She
underscored the benefit of considering the needs of her staff in how she set her vision and
I always make sure to make sure that it was a two-way communication, making sure that
we mold it together, that it wasn't just my vision and now go do it. Communication was
number one…teachers need to feel comfortable coming and talking about what's working
By valuing the needs of her teachers and understanding that there was some discomfort in
leading effective inclusive schools, Ms. Martin not only used communication to share her own
vision, but to facilitate buy-in from her staff. She elicited buy-in by including teachers and staff
in decision-making and ensuring they felt like their ideas and feelings were valued. Remaining
open to discourse and disagreement allowed Ms. Martin to clear misconceptions of her inclusive
vision and build trust among her teachers that she would be supportive of their needs as they
Lillian. Lillian Schmidt spoke about understanding the role communication plays in
sharing her vision for effective inclusive schools. She said, simply, “I saw it as important to drive
it to where we wanted it to be”. Ms. Schmidt had a different idea of how communication of her
inclusive consciousness should look. She took a no-nonsense approach to her communication of
159
her vision, likening herself to a “bull in a china shop”. She said, of her approach to
communicating her vision and setting expectations, “I’m not everybody’s cup of tea. People
leave because they realize real quick-I make decisions about kids”. Although she was firm in her
stance and direct in her approach to effective inclusive schooling, Ms. Schmidt was not
unreasonable in understanding that she needed to facilitate buy-in and build teachers’ trust. She
communicated her inclusive vision by leading by example. She spoke about building a culture of
People get the idea that I'm supportive. I hear your concerns... let's come up with other
ideas to try. Here's what support I can offer. Once you create that kind of dialog with
your staff then they're quick to want to say, 'Hey, can we get together, talk?' They do it
once and they experience it and then their mindset kind of changes to- she's [Lillian]
willing to listen.
inclusive schools. She demonstrated a willingness to problem-solve and take feedback as much
as she asked her teachers to help her enact her vision. In doing so, she not only communicated
sharing their vision for effective inclusive schooling. Each participant used communication to
not only share their vision but to vocalize their support of teachers who may have felt
overwhelmed by taking on the task of building an inclusive school. Pamela used a team approach
to communication to share vision and demonstrate support for reticent teachers by enlisting her
entire administrative team to support her message of inclusion and high expectations. Angela,
160
Pamela, and Lillian spoke of their individual communication practices to build an effective
inclusive school; however, they all used communication to support teachers and build teacher
capacity for inclusive education. They each engaged in open dialogue with their stakeholders and
were willing to do the work of an effective inclusive leader. Taking feedback and being willing
to listen was just as much a part of their communication of their vision as was their own voice.
Collaboration. In communicating their visions for effective inclusive schools and being
active participants in sharing that vision, the principals in this study laid the groundwork for a
culture of clear and open communication in their schools. Because communication and
collaboration are often inextricable in these principals’ leadership practice, collaboration became
a central tenet of how they demonstrated their inclusive consciousness in their leadership for
effective inclusive schools. For the participants, collaboration was invaluable because, as they
noted, leading an effective inclusive school was a complex task that could not be accomplished
friends, to problem-solve and meet student need in and outside of their buildings. Principals
asserted that seeking out expertise was a critical practice in their leadership, even though some
principals had backgrounds and formal training in special education, they all looked for
collaborators to help them enact their vision for effective inclusive schools.
Lillian. Lillian Schmidt voiced that she relied heavily on collaboration with experts in
inclusive education to enact her inclusive vision, “I have been surrounded by great experts who I
saw and soaked up the knowledge from”. Ms. Schmidt spoke of her continued collaboration with
one in-house expert that she hired to be her special education support years ago, at a previous
I had a wonderful ESE teacher in my school who had done inclusion and so she really
took the lead on training of staff and getting resources in classrooms and training
paras…I hired her right at the point that I wanted to move to inclusion and but I don’t
know too much about it and she was a great resource of information and she has just an
abundance of passion for the topic and for kids with disabilities and so I learned so much
from her and she pushed me, as a principal. If you say you’re going to believe in this, if
you say that all means all, then you know, back it up with your decisions…back it up
with resources, back it up with your PD choices, and she really pushed me to do that.
That relationship with a collaborative partner who really understood inclusive education
helped develop Lillian’s inclusive consciousness and helped her learn how to demonstrate her
beliefs about effective inclusive education. Lillian spoke at length about the collaboration
between her and her special education support teacher. She commented that she and that teacher
collaborate still, even though they no longer work together in the same building. Ms. Schmidt
spoke often about her practice of using collaborators to fill-in where she may not have the
appropriate knowledge to support her staff. She remembered, “I had developed a climate of we
get at the table, we problem solve, we bring experts to the table if we don’t know, because I
didn’t know”. She remembered collaborating with teachers and experts in her district, saying,
“we’re all very passionate about helping all kids and I learned a pile from them”.
Acknowledging that she could not have all the knowledge necessary to support and grow an
effective inclusive school within herself demonstrated the type of radical self-awareness that not
every leader possessed. For all the leaders in this research, recognizing that they needed
162
collaborators to support their vision for effective inclusive schools was a critical element of how
Pamela. Pamela Howard also talked about collaborating with experts to help her
communicate and demonstrate her vision for inclusion. She, like Lillian, spoke about her belief
that one leader will not have all knowledge necessary to implement evidence-based practice for
effective inclusive education and that collaboration was necessary to enact her vision. She
recalled partnering with a discretionary project funded by the state of Florida to build teacher
capacity for evidence-based practices for inclusion, “This summer, Inclusion Connection [state
discretionary project] came in and did some training and the teachers really enjoyed it and
learned a lot from it. They've come back and given us some feedback, observed in some
classrooms...”. Because leading an effective school cannot be done in isolation, Pamela relied on
outside resources to provide training, feedback, and support to her teachers that she, as a leader,
Ms. Howard relied on her assistant principal, dean, and school psychologists, and outside
opportunities for students to disseminate knowledge to teachers and build a collaborative culture.
She spoke of her team approach to collaborative problem-solving for inclusive opportunities,
“We'd sit down and problem solve together, whether it's with me or with my AP or with both of
us or with our dean”. Ms. Howard’s collaboration with experts to improve effective inclusive
education demonstrated her commitment to ensuring students with disabilities could get the most
out of their education and teachers were equipped to meet student need. By engaging with varied
163
collaborators and encouraging a culture of collaboration, Pamela made sure support for effective
inclusive education was provided, even if she could not be the person to provide it.
Angela. Angela Waters, like her counterparts, engaged in collaboration that included
setting up a culture in her school that expected and welcomed sharing ideas and problem-solving.
She spoke of establishing collaborative planning meetings with general and special education
teachers to ensure that students with disabilities in her school had their needs met. She
remembered:
We constantly have meetings. My inclusion teachers meet and then they meet in the
teams. The inclusion teacher would meet each one of the teams and we'd meet with them
weekly. So, every Wednesday, I met with a team of teachers and we [discussed] where
are you? What are they doing? How are they? How are we moving them? How we are
motivating them?
In addition to collaborative planning meetings, Ms. Waters also shared her inclusive
vision through collaborating with state-wide discretionary projects that supported inclusion and
students with disabilities to disseminate information about evidence-based practice for inclusive
education and how to build an effective inclusive school. She looked to district special education
experts, like school psychologists and staffing specialists, and other special education staff to
help her provide support to teachers of and students with disabilities in her school.
Jacqueline. Like her cohorts, Jacqueline Martin talked about relying on experts in her
building to support her vision but also recognized herself as an expert in evidence-based
practices for special education. She did not look at one person as the default special education
authority, rather, she gathered a team of school-based people who shared her similar inclusive
164
mindset and established a practice of working within that team of experts to meet the needs of
students with disabilities. She explained how she gathered her team and how that collaboration
I knew that they [her trusted staff] were about all children...that they have the similar
belief system to me. So, I already knew how they felt about inclusion, I already knew that
they had high expectations, excellent instructional strategies. I knew that they were the
best of the best already.... I had come with ESE knowledge... if I don’t know, I tend to
reach outside.
Ms. Martin used experts in her building and her own expertise to share her vision for
effective inclusive education but also was willing to recognize where she may have needed
additional knowledge and seek it out in order to meet the needs of the students in her school. She
mentioned feeling largely unsupported by her district staff but spoke of her ability to reach out
when necessary. As she prepared to open a large school designed to serve several specific
populations of students with disabilities, Ms. Martin recalled, “I had all of the different heads of
those special programs to come and talk to me”. After meeting with district experts, Ms. Martin
shared her newfound knowledge with her teachers and staff to support those students with
Cross-case analysis. For each of these four leaders, collaboration was invaluable in their
leadership of effective inclusive schools. They all noted that their leadership was dependent upon
both collaboration and communication because they could not have led an effective inclusive
school without help. Although most of the principals had university-level special education
training, none of them were completely prepared to lead an effective inclusive school alone. The
165
dynamics of leading effective inclusive schools are very complex for one leader to be adequately
prepared to be an expert in every aspect. The participants needed to collaborate with individual
within and outside of their schools to help build their capacity to lead an effective inclusive
school. Expertise was found in teachers, district staff, and at the state level. While at times each
took a different approach, they all partnered with collaborative team members to demonstrate
their inclusive consciousness and use discernible information about what students need to ensure
all learners, but especially those with disabilities, had the opportunity to be successful in their
demonstrated humility, courage, and honesty in their leadership because they did not shy away
from seeking knowledge for fear of looking incompetent or less qualified. They remained self-
aware and curious, driven to possess the appropriate tools and skills build to help them enact
Building personal leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools. All four
principals spoke about feeling an initial lack of preparedness to lead effective inclusive schools;
however, they all also spoke about their efforts to improve their lack of knowledge through their
own personal professional development. Recognizing that they did not possess the necessary
skills and knowledge to lead effective inclusive schools, the principals in this study began
seeking ways to build their own professional capacity. The participants engaged in several
activities that would address the gaps in their principal preparation for special education
leadership including reading research, placing themselves in special education spaces, seeking
expertise, asking questions, and attending formal training. While these four leaders were
166
formally unprepared for leading effective inclusive schools, each principal emphasized the
critical need for personal professional development that aligned with their inclusive
consciousness beliefs to improve upon their knowledge of teaching and leading students with
disabilities. To address their gaps in principal preparation, they all developed habits of seeking
knowledge in order to improve their leadership skills, especially as they related to maintaining
Lillian. Lillian Schmidt explained that neither her teacher, nor her principal preparation
program prepared her for the demands of leading an inclusive school. This lack of preparation
necessitated alternative training and development that she believed she gained through
My teacher prep didn’t really much and neither did my principal prep. We never really
addressed being a leader of special education. I think my experience has just been on the
job. Watching teachers, making decisions, working with other staff, and brainstorming
decisions to help all kids. And so, I think my prep has been on my feet and the
experiences.
Owing her experiences to on-the-job training, Lillian underscored the importance of job-
principal. Lillian and her cohorts emphasized that, with a dearth of formal training in leading
effective inclusive schools, they needed to prioritize seeking their own professional development
for effective inclusive leadership in order to be able to demonstrate their inclusive consciousness,
disseminate their inclusive vision, and successfully lead an effective inclusive school.
Addressing this need to create her own learning opportunities for inclusive education, Lillian
167
said, “if I’m going to lead this, I better know what I’m doing” and without formal avenues to get
trained in how to lead an effective inclusive school, she sought her own professional
development opportunities. Lillian said, of her efforts to build her own inclusive leadership
capacity:
I learned from the experts in my building who did have knowledge. And I took the class.
We took an inclusion class through Lawton University. I took it with it with my staff. I
learned right alongside them. And then I read. I'm an avid reader and I read all kind of
books on how to do it…sit through IEP meetings, reading, I’ve read lots of articles and in
the class we took, went over the law about least restrictive environment and that class
prepared me some and just reading. I always tried to get better at my job.
Seeing a deficit in her own ability to lead effective inclusive schools because of her pre-
service preparation, Lillian sought every possible opportunity to ensure that her students, all her
students, were receiving a quality education by improving upon her own knowledge base,
especially as it related to students with disabilities and encouraged her teachers to do the same.
Angela. Angela also spoke about how critical it was to keep learning and growing as an
effective leader, especially given the lack of formal principal preparation she received to lead
effective inclusive schools. When asked about her preparation for leading effective inclusive
schools, Angela Waters said, succinctly, “There is no book for this!”. She remarked that she was,
in her leadership practice, continually looking to improve and build upon her practice as she was
able to learn more about leading effective inclusive schools. She stated, “It's just something you
constantly, year to year... you're changing. You're not just saying status quo… it's a constant
process. That's the other part of leadership is staying open to learning from your environment
168
and making adjustments”. Angela, to separate herself from the status quo and keep growing in
her leadership practice, sought personal professional development by reading articles about
teaching and leading students with disabilities, having lots of conversations with experts in and
outside of her school, and asking questions about the lived experiences of students with
disabilities and how to improve their education through her own practice.
rather than her principal preparation, Ms. Martin was the only principal in this research who
stated that they felt prepared, in any substantive respect, to lead an inclusive school. Jacqueline
I don’t know that the principal preparation program led me to do that [lead an effective
inclusive school]. I think that’s just who I was because I was a teacher of students with
disabilities. That is what led me more. I knew, in my prep program, the importance of
inclusion and the proper inclusion strategies, and the importance of communicating
between the gen. ed. teachers I learned those types of things [in the program].
Crediting her ability to lead inclusive schools to her experience as a teacher of students
with disabilities, Jacqueline felt more prepared to lead an effective inclusive school than any
other leader in this research. Even so, she still sought knowledge to inform her practice.
based in-service training on inclusion. She stated, “I did attend some of the inclusion PDs
[professional development] and I thought they were very beneficial”. While Jacqueline saw
value in formal professional development, she did not place much value on the professional
development offerings available to her through her district office, specifically those that
169
addressed inclusion. She lamented that, years later, the trainings in inclusive practice have
As a principal, her training in how to be an effective inclusive leader came from on-the-
job experience and conversation with people who were knowledgeable about how to teach
students with disabilities. In addition to on-the-job training, she also sought out experts.
Jacqueline spoke of calling a meeting with district experts in low incidence disabilities in
preparation to open a new school with a large concentration of students with low incidence
disabilities:
It’s really reaching out to the district. So, I had all of the different heads of those special
programs to come and talk to me. Tell me all about it. Tell me what I need to know about
working with them. Tell me what you can offer us here, at the school. And just reaching
For Jacqueline, reaching out to experts and seeking professional knowledge allowed her
to build some capacity for her own effective inclusive leadership. She understood that, even with
her extensive background and knowledge in special and inclusive education, leading a new
school with a large population of students with low incidence disabilities would be a challenge
and that she needed to gain more expertise in how to make sure that all students with disabilities
Pamela. Although she was formally trained in special education, Pamela did not feel like
she was prepared to lead an effective inclusive school. When asked to describe how her principal
preparation program prepared her to lead effective inclusive schools, she said, “I would not say
that the principal preparation program did”. Instead, Pamela noted benefit of seeking and
170
consciousness for leading effective inclusive schools. Specifically, she addressed of the value of
seeking training in effective coteaching practices and having conversations with experts in
inclusive special education to better understand how to improve her school’s inclusive practices.
Additionally, Pamela did most of her own capacity building for effective inclusive
leadership through taking various positions in and outside of schools during her 39-year career.
In her career, Pamela had taught students at all levels and in various settings. She has taught in
education and a special education teacher, worked at the Florida Department of Education
overseeing grants for special education, and in student services at the state level. She, essentially,
cross-trained herself in many the different roles that have an impact on the education of students
with disabilities. She maintained that having such a vast array of experiences allowed her to see
leadership of effective inclusive from many different vantage points and apply her knowledge of
Cross-case analysis. Even though two of the four leaders in this study were formally
trained as special educators and all four participants had teaching and leadership degrees
conferred by colleges of education, all the leaders in this research bemoaned their paltry
preparation to lead effective inclusive schools. Finding their formal preparation to lead effective
inclusive schools lacking, each principal in this study made it their mission to improve their
capacity and demonstrate their inclusive consciousness by providing a high quality ethical
educational experience to the students with disabilities in their schools. Seeking knowledge, in
myriad forms, built these principals’ capacity for effective inclusive leadership. Having the self-
171
awareness to recognize that their education in leadership for effective inclusive schooling was
not comprehensive or complete and engaging in conversations about how to become a better
leader with experts, including professionals in their schools, set these leaders apart from
principals who struggle to marry inclusive expectations and achievement demands. The
tenacious refusal to stop learning, or accept the status quo, was the hallmark of how these four
principals both developed and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership for
the principals in this study had to not only know how to manage and perform day-to-day
leadership tasks, but to be excellent instructional leaders-especially for students with disabilities.
Knowing that the vast majority of school principals have little to no instruction in evidence-
based practices for teaching students with disabilities (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Causton-
Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Fisher et al., 2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins,
2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2018; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Wisniewski &
Alper, 1994), there is often minimal direction for teachers from principals in how to meet
academic achievement demands that focus on students with disabilities making gains or reaching
proficiency (Fisher et al., 2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et
al., 2018). The principals in this study identified instructional leadership for students with
disabilities as one of the most valuable methods by which they were able to become both
effective and inclusive. They spoke about using evidence-based instructional practices for
172
students with disabilities and job-embedded professional development as key elements of their
schools are both administrators and instructional leaders in the sense that they drive the direction
of their schools and provide instructional expertise. The changing role of the school principal has
evolved to be less managerial and more focused on instructional leadership (Esposito et al.,
2019; Lynch, 2012; Rinehart, 2017) and for these four principals, instructional leadership meant
building knowing and teaching evidence-based instructional practices for students with
disabilities. By using and advocating for evidence-based practices for inclusive education,
principals created an educational climate in which teachers were able to use evidence-based
practice to address the needs of any learner that entered their classroom. Because they had the
capability to implement evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, these teachers
others, that could fill gaps, set high achievement expectations, and facilitate learning for students
with disabilities.
Angela. Angela was, by training, a general education teacher with formal training in how
to teach general education students. She had instruction in effective practices and pedagogy for
regular education students. As an instructional leader, she was tasked with providing guidance
and professional development for teachers in how to use evidence-based practices for students
with and without disabilities in the inclusive classroom. Angela believed that instructional
practices that worked for students with disabilities would work for students without disabilities
173
and encouraged teachers to use instructional strategies designed for the inclusive classroom for
every student. Angela explained how she expected strategies for students with disabilities to be
You start with those strategies that help the students with learning disabilities. It kind of
works for all those kids. You meet with kids and build that scaffolding...if you just start
with the basic, you'll find out where everybody is and you'll gain the trust of a struggling
student who is the one not on your radar...if I start with the strategies for students with
disabilities, [that struggling student would say] 'Oh, OK, well, that makes sense' and
differentiation, Angela supported her teachers of and students with disabilities through her
instructional leadership of effective inclusive schools. According to Angela, when teachers were
able to engage in evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, a practice that originated
in specially designed instruction became part of the repertoire of “just good teaching”.
leadership for effective inclusive schools. She spoke about looking intentionally at identifying
and utilizing teachers who could model and share instructional strategies that supported
instructional practice, like underutilizing special education support staff and neglecting
collaborative planning, to improve student achievement for all students, with and without
If you just leave your system the way that it is at your school, if you are not trying to
include those students [with disabilities] in the strategies that are happening within the
classroom and then being very, very strategic about how you're using the special
education teacher...if you're not focused in very strategic planning for those kids, you're
instruction using research-based strategies because she believed they would improve
achievement and success of inclusive placement for students with disabilities in her schools. She
specifically supported the practice of differentiation, stating, “we are differentiating every day in
our classrooms with all students. You cannot teach now without differentiating your instruction
because of the different levels of kids in the classrooms”. According to Ms. Martin, using
differentiation as an evidence-based practice was a method by which principals could address the
She also believed that effective inclusive leaders needed to be well-versed and strategic
about instructional planning for teaching students with disabilities. Ms. Martin was asked if one
could improve achievement without improving inclusive practices and she emphatically stated,
“No. No.”. Jacqueline insisted that improvements to how teachers teach students with disabilities
Schools [must] realize that you have to change what you're doing with your special
education population in order to help move that school forward- I feel like that's the key.
That is the key to school achievement in many, many of our struggling schools. Identify
that ESE population that has just not been serviced correctly for a long time.
175
In addition to identifying the students who were underserved, Ms. Martin underscored the
responsibility of the principal to act as an instructional leader and guide teachers so that they may
be able to identify and remedy the disconnect in instruction and achievement. Instructional
leadership, along with leading an inclusive school, was a personal passion for Jacqueline. She
was deeply personally committed to ensuring that students with disabilities were not simply
sitting in the same room as their peers without disabilities and she took special care to be sure
that teachers were prepared to meet the instructional demands that inclusion would bring to the
and training teachers in evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. She talked about
the need to use data to determine evidence-based practices for students with disabilities because
more and more were being included in her school and her teachers needed to know how to
instruct them in ways that would help meet achievement demands. Lillian cited scaffolding,
classrooms saying, “kids are in inclusive settings, they’re getting great exposure to on-grade-
level material. Some are struggling and so I’m trying to teach them [teachers] how to scaffold it
up”. In addition to scaffolding, Lillian also spoke of her support for differentiation in improving
achievement for students with disabilities. She recalled leading a school in which she provided
[Effectiveness of differentiation] was very evident when looking at data in the classes
that were differentiated…every kid-even the kids without disabilities in those [inclusive]
happening? Because these kids [are] in a classroom where there's coteaching. It is a small
group that's differentiated to their level. I guess the kids that are in these other classrooms
are getting whole group instruction- the middle of the pack instruction. It became very
evident that differentiated instruction was the way to go to make kids grow. When you
have a class with a huge range, you've got to differentiate. Then, there was research, and
Lillian believed in using evidence-based practices for students with disabilities because
they helped students with disabilities make achievement gains and improved outcomes for
students without disabilities. She incorporated instructional leadership into her leadership of
effective inclusive schools because she knew that making instruction relevant and accessible for
all the students in her school would equate to improvement for the entire school population.
Lillian’s support of and training for collaborative teaching, scaffolding, differentiation, and data-
based decision making among other strategies, allowed her to meet student need and build
teacher capacity for teachers to not only feel prepared to include students with disabilities in their
classrooms but to ensure that students with disabilities were able to meet high academic
achievement standards.
students with disabilities were centered around using collaborative teaching models. Her belief in
collaborative, or co-teaching, was centered in her experience having established the model in a
high school. She saw student success with its use and brought the same practices to her
school-wide co-teaching model, remarked, “I jumped on it because I could see what a difference
177
it made for the students. Academically, they were challenged more”. Pamela continued to
explain that co-teaching offered a way to dramatically improve academic outcomes for students
with disabilities:
We had a lot of data to show the positive effects of coteaching at that school...the grades
were so much better. They [students with disabilities] built relationships... They were
able to get assistance when they needed assistance. They didn't feel stupid anymore.
academic expectations also improved inclusive culture in Pamela’s school through demonstrating
to stakeholders the benefits of inclusive practice. She provided instructional leadership, not in
content, necessarily, but in practice and in access for students with disabilities.
empowering teachers, through providing supports and building capacity, to teach in inclusive
classrooms where students with disabilities were valued and academically challenged. According
to the participants in this research, using evidence-based practices improved academic outcomes
for students with disabilities, but it also improved teachers’ capacity to teach different types of
learners and become more adept at implementing instructional strategies that support struggling
scaffolding, data-based decision making, and differentiated instruction, allowed students with
disabilities to be taught in ways that facilitated their learning and helped them meet the increased
academic demands inherent in the inclusive classroom. The participants also cited that engaging
in these evidence-based practices had the residual benefit of also improving instructional access
for struggling students without disabilities. What is important to note about these principals’
178
instructional leadership was that, not only are they able to name the practices, but they were able
and support them. These effective inclusive principals were also effective instructional leaders
because they made the intentional effort to know how to improve educational outcomes for
students with disabilities, the four leaders included in this research identified building capacity
for teachers as a critical element in demonstrating their inclusive consciousness for effective
inclusive leadership. Part of the capacity building was their commitment to providing job-
embedded professional development to their teachers. In doing so, the leaders were able to set
and manage high expectations in their teachers for the instruction of students with disabilities. To
ensure that teachers would be able to engage in evidence-based practice to improve outcomes for
Jacqueline. Jacqueline was a firm believer in professional development for teachers. She
understood that a leader needed to be conscious and intentional about how they built teacher
capacity for effective inclusive schools because teachers, she observed, often did not know, or
understand how to do so. It was Jacqueline’s belief that teachers needed explicit practical
instruction in how to teach students with disabilities effectively. She explained, “I always say
you can tell them your expectations, but you also have to help them meet those expectations if
they don’t know how or they don’t believe in it”. By providing training, Jacqueline ensured
teachers knew how to do what she was asking of them, even if they did not believe in it. She
179
used job-embedded professional development for effective inclusive schooling to model her
expectations for teachers. Jacqueline stressed that this training needed to be job-embedded and
site-specific. She lamented the disconnect between teachers leaving for off-site training and not
being able to bring knowledge back to their classrooms for practical application:
I always feel like the teachers need to see that we're talking about their students. I think
sometimes when they go off away and learn something, they have no idea how to come
back and apply that to their classroom…it's not that they don't know how, but by the time
they get back to the classroom. They're so engrossed with the day-to-day what they're so
used to that they just forget about what they just learned. I think job embedded, you can
show them in this school with their students-you can go in and model, you can go in and
follow up. All of those things are easier done when you're doing it here at the school.
Building teacher capacity, in Jacqueline’s opinion, was most effective when it was done
in the setting in which it was expected to be applied. For this reason, Jacqueline often provided
job embedded professional development in the form of observations of other teachers with peer
feedback and in-house expert trainings in inclusive or instructional practice. She encouraged
teachers to help one another grow their practices in collaborative partnership; however, she also
provided professional development and identified need for specific capacity building herself. In
one specific instance, Jacqueline recalled entering a classroom and seeing an immediate need for
professional development related to questioning for students with disabilities. She explained:
I go and I observe the classrooms and I'm noticing, "OK, these teachers are not even
calling on our ESE students. They're totally avoiding them when it comes to answering
questions out loud." So, I would follow that up with an activity during the faculty
180
meeting on how we can make sure that we're calling on students randomly or how do we
call on a student that may not know the right answer, but if I ask the right question to
them, I know they're going to have the right answer. [I helped] them think through what I
saw them struggling with. [I made] sure I give them the PD to go with it to help them
through that.
Seeing that her teacher was not appropriately challenging her students with disabilities,
improve teachers’ ability to utilize questioning and engagement strategies for students with
disabilities. When she saw an opportunity for instructional leadership to improve outcomes for
students with disabilities in her schools, Jacqueline frequently demonstrated her inclusive
Lillian. Lillian held that teachers’ low expectations were often established through a lack
of knowledge of and exposure to students with disabilities. Lillian Schmidt spoke about using
professional development to alleviate teachers’ concerns that came with teaching students with
disabilities. She acknowledged that there was an element of fear of the unknown when teachers
were unprepared to teach students with disabilities. She explained that she addressed these
concerns through training and professional development. She said, “how you get rid of people's
fears and people's complaining is you train them well. And you give them tools where they're not
just flying in the dark trying to meet needs”. Lillian used job-embedded professional
development to train people well and meet their needs so they, at the very least, felt like there
were not flying in the dark. She cited that, over the course of one school year, much of her
instructional professional development centered around meeting the needs of students with
181
disabilities in both behavior and instruction. She offered “training on assistive technology, on
techniques for students that have behavior challenges” and prioritized this instruction because
they improved, in her experience, outcomes for students and made teachers feel capable and
supported. She provided these trainings of her own volition and prioritized job-embedded
professional development that addressed the needs of students with disabilities because it helped
her demonstrate her inclusive consciousness and stay true to what she said she believed. She
explained, “if you say you’re going to believe in this [inclusion], if you say that all means all,
then back it up with your decisions. Back it up with resources. Back it up with your PD
[professional development] choices”. Because she believed in inclusion, she made sure she
addressed the needs of her teachers and gave them the opportunity to learn how to teach students
embedded professional development to build capacity for teachers in effective inclusive schools.
She identified teachers observing in one another’s classrooms as a particularly successful form of
job-embedded professional development for inclusive practice in her schools. Because her school
had implemented several co-taught classrooms, she had several rooms that served as examples of
how to engage in collaborative practice for inclusive education. Co-teaching partners modeled
effective instructional practices for students with disabilities and taught their peers how to
integrate some of those skills and strategies into their own work. Pamela said, of this job-
embedded professional development choice, “We’ve done a lot of that [teacher observation].
They go into the co-teaching classrooms and our co-teachers have gone into each other’s
182
classrooms and observed. Our teachers enjoy going into each other’s classrooms and observing”.
In addition to having teachers observe one another, Pamela offered other schools to come in and
observe her teachers engaging in effective inclusive practice. She stated that she welcomed other
teachers from in and outside of her district to come and observe rigorous teaching for students
with disabilities in the inclusive setting. Pamela shared, “There are some other school that have
come and observed, and they want to try to do more inclusionary practices.”. Pamela’s
and encouraged teachers to reach out to one another when they needed assistance understanding
Angela. Angela saw the to the need to provide job-embedded professional development
to teachers to ensure students with disabilities get rigorous instruction, as an issue tied into
equity. She remarked, “They [underprepared teachers] tend to put them over there [away from
general education peers], just give them some work, water it down.... don’t have high
expectations for them”. Her belief that teachers did not intentionally underserve students with
disabilities was framed through a feeling of understanding and empathy. She stressed the need
for job-embedded professional development for teachers to dismantle fear and doubt about
If I have no idea how to help that child, then it becomes this big struggle. And then it
does take away from the rest of the kids because I'm finding myself having to do all this
To ensure that teachers did not place students with disabilities in corners or struggle to
understand how to teach struggling learners in their classes, Angela focused on job-embedded
183
professional development. It was important to her that her teachers knew how to apply effective
skills and strategies with the students in their rooms in real time. For this reason, most of the
training that Angela either provided or supported was job-embedded and school-based. She
curriculum resource teacher to go in and model...so lots of modeling, lots of checking in.
Lots of meeting with the teacher, giving her the strategies, giving her the support. I sent
her and her mentor teacher to another school to watch a teacher who had those kinds of
Because Angela was cognizant of this teacher’s struggle, she developed a plan, alongside
her instructional coach, to provide job-embedded professional development. For other teachers,
she spoke about identifying needs by walking through rooms and conducting frequent, non-
evaluative observations, providing coaching, assigning mentor teachers, and having explicit
conversations about how to teach students with disabilities. Angela was supporting to any
professional development that might help teachers build capacity to meet student need because
her inclusive consciousness guided her to ensure that students had an equitable experience and
liked school.
by these leaders included observations in which principals would go into classrooms and observe
the instruction of students with disabilities, provide feedback on what was working, and provide
training on what might be missing. It is important to note that this observation was not
evaluative, but meant to provide constructive feedback and coaching to improve teacher practice
184
and student outcomes. Training was delivered by a multitude of experts from inhouse personnel
to outside entities like state-funded discretionary projects, including one grant-funded initiative
to improve effective inclusive education for students with disabilities. These four principals, by
dedicating precious professional development time and by allocating money to training their
teachers in how to improve outcomes and set high academic expectations for students with
disabilities, were sending a clear message that students with disabilities were valuable members
of the school community. The participants demonstrated an inclusive consciousness for effective
inclusive schooling by taking the time to carefully plan job-embedded professional development
that would improve academic achievement outcomes of their students with disabilities. They also
communicated, to their teachers, that they took the responsibility instructional leaders seriously
and that, as principals, they were understanding of the teachers’ lack of knowledge but also
build effective inclusive schools, the participants spent a significant amount of time and energy
navigating district constraints that problematized their effective inclusive leadership. One of the
most steadfast barriers to effective inclusive education in the experiences of the principals
included in this research was the either overt or covert assertion, by their districts, that students
with disabilities were less important or valuable than students without disabilities (Booher-
Jennings, 2005). They spoke about district policies and practices that did not value inclusive
education and, in some cases, discouraged their efforts to be effective and inclusive. District
practices like providing inadequate funding and staff for inclusive schools, offering little, if any
practice at the district-level were all obstacles these participants had to overcome in the
Often, the participants recognized that their districts were paying lip service to the idea of
effective inclusive schools and set out to develop and demonstrate their inclusive consciousness
in such a way that students with disabilities would have access to an equitable education under
their leadership, even if their districts were not explicitly supportive or aware of the need to do
so. They assessed their schools’ resources and allocated them in such a way as to maximize what
they had (Carrington & Robinson, 2004; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Peters & Oliver, 2009).
For these principals, the lack of resources provided to their schools presented an opportunity for
advocacy. They spoke about how managing the resources they had been provided was essential
in their leadership for effective inclusive schools and discussed their methods of navigating
district power structures to access more resources to implement their vision. When met with
policies that they felt were unjust, or functioned as a barrier to their ability to demonstrate their
leadership, the principals in this study relied on their ability to creatively problem-solve to
circumvent district policies, practices, or beliefs that were incongruent with their inclusive
consciousnesses.
Lillian. Ms. Schmidt engaged in inclusive practice that was largely unsupported by her
district until it became successful. She took any steps necessary to ensure students with
disabilities had access to an equitable education, regardless of whether her district supported her
vision. After noticing a pervasive lack of training on inclusive practices in her districts, Lillian
talked about providing teachers with their own school-based training on how to effectively
implement evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. Ms. Schmidt said:
186
This district does not do a lot of training with their special education teachers on
inclusive practices so I’m doing it myself so I do trainings with them to teach them what
Lillian filled her own gaps in training for inclusive practice, as well as those of her staff.
In the absence of her district providing professional development in leading effective inclusive
schools, or teaching students with disabilities, Lillian designed and provided her own.
support for teachers and students in the inclusive classroom. Although she lamented lack of
funding and not having enough staff to adequately support the services expected to be provided
in her school, Lillian described how she reallocated staff within her school to meet student need
and overcome the barrier of funding to “find” staff to help her enact her inclusive vision. In this
classroom, rather than just one student. She explained, “I manipulated it [the paraprofessional
allocation] by giving an aide a task and teachers began to love it because they looked at that adult
as an extra adult in the classroom, not just Jeremy’s aide”. She also used creativity to solve
another staffing problem when she advocated for student teachers and college of education
interns to come to her school in droves in an effort to work around the problem of not having
enough staff in a classroom to provide services. Lillian recognized that she would need more
teachers than her district could or would provide. To solve this problem, she talked about
capitalizing on the local college’s cache of new teachers, as many of her teachers aged out, and
asked a friend how to begin bringing interns to her school to ensure she had the necessary staff to
I said, “Hey, how do I get in on that? I want some interns. I want to start training some
young teachers to-so that I can hire” and so Tom introduced me to Debra. Debra came
and talked to me and so we started being a partner school with LU and so we would host.
building.
The partnership between Lillian’s school and the university brought new knowledge to
and opportunity to Lillian’s school. The partnership created access to a pool of potential new
teacher candidates with knowledge of and experience in inclusive classrooms and, essentially,
created a feeder pattern from the university to the school. This direct link between the university
and the school was Lillian’s intent in advocating for the partnership. She saw the benefits that
training young teachers and molding them to fit her model could bring to an effective inclusive
school but also saw a path to accessing qualified teachers that solved the problem of her district
not being able to hire enough staff to run her inclusive program well. Ms. Schmidt’s district
policy did not explicitly prohibit or encourage any of the practices in which she engaged;
however, they did limit funding for personnel and determine which type of professional
development would be offered. She was creative in working around constraints that were
present, whether intentional or otherwise. When asked what gave her agency to lead in this way,
she stated, “I think it’s because I worked in a district that believed in school-based management
and I was out in Millbrook and they didn’t know what I was doing!”. By virtue of leading a
school that was physically distant from her district office, she was able to operate with less
oversight and lead her school in a way that she saw best fit her vision for effective inclusive
leadership.
188
her advocacy for additional personnel. She described coming to district leaders with
documentation that her students’ data demonstrated need for more support. She recalled:
I would say, “Okay, I have three kids who are intensive and here’s the data. Here’s the
data collection that shows how intensive they are.” And we could collect data on how
many times they had to be redirected, how many times they did this. I would show data
and I’d say I have these three kids in the same room, and I need some para support.
Ms. Schmidt’s method of using data to demonstrate need sometimes yielded increased
support for the students with disabilities in her school but even when it did not, she was
maximizing her personal and social connections to get an audience with a decision-maker and
demonstrating her inclusive consciousness in the process. Personal relationships and knowing
what to ask for with district leaders in the right places were beneficial to her inclusive leadership.
When she was not able to mitigate the constraint of not having enough special education
teachers, she maximized the resources she did have through implementing an inclusive
scheduling process. Ms. Schmidt talked about her use of inclusive scheduling in strategic
planning to maximize human capital and the time teachers could spend with students:
I built a master schedule in a way that the core classes aren't all taught at the same time.
So we start with a big reading block, which is one hundred twenty minutes and then we
spread those hundred twenty minutes out throughout the day because I want teachers to
be able to push in during that time...To get the best bang for my buck in an extra teacher
189
pushing in. I need that block get scheduled throughout the day so that she can go in this
class, this class, this class and hit as many kids with support as she can.
Ms. Schmidt engaged in problem-solving to maximize the resources she had at her
disposal to demonstrate her inclusive consciousness. By planning with students with disabilities’
needs in mind first, she could ensure that student would have as much time with their service
While Lillian carefully managed and advocated for resources, she also made calculated
decisions about culling resources that were unsupportive of her effective inclusive vision. She
spoke at length about the importance of teachers developing and demonstrating their own
inclusive consciousnesses to provide an excellent education to the students in her school. When
asked about how she managed teachers who did not share her inclusive vision, she stated:
I make decisions about kids. Not everybody likes it. People chose to leave and that’s
okay. If you don’t want to work for me or be on my train, you can choose to go
elsewhere. That’s why you have options…it sounds harsh but it works for me...You want
people who want to work for you and support you but I’m okay with if you make a
decision.
Her passion for and commitment to inclusion was unashamed and very firm, as was
evident in the way she talked about her expectations as an effective inclusive principal. Even in a
hiring climate where there was a dearth of qualified special and general education teachers,
Lillian was willing to sacrifice staff to ensure that she did not have people working in her
building that were not supportive of inclusive education and high academic expectations for all
190
students. She recalled a teacher who left the school in the weeks before her initial interview over
I had a teacher leave in the last two weeks. She did not like my some decisions I made...I
just tried to explain to the best of my ability, this is what I believe and this is how I make
decisions....and that’s hard, especially now...I was a lot more cocky because I had 200
Knowing that her dogged determination (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015) to effective
inclusive leadership could cost her teachers, Ms. Schmidt did not relent. She stayed committed to
her inclusive consciousness and took the responsibility of leading an effective inclusive school
very seriously. She was not ashamed of her propensity to ruffle feathers in the way she
demonstrated her inclusive consciousness, in fact, it seemed to be, to her, a feather in her cap.
Lillian, throughout her many principalships, was keenly aware of how to work around the
district’s rules to get what she needed. She saw herself as a radical change agent and worked
diligently to accomplish her tasks, often by any means necessary. She navigated district
constraints and accessed the resources she needed in multiple districts, all for the benefit of
students with disabilities because she was unyielding in her desire to be an effective inclusive
dissatisfaction with staffing and budgetary support at the district level. Angela noted that her
district tried to be very supportive about providing staff and managing budgetary concerns but
that she was also often met with an insufficient lack of staff to enact her effective inclusive
[The] district meets the needs of the general population and they want to cut your
inclusion teachers, want to cut back on ESE but that’s who needs us the most…the
district coordinator wants to give you as many people as you want but budget-so, that’s
where the fight is, typically, when I’m having conversations it’s “we don’t have the
money”.
The lack of funding for enough special education staff led Angela to need to utilize a
creative strategy to get her school’s needs met. She recalled being frustrated that her district
allocated one special education inclusion teacher for every forty students with disabilities and
seeing that effective service delivery was not feasible with a caseload of that magnitude. Ms.
Waters talked about reallocating a self-contained teaching unit to provide funding for another
When I got there, they had, like I said, they had one inclusion teacher. She had 40 kids
and it was all over the place and she was seeing them for like, you know, this much
[gestures showing a small space between two fingers]... was able to add the another
Rather than allowing her one inclusive special education teacher to continue providing
limited and haphazard service delivery to a large caseload, Ms. Waters worked within her
outside of her professional role as principal, Angela was able to make personal appeals to district
staff for more resources when she could not solve issues related to staffing and budget with the
192
resources already provided to her school. She acknowledged that her community connections
made her efforts of appealing to district leaders a little more fruitful than they would have been if
she worked larger district. She described having conversations with district leadership to obtain
more staff, describing her practice of “sitting down with the director of ESE and saying what can
we do?”. She recognized that while her advocacy efforts were not always successful, in that they
did not always yield additional budget or staffing allocations, in those times of success, she was
able to further her inclusive vision. Angela described the benefit of working in a smaller district
Because we are small, that is nice. When you only have nine elementary, you know every
principal, you know everybody at the district office, you can sit down with assistant
superintendents, you can sit down with the district ESE director and you can say these are
my needs.
For Angela, simply asking for what she needed to lead her effective inclusive school was
often enough to get a few more paraprofessionals or allow her district supervisors to provide a
little more freedom to try out new practices that would bring both equity and achievement for
students with disabilities. She also spoke about her advocacy efforts when district budget
constraints did not allow for adequate staffing in inclusive classrooms. Angela talked about
positions, offering to do custodial work herself in exchange for a teaching position. She recalled:
I don’t think you need 5 people in HR [Human Resources]. Could I just have? That’s
where I want to get up on my soapbox and say, I’ll give up a custodian! I will a la carte
this [budget]. Can we? I can help clean and vacuum a room, but I need a person. I believe
193
that it needs to be students first. I don’t care about all the other stuff. Just whoever
touches kids is more important than anybody else that’s not touching kids. I’ll do other
[jobs]-I’ll give up a person that’s not touching kids and we’ll figure out how to divvy up
that job if I can get a person that’s going to be a para or be a teacher or be a support for
Ms. Waters joked about giving up other positions and taking on multiple roles within her
school to ensure students got what they needed to be successful but behind her jest lay the truth
about what she held precious. Angela was willing to take on more work to get more resources to
Her belief that the needs of students with disabilities were valuable was also evident in
her use of an inclusive scheduling process to maximize teacher time with student with
disabilities. Inclusive scheduling was not a district expectation and she had to reach outside of
her district structure to access support for maximizing inclusive resources and staff. Angela
worked with an inclusion specialist from a state-funded discretionary project that specialized in
inclusive schooling to create a schedule to that ensured students with disabilities needs were met
before addressing services for students without disabilities. She and her team worked to create a
schedule that minimized travel time for special education teachers and maximized contact time
They [inclusive special education teachers] only had to go into like two rooms...I called
her [inclusion specialist] in and we took sticky notes and my ESE inclusion teachers, we
all sat down and wrote all their levels and had them on sticky notes and they helped me
create the schedule for the next year of what should special education services look like?
194
[To be able to] send one teacher to them [general education classroom] for a big chunk of
time.
All of these behaviors, taking time to analyze student data to build teacher schedules that
maximize contact times with students with disabilities, advocating for more staff to support
inclusive classrooms, reallocating existing staff to support inclusive placements over self-
contained options, and even offering to take on custodial work all demonstrated her inclusive
consciousness for effective inclusive leadership. None of these behaviors are expected of
principals by Angela’s district leadership. She took up the mantle of advocacy for inclusive
resources and services of her own volition because she was committed to demonstrating her
Pamela. Having enough funding and resources to ensure appropriate staffing in her
effective inclusive school was a district-imposed concern for Pamela. She spoke openly about
her frustration with the lack of resources she had been provided to lead her school and lamented,
“we only have so many people and so many resources”. She cited district mindset as the cause of
not readily having the necessary resources to lead an effective inclusive school. Pamela
explained the condition of inclusive education in her district, “[Inclusive education] just kind of
fell by the wayside because we went through several ESE directors...and things were just sort of
swept under the rug...ESE was an afterthought in lots of ways”. Although frustrated with her
circumstances, at times, she was not resigned to her fate. When opportunities presented
themselves, Pamela engaged in advocacy for more supports for her school at the district level.
Pamela recalled having an audience with a new district superintendent to advocate for students
with disabilities. The new leader had not considered the needs of the population of students with
195
disabilities in his district before Ms. Howard endeavored to educate him. She described speaking
with the superintendent about what it meant to be a district that placed value in holding students
with disabilities to high academic standards while educating them in the inclusive classroom:
The prior ESE director retired, and we were having a new regime come in. I decided I
would ask to meet with the superintendent with my knowledge of special ed and what
was going on…And try to move the bar a little bit so I took some data to him and he had
never seen…I guess he’s been our superintendent for-this is his 3rd year? Yeah. He had
never seen the LEA [local education agency] profile from the Department of
Education...no one had ever shared that with him. So, I decided, you may want to look at
this...and see us compared other middle-sized districts and that was a real eye opener to
him.
Sharing data with her new superintendent, Ms. Howard was able to advocate for
resources by staring a conversation with a leader with influence to increase the profile of
students with disabilities in her district and begin to change the mindset about students with
disabilities and their value. Because she recognized that her district did not place value in
inclusive practice, like she did, Pamela needed to get creative with how she allocated her staff
and designed implementation of inclusive practices in her school. Since special education was
often an afterthought in her district, she had to strategically allocate the staff she had to ensure
maximum service delivery with minimal and she did so with students with disabilities in mind.
She remembered:
Last year, we were not able to do as much coteaching as we are this year...because of
staff...we had some coteaching situations but then some situations where there was a para
196
going into the class to support the kids for part of the day. I felt much better about this
Within her own school, Pamela spoke about maximizing human resources by carefully
placing staff to ensure effective co-teaching in the inclusive classroom. She navigated the district
constraint of lack of staff by carefully curating teacher partnerships. Pamela talked about she
decided which teachers to pair together and making sure that staff were appropriately matched
The kids who were stronger academically and a little more independent, we had them
with the strong general ed teacher with some para support and then we had the ESE
teacher and the general ed teacher co-teacher with the kids that weren’t quite as
academically ready.
Ms. Howard looked critically, with her team, at what students needed before placing
them into a classroom. Balancing student need with teacher skill, she worked to ensure that
classrooms were designed with students with disabilities in mind, prioritizing their academic
outcomes and needs because she did not have enough teachers to implement co-teaching in every
room but she did have enough to use the model in some rooms. Pamela used what she had to
communicate her vision for effective inclusive education even when her district did not support
her work through funding staff and additional resources. By prioritizing co-teaching and
allocating resources to support inclusive practice, she ostensibly put her money where her mouth
Pamela held firm, in her leadership, to using the co-teaching model of effective inclusive
schooling where, as she said, “we can make a significant difference” and, although she did not
197
have enough staff to establish co-teaching in every classroom, created co-teaching at every grade
level in her school to ensure that students with disabilities got excellent instruction. She worked
around district constraints of lack of staff, training, and resources to use what she had flexibility
to enact her inclusive vision to the best of her ability so that students with disabilities would have
Jacqueline. Some leaders in this research spoke about their ability to lobby district
leaders to obtain more funding or resources to support their inclusive vision. Jacqueline noted
that district constraints did not allow for this type of advocacy in her leadership. She observed
that the culture in her district was not such that one could approach leaders about reallocating
funds or opening doors for students with disabilities because the district held a more firmly
entrenched bias against effective inclusive education. She explained, “At the district it says, if
you ask them, they’ll say it [inclusion] is important but they’re not doing anything to show that
it’s important”.
Knowing that district constraints and budgeting practices would prevent her from getting
more staff or funding to assist her in demonstrating her inclusive consciousness and leading an
effective inclusive school, Jacqueline advocated nonetheless; however, these efforts left her
feeling defeated and like her concerns went unheard. She remarked, “It goes back to what I was
saying about they’re [the district] set. It’s just numbers and... they don’t want to hear anything
about the needs of the children or the needs of the school”. Regardless, Jacqueline advocated for
the resources she needed to support students even when met with opposition. She explained:
We would fight those fights [for supports for students]. We usually wouldn’t win any of
those fights...I would fight all the time for those things [staff and resources] but they [the
198
district] always been about the numbers and that’s all that it’s ever been about...I can
show them all kinds of proof of the needs of my students but money-wise, they just
weren’t going to give it to you… [The district was] not giving us the flexibility to spend
that money on what the school needs....They just don’t budge and so it’s-after a point,
Exasperated with the lack of support she received, or rather did not receive, from her
district, Jacqueline turned inward and engaged in a clandestine inclusive leadership where she
quietly rejected the district’s practice of ignoring the needs of students with disabilities and used
her own resources within her school to demonstrate her inclusive consciousness. One such
instance of this subversive effective inclusive leadership was problem-solving the issue of being
understaffed. Jacqueline explained how she problem-solved getting enough staff to run small
group instruction after contending with district budget limitations. When faced with the issue of
not having enough staff to run data-based small groups, Ms. Martin’s solution was, “split
everybody, make groups, make sure that I’m teaching groups, AP [assistant principal] is teaching
groups. We’re all teaching groups”. This notion of the principal as a teacher and never being
above the work teachers were being asked to perform was a common practice for the leaders in
this study. When Jacqueline looked for creative solutions to staffing problems, she used herself
Jacqueline did whatever was necessary to make sure students with disabilities had access
to an equitable, effective, and inclusive education despite a lack of support from the larger
hierarchical structure and she did so as both a principal and a teacher. As a teacher, rather than
conform to the district expectation that students in self-contained special education classrooms
199
were to remain in their segregated settings, Ms. Martin sought an ally in a general education
classroom willing to help her move students from her self-contained classroom to a more
I just started trying to do whatever I could to try to build inclusion for them [students in
self-contained classroom] within that school and well, it had been a culture that that
[inclusion for students in self-contained] did not happen. You [special education teacher]
did not send your children to us, we [general education teacher] send them to you… I
really worked with a 5th grade teacher who wanted to try it with me and so she was open
to my students.
As a principal, she recognized the lack of district support to be able to enact her inclusive
vision due to larger systemic district constraints like lacking schools lacking systems and
You're trying to move your school forward, all of the students forward, you're just
noticing that that group that's really not making progress happens to be your students
with disabilities. And that's because those schools have not put systems in place to make
effective inclusive schooling in schools where such systems were lacking. She utilized an
inclusive scheduling process to prioritize the needs of students with disabilities in the master
schedule. For context, inclusive scheduling is a process by which teachers’ schedules are
optimized to provide the most contact time for students with disabilities before schedules are
created for any other student (Florida Inclusion Network, 2018). Additionally, after observing
200
that her district did not have professional development structures in place to support teachers or
which she prioritized building capacity for inclusive practice within her school. Ms. Martin
stated that she had found support in her district’s offerings long ago but that the offerings’
current lack of efficacy spoke to a larger impression given by the district that students with
disabilities in the inclusive classroom were an afterthought. She saw some district professional
the district’s lack of interest in or commitment to building capacity for teachers or leaders to
I feel like it’s hit or miss and any of the training on inclusion I think nowadays it’s the
expectation that it’s happening but there’s no follow through with how it’s happening, if
it’s happening, and so forth…. it’s not pressing from people above.
Feeling unsupported by her district, Jacqueline navigated the constraint of lacking access
to information about teaching and leading effective inclusive schools by turning inward to build
inclusive capacity in her school. She said, of this practice, “in-house we’re going to figure out
how we’re going to tackle the needs of this school and get it done”. She used her own knowledge
of inclusive practice and incorporated inclusion into professional development in her school
“through keeping it to the forefront of every time we were together, it [inclusion] was always
part of the professional development] that we were doing”. Unlike her cohorts, who could
consciousness for effective inclusive schooling was more effective as a grassroots strategy in that
she made the limited resources she had work to enact her effective inclusive vision.
201
also needed to curate her limited staff to ensure she had support for her effective inclusive vision.
She spoke about hiring people who had a “heart for working for students with disabilities”,
understood inclusion, and would support her vision. While, most often, Jacqueline’s primary
issue with staffing in an effective inclusive school was navigating the district constraint of not
having enough money to hire sufficient staff, there were times in which she needed to curate her
staff to remove teachers who were unsupportive of her vision. Ms. Martin expounded upon her
practice of counseling out staff who were unsupportive of inclusive education. She explained:
You have to either help them believe in it [inclusive education] or help them find
somewhere else to be...if it’s just a true, my belief system is here and they’re nowhere
The power of discernment to recognize and act when a resource was counterproductive to
the school’s inclusive culture was an integral component of Jacqueline’s demonstration of her
inclusive consciousness.
For Jacqueline, because she was largely unsupported by her district, she circumvented an
obstructive district culture by engaging in the leadership practices that were aligned with her
inclusive consciousness, “flew under the radar”, and lead how she saw fit. Firm in her
convictions that inclusive education would continue by any means necessary, she set the
expectation that effective inclusive education and full participation in her inclusive vision was a
non-negotiable in her schools, even if that was not the feeling of her district.
Cross-case analysis. While all four principals reaffirmed the grievances so commonly
heard in all domains of public education about the pervasive lack of funding and desperate
202
shortage of qualified teachers and staff, they also spoke about their practice of advocating for
more resources to support their effective inclusive schools. Despite the numerous barriers
presented by a lack of support for inclusive education from district leadership, the participants
were able to skillfully navigate constraints to enact their inclusive consciousness. Each principal
felt that their district leaders believed inclusive education was an afterthought, although some
biases were more strongly held than others. Because they were not adequately supported, the
participants engaged in behaviors that would allow them to enact their effective vision by any
means necessary. They looked for loopholes in policies, reallocated a paraprofessional to serve
roles to facilitate co-teaching, partnered with local a university, provided their own inclusive
professional development, and found willing collaborators to take students from a self-contained
class into a general education setting without asking for district permission.
Three of the four principals that worked in small to medium-sized districts and had
personal or social connections to district level decision-makers were often able to advocate and
receive additional resources for their effective inclusive schools. Each principal spoke about how
they lobbied for more supports to lead their effective inclusive schools with varying degrees of
success and invested the time and effort to attempt to get the resources they needed to make
inclusion and high academic expectations a reality for the students with disabilities in their
schools.
All four leaders in this research advocated for more resources to help them demonstrate
their inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive schools-some, more successfully than others.
Regardless of their success in lobbying for more resources, each leader described practices aimed
203
at maximizing the human resources they did have to enact their inclusive vision. Each participant
described using an inclusive scheduling process in which they maximized their human resources,
whether their advocacy efforts provided them with more teachers and paraprofessionals or not. In
demonstrating their inclusive consciousness through advocating for resources and maximizing
human capital, participants talked about the need to fill their school with people who supported
inclusion and believed in building equity for students. Lillian and Jacqueline were able to ensure
that the staff in their schools were going to be able to help build and maintain an effective
inclusive school by redirecting people who did not support their inclusive vision to a different
place. Pamela and Angela also talked about addressing teachers who needed support to
understand their vision but did not speak about a willingness to reallocate staff who were not
understanding of or in support of effective inclusive schooling. All four of the principals in this
maximizing their resources despite district constraints. Advocating for funding and staff, using
every person in their building, including themselves, for instruction and embracing a master
scheduling process that prioritized students with disabilities demonstrated a stick-to-itiveness and
dogged determination congruent with their inclusive consciousnesses and necessary in effective
Chapter Summary
Each leaders’ inclusive leadership was influenced by support of others. They worked
collaboratively with stakeholders to enact their vision for effective inclusive leadership. Every
action they took required support from others. All participants recognized that schools were
delicate but dynamic and required an engaged, responsive leader, willing to hear opinions, even
204
those that may have been dissenting. The participants needed to be flexible and able to pivot as
data indicated changes needed to be made to their leadership. Each leader leveraged their
position as principal to build more equitable and inclusive opportunities for students with
disabilities, but also for every learner in their building, in collaboration with other stakeholders.
They displayed a fervent commitment to demonstrating the inclusive consciousness that drove
their leadership and recognized that their success was predicated upon those they led supporting
a shared vision. Putting their inclusive consciousnesses into practice, leaders included in this
way that aligned with their beliefs and dispositions and subsequently engaged in effective
inclusive leadership behaviors. They were able to participate in such behaviors because they had
developed a firm grasp of what inclusion meant in practice that they acquired through expressing
their ethical disposition and embracing a belief system that valued difference. In all, the
participants demonstrated enthusiastic advocacy for students with disabilities to have equitable
educational experiences by actively pursuing leadership practices that would create the
expectation of an effective inclusive education for all students and the supports needed to make it
successful.
205
Einführung
that requires an indispensable set of skills necessary to bring equity to the education of students
with disabilities (Dotger & Coughlin, 2018; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Pazey & Cole, 2012).
School principals are often underprepared to lead schools that successfully include students with
disabilities at high rates but are, nonetheless, tasked with leading schools that include students
with disabilities in general education classrooms (Bettini et al., 2019; Billingsley et al., 2018;
Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Esposito et al., 2019; Lynch, 2012; O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015;
Pazey & Cole, 2012; Rinehart, 2017; Roberts & Guerra, 2017). In addition to maintaining and
improving inclusive opportunities for students with disabilities, principals are also expected to
lead schools that produce academic achievement results for all students, including those with
disabilities (Esposito et al., 2019; Lynch, 2012; Schulze & Boscardin, 2018). Both tasks, leading
an inclusive school and leading an effective school, are challenging; however, principals are
expected to, and bound by federal law, to do both (ESSA, 2015; IDEA, 2004). While many
leaders struggle to navigate being both effective and inclusive, the four principals in this research
demonstrated the ability to successfully combine the two seemingly competing demands through
the employment of their inclusive consciousness, a concept built upon McKenzie et al.’s (2006)
high academic expectations and high rates of inclusion of all students (McLeskey & Waldron,
2015).
206
The purpose of this study was to understand how four leaders of effective inclusive
principals who were able to successfully negotiate achievement expectations and inclusive
demands. While much research has been conducted on the qualities of effective leaders and the
characteristics of inclusive leaders, little research has been conducted as to how leaders can
marry demands of both effectiveness and inclusivity and how principals come to a desire to do so
(Bellamy, Crockett, & Nordengren, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2018; DeMatthews, 2015;
DeMatthews et al., 2019; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). This chapter
discusses salient findings of this research regarding how the four principals in this research
acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership as
framed through literature on the historical context of inclusion, how inclusion is defined, the
intersection of special education and achievement legislation, the principal’s role, and principal
preparation. Relevant themes are identified to address the research questions and the chapter
concludes with a discussion of limitations, implications for policy and practice, and
Using a basic qualitative research design, two individual, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with four elementary school principals, all of whom had led at least one effective
inclusive school. The basic qualitative design was chosen for its ability to allow the researcher to
capture relevant information that would address both research questions (Hatch, 2002; Merriam
207
& Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The limited body of literature regarding what brings a principal
to choose to lead effective and inclusive schools that the basic design offered the best
opportunity to gather information that could inform further research (Billingsley et al., 2017;
Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). This chapter contains a
consciousness that drove their leadership for effective inclusive schools were categorized into
three themes: (a) personal disposition; (b) defining inclusion; and (c) inclusive leadership. These
three themes, discussed in detail in Chapter Four, addressed the research questions and guided
Discussion
Major findings of this research were organized into themes that addressed the three
actions identified in the research questions: (a) acquire; (b) develop; and (c) demonstrate an
consciousness that guided their leadership, findings suggest that leaders’ inclusive consciousness
is perceived, by the leaders themselves, to be innate, but that it may be developmental. Data
collected in this qualitative research suggest that inclusive consciousnesses are shaped by
significant experiences with people with disabilities. Data suggest that these significant
208
experiences awaken the leader’s ethical desire, either cultivated or inherent, to bring equity to the
educational experiences of students with disabilities. Once acquired, data suggests that a
principal’s inclusive consciousness was developed by the way in which they defined inclusion.
Variations of how they defined inclusion were evident but what is important to note is that for
these four principals, inclusion was not defined by placing students within the same four walls
alongside students without disabilities, but centered around students with disabilities being full
members of the school community and be held to high academic expectations. Finally, after each
leader acknowledged their ethical call and began to develop their ideas around effective inclusive
schooling, findings suggest that each principal skillfully incorporated evidence-based practices
for inclusive leadership and effective leadership into their behaviors as a principal of an effective
inclusive school (CCSO, 2017; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Lashley, 2007). The relationship of
identified principals’ perception of inclusion and value in students with disabilities as key factors
in the success of inclusive schools (Billingsley et al., 2018; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006;
DeMatthews, 2015; Esposito, 2019; Irvine et al., 2010; Theoharis et al., 2015; Waldron et al.,
2011). Findings of this research suggest that each of the four principals had a disposition
Inclusive consciousness as innate. Initially, the ways in which leaders in this study
acquired an inclusive consciousness seemed to be heavily predicated upon their disposition and
an element of their being that was preexisting. These leaders viewed treating students with
2018; Lewin, 2014; Theoharis et al., 2015) and saw themselves as defenders of equity for a
population of students that have been long underserved (Paul, French, & Cranston-Gringras,
2011). The leaders in this research attributed their behaviors and ideas to their disposition and
spoke about seeing value in the diversity that students with disabilities brought to their schools.
For example, Angela spoke about building teacher capacity for using instructional practices that
would support students with disabilities to ensure that more students with disabilities could gain
access to rigorous instruction in general education spaces. Pamela talked about using co-teaching
include students with disabilities in general education classrooms to promote independence and
set high expectations. Jacqueline and Lillian both prioritized job-embedded professional
development in inclusive practice because they believed that students with disabilities were
valuable members of the school community. Their leadership behaviors were underpinned by
their beliefs and revealed a believe that effective inclusive education was meaningful.
According to Karanxha, Agosto, and Bellara (2014), “one’s disposition toward human
diversity can inform the views and values of individuals which can then affect the culture of the
organization i.e., processes, structures, and policies”. These principals’ dispositions, and
underlying personal beliefs they attributed to their dispositions, enabled them to develop
inclusive consciousnesses that affected the cultures of their schools through effective inclusive
leadership and prioritizing students with disabilities’ membership in the school community
(Carter & Abawi, 2018; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). That membership in a community
spoke to each leaders’ perception of value in students with disabilities (Bai & Martin, 2015;
Each principal spoke about feeling what amounted to an ethical call to effective inclusive
leadership and having compassion for meeting the needs of the neglected and underserved
population of students with disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2018; Frick et al., 2012; Lashley,
2007). Consciously, when asked to identify what made them eager to lead effective inclusive
schools, they had difficulty explaining where the belief originated or why it was there. They
were easily able, however, to identify the factors that influenced their call to effective inclusive
leadership. Their ethical call to effective inclusive leadership was, according to the participants,
inherent and inextricable from their own disposition. For example, Jacqueline Martin said, “I
think it’s just innate. It’s who I am.”. Lillian, when asked why she prioritized inclusion and
believing in students’ potential, stated, “I think I’ve always believed that...I’ve always tried to
help every kid.” Research behind principals’ motivation to be inclusive of students with
disabilities is limited but existing research into morality and ethics of inclusion supports these
leaders’ confidence that their behaviors are a translation of their beliefs (Bialka, 2017; Bon &
Bigbee, 2011; DeMatthews, 2015; Garrison-Wade et al., 2007; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Frick et
al., 2012).
Inclusive consciousness as developmental. The principals in this study spoke about their
penchant to focus on inclusive schooling while also holding students to high expectations being
inherent in their disposition; however, findings suggest that their acquisition of inclusive
consciousness might also be influenced by experiences with and exposure to students with
disabilities.
Even though the principals in this research stated that they believed they were inherently
predisposed to being effective inclusive leaders, an analysis of their responses suggested that the
211
capacity to acquire an inclusive consciousness was not as fixed and in-born as it may have
appeared. Each leader described formative experiences, in their early life or early career, in
which they decided that making sure students with disabilities were provided with an effective
inclusive education mattered to them. While limited research into decision-making of leaders of
students with disabilities does not provide much guidance as to why principals decide to
prioritize students with disabilities, there is some evidence that principals of inclusive schools do
feel a responsibility for the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities (Billingsley
et al., 2018; Frick et al., 2012; Mallory & New, 1994; Waldron et al., 2011). Experiences that
encouraged these leaders’ decision to prioritize the equitable education of students with
disabilities included: (a) was having a child with a disability; (b) being involved in establishing a
coteaching program that graduated high numbers of students with disabilities; (c) seeing that
students with disabilities were chronically underserved during pre-service training; and (d) or
working with students with disabilities as an in-service teacher and seeing the benefits of an
inclusive education. Through these experiences, each principal in this research was able to recall
instances when they realized that there was a need for allyship in their leadership. They each
decided to stand up for a population of students who had been ignored and underserved (Artiles
et al., 2006; Fisher & Frey, 2003; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Paul, French, & Cranston-Gringras,
2001), by increasing opportunities for students with disabilities to access general education
classrooms, bringing equity to the students’ experience, while simultaneously seeking to hold
students with disabilities to high academic expectations (Billingsley et al., 2018; DeMatthews et
al., 2019; Fisher et al., 2003; Pazey & Cole, 2012; Peters & Oliver, 2009).
212
students with disabilities, especially as special education moves toward actualizing the least
restrictive provision of IDEA (Esposito et al., 2019; Frick et al., 2012; Peters & Oliver, 2009;
Skilton-Sylvester & Slesaransky-Poe, 2009). The leaders in this study, presumably because of
their innate beliefs coupled with their transformative experiences, made a conscious choice to
value students with disabilities in their leadership practice and decided that inclusion was “not
negotiable” (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014). A growing body of research has demonstrated that
principals are the decision-makers in schools and that what they value becomes a part of the
school-wide value system, especially where inclusion of students with disabilities is concerned
(Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2017; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Cruzeiro &
Morgan, 2008; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). In this research, principals
believed that inclusion was a non-negotiable right, not a choice, and led in such a way as to
demonstrate that belief. Their behaviors helped inclusive practice permeate the school’s culture
(Bai & Martin, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Templeton,
2017). Bearing this information in mind, uncovering these formative experiences were essential
to understanding the development of the four principals’ inclusive consciousnesses because the
moments mark a point in time where leaders’ values moved to the forefront of their
consciousness and practice as each participant prepared to become a leader who could bring
education is rife with definitions for inclusion with a myriad of definitions from which to choose,
however there is no one accepted, agreed-upon method by which to define the term (Ainscow et
213
al., 2006; Cameron, 2016; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). Although the idea of inclusion has
existed, in literature, for decades no one definition has been able to “gain currency” (Florian,
1998), since the first iteration of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. The differences in how researchers and
practitioners think about inclusion has created nuance and shades of meaning that allow for wide
variability in practice (Ainscow, 2007; Ainscow et al., 2006; Bialka, 2017; Carrington &
Robinson, 2004; Carter & Abawi, 2018; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; Esposito et al.,
2019; Mallory & New, 1994; Timberlake, 2014). This was evident in the data from this
investigation. Each principal discussed their own personal definitions of inclusion that were, as
expected based on evidence in literature, all different, although they shared many similar general
ideas. All principals in the study agreed that inclusion was characterized by students with
disabilities (Ainscow, 2007; Irvine et al., 2010; Stone et al., 2016), students with disabilities were
valued members of the school community (Cameron, 2016; Connor & Ferri, 2007; Peters &
Oliver, 2009), that student learning and social needs should be addressed and met (Carter &
Abawi, 2018; Irvine et al., 2010), and expected that students in the inclusive classroom would be
held to high academic standards. When the conversation about defining inclusion turned from
Defining inclusion for students with significant disabilities. Although the participants
valued achievement and inclusion for students with disabilities, as a function of their inclusive
consciousness, they differed in their ideas about including students with significant disabilities.
This divergence in support of inclusion for students with high incidence disabilities while having
214
more reservations about students with significant disabilities is supported by extant literature and
a significant tenet in the conversation about variability of inclusion in practice (Brinker &
Thorpe, 1984; Olson et al., 2016; Timberlake, 2014; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). While all four
commitment to high standards in academic achievement and inclusive opportunity for learners
with disabilities, their adherence to the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Biklen,
1999) and belief in presumed competence (Donnellan, 1984) varied. For instance, while Angela
saw great benefit in including a student with very limited communication in the general
education classroom with peer supports, Pamela wrestled with including students with significant
disabilities in academic content that she did not believe would benefit the student in their post-
secondary life. Jacqueline believed that students with significant disabilities should be included
in general education classrooms unless there was a valid reason that student should be excluded.
Lillian supported effective inclusive education for students with significant disabilities unless,
despite thorough attempts at problem-solving and accessing resources, the student could not be
included in a general education classroom. Pamela, however, supported including students with
significant disabilities if the student could benefit from the placement and students without
disabilities would not be impacted. This variation was specifically obvious concerning students
with significant disabilities. Regarding students with significant disabilities, there was still lack
of consensus from these effective inclusive leaders around how students with significant
215
disabilities would gain access into the inclusive classroom (Cosier et al., 2018; Olson et al.,
In describing their personal definition for inclusion, there was tension between embracing
the idea that education in a general education classroom is a right (ESSA, 2015; Esposito et al.,
2019; Frattura & Capper, 2006; Frick et al., 2012; IDEA, 2004; Mallory & New, 1994), to be
given with no contingencies, and the belief that students needed to earn their access into the
(O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015; Timberlake, 2014). Carter and Abawi (2018) described the tension
between those who support full inclusion of all students and those who believe in a continuum of
services as an “ideological rift” (p. 49). Findings of this research support the idea that there is a
fundamental ideological separation between full inclusionists (Gordon, 2013; Kavale & Forness,
2000; Manset & Semmel, 1997) and proponents of a continuum of services (Anastasiou &
Kauffman, 2011). Some participants viewed inclusion as a civil right (Gordon, 2013; Harrower
& Dunlap, 2001; Kavale & Forness, 2000; Skilton-Sylvester & Slesaransky-Poe, 2009) and
adhered to the mandates in both ESSA (2015) and IDEA (2004) that all students should be
considered general education students first, while the behaviors of others revealed that there was
still a tension between the mainstreaming and inclusion (Carter & Abawi, 2018; Frick et al.,
2012; Kavale & Forness, 2000; O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015; Olson et al., 2016; Timberlake,
2014). Most of the conversation about earning access to general education classrooms was
predicated upon a fear that the inclusive classroom would not meet student need or provide the
least restrictive environment and, thereby, do a disservice to students with significant disabilities
(Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014). This finding is in line with research explaining the
216
complicated issues that arise from a lack of shared understanding of what inclusion is, how it
should work, and to whom the mandate applies (Ainscow et al., 2006; Billingsley et al., 2018;
Although research has noted that special education is evolving to place more value on
inclusion and inclusive opportunities for all students, including those with significant cognitive
disabilities (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Crockett et al., 2009; Dukes et al., 2017; US DOE, 2019),
there is still a very real and pressing concern that gatekeeping prevents students with significant
Timberlake, 2014; US DOE, 2018; Williamson et al., 2006). Principals’ perceptions play a
significant role in the gatekeeping practice of deciding who gets included (Ballard & Dymond,
2017; Bai & Martin, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Dukes
& Berlingo, 2020; Esposito et al., 2019; Olson et al., 2016; Praisner, 2003; Templeton, 2017;
Timberlake, 2014). Most of the discussion about when and how to include students with
significant disabilities centered around readiness to be in general education and fully participate
in the larger school community, as a consequence of the nature and severity of a student’s
disability. For instance, Pamela spoke about including students with intellectual disabilities being
included in general education classrooms if they could participate well and ways that were
socially appropriate in the general education classroom. Angela spoke about ensuring that
students with significant disabilities could “handle” general education placements when
considering a move from a self-contained to an inclusive placement. The idea of readiness and
earning access, in this research, is attributed to some leaders’ adherence to the concept of
mainstreaming, rather than inclusion (Crockett et al., 2009; Kavale & Forness, 2000; O’Laughlin
217
& Lindle, 2015). Research has noted that mainstreaming is difficult to operationally define, but
that it is concerned with access and relies heavily upon the idea of providing a continuum of
services and having options, apart from the general education classroom, for students with
disabilities to receive an education in the least restrictive environment (Kavale & Forness, 2000;
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995). Findings of this study suggest that
there was variability among four participants and how they defined inclusion for different types
of students with disabilities. Some operated under the assumption that all students with
disabilities were capable while others had caveats for some students, specifically those with
significant disabilities, and espoused a need to earn access and demonstrate competence
(O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015; Timberlake, 2014). This need to prove benefit prevented some
students with significant disabilities from being included also speaks to the developmental nature
of how leaders understand inclusion and enact their inclusive consciousness in their leadership
for effective inclusive schools (Hoppey, Black, & Mickelson, 2018). As the findings of this
research suggest, there is still need for capacity building and direction for principals in the need
to include students with significant disabilities in the meaning of the word “all” when they talk
about including all kids. Findings suggest that more work needs to be done to provide equitable
access to students with significant disabilities, either behavioral or cognitive, because not every
student with a disability was given unrestricted access to the general education classroom.
leadership behaviors. Research is clear that leadership makes a difference in schools (Hallinger
& Heck, 2003). Extant literature has identified leadership practices that are found in effective
schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Day et al., 2008; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Hallinger & Heck,
218
2003; Hitt & Tucker, 2016) and those that are utilized in inclusive schools (Billingsley et al.,
2017; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Waldron et al., 2011).
There is little research into how leaders engage in behaviors that can produce both academic
outcomes and inclusive placement (Billingsley et al., 2017; CCSO, 2017; Hoppey & McLeskey,
2014). The leaders in this study, however, were adept at engaging in both sets of behaviors.
Every principal in this research spoke about engaging in research-based leadership behaviors for
effective and inclusive leadership including: (a) building and conveying inclusive vision; (b)
maintaining core values that support inclusion; (e) building professional capacity through job-
embedded professional development; (f) using resources flexibly and effectively; (g) connecting
with external partners; (h) creating a supportive organization for learning; (i) encouraging
collaboration; and (j) engaging in data-driven decision-making (Blasé & Blasé, 20004; Hitt &
Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). These four principals skillfully engaged in
leadership practices for effective inclusive schools that would establish both effective academic
inclusive leadership behaviors identified in this study were integrated and interwoven into each
leaders’ day-to-day leadership practice and the intersections of the ten leadership practices for
effective inclusive principals, in this study, were innumerable (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Hitt &
Principals engaged in all these behaviors, and often, several at once, in their leadership
for effective inclusive schools. Findings suggest that each leader demonstrated their inclusive
meet the needs of students with disabilities while building the capacity of their faculty and staff.
They focused, most intentionally, on job-embedded professional development for themselves and
their teachers and building an inclusive school culture to ensure that students with disabilities
had an equitable educational experience that provided access to general education spaces,
membership in the school community, as a whole, and high academic achievement outcomes.
which these four leaders were most committed to was job-embedded professional development,
both for themselves and for their staff. There is no dearth of research detailing the lack of
preparedness to teach and lead students with disabilities (Bateman et al., 2017; Billingsley &
McLeskey, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2017; Bon & Bigbee, 2011; Boscardin, Schulze, Rude, &
Tudryn, 2018; Carter & Abawi, 2018; Crockett, 2002; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Lynch, 2012;
Patterson et al., 2000; Rinehart, 2017; Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Zaretsky, 2004). Because the
principals in this study were adept at recognizing gaps and building capacity for effective
inclusive schooling, they integrated professional development for themselves and teachers into
the leadership practices (CCSO, 2012; Desimone, 2009; McLeskey et al., 2014).
Professional development for principals. The literature highlights that most principals
report feeling “helpless”, lacking knowledge, lacking training, and feelings of inadequacy
regarding teaching and leading students with disabilities (Patterson et al., 2000; Roberts &
Guerra, 2017). Findings suggest that the leaders in this study, rather than allowing a knowledge
gap to prevent them from effecting change in their schools, actively sought resources to improve
upon their capacity to lead effective inclusive schools. The participants were self-aware of the
pervasive lack of preparedness to lead schools that were both effective and inclusive and, as a
220
result, demonstrated an insatiable hunger for more training, more information, more partnerships,
and more resources to improve their own understanding of what it means to be effective and
inclusive. To obtain this knowledge, they accessed resources in and outside of their schools and
connected with district leaders and external partners to gain access to information that would
help them create a supportive organization for learning and convey their effective inclusive
vision. The principals discussed participating in district-provided trainings, reading books and/or
articles on inclusive practice, seeking out experts in their building/districts, partnering with state-
wide discretionary projects, working with researchers and university professors, and seeking
professional development through several other means in order to improve their knowledge,
skills, and understanding of how to support their students with disabilities. They ardently
pursued information that would make them more effective leaders. This dogged determination to
acquire more knowledge, skills, and methods by which to build their own capacity, findings
suggest, was the key to the development of principals’ inclusive consciousness (McLeskey &
Waldron, 2015).
Professional development for teachers. Research is clear that it is the principal that plays
the “linchpin” role in driving inclusive and achievement initiatives in a school (Billingsley et al.,
2018; DeMatthews, 2015; Esposito, Tang, & Kulkarni, 2019; Theoharis et al., 2015). Hallinger
and Heck (2003) wrote, of the principals’ role in developing teachers, “principal’s leadership
shapes three distinct psychological dispositions of teachers: their perceptions of various school
characteristics, their commitment to school change, and their capacity for professional
development” (p. 10). As their own capacity to lead effective inclusive schools was bolstered,
the leaders turned their attention to their teachers and their ability to shape teachers’ dispositions
221
preparedness for effective inclusive schooling, there is a firm grounding in research to support
lack of teacher capacity to teach students with disabilities in inclusive settings such that students
2019; Fisher et al., 2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al.,
2018; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). Because the principals in this
research had a vision for effective inclusive schooling, they made building teacher capacity a
priority. They integrated professional development for inclusive practice into professional
learning communities, faculty meetings, email communication, and in any other method they
could to communicate to teachers, with their actions, that inclusive practice mattered.
ways including partnering with state discretionary agencies to come to their schools and help
learning communities within their building that focused on inclusion, facilitating one-on-one or
small group coaching, and designing and hosting their own trainings on how to effectively teach
students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom to facilitate high achievement. By providing
valuable and applicable forms of professional development to their teachers (McLeskey &
Waldron, 2002; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010), the principals in this study played an active role in
communicating their inclusive vision and building capacity in their teachers so as to carry out
that vision of high academic expectations in an inclusive culture (McLeskey et al., 2014).
Building an effective inclusive school culture. Because principals are the decision-
makers in their schools, they have significant influence over all dimensions of the school
222
experience, including the establishment and perpetuation of an inclusive school culture (Bai &
Martin, 2015; Day, 2005; DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Hallinger & Heck, 2003;
Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Templeton, 2017; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Hallinger & Heck
(2003) wrote that “the principal’s role is to make the structures work on behalf of the students”
(p. 10) and these participants were deliberate in creating a culture that benefited all students in
their schools. Being mindful of the effective and inclusive leadership practices identified by
literature (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014), the
principals in this research made decisions for the express purpose of building and conveying
inclusive vision so that effective and inclusive practices would become ingrained in the culture
of their schools. Findings and research both suggest that effective inclusive schools require
direct, explicit communication of vision and expectation from principals (Billingsley &
McLeskey, 2014; Carter & Abawi, 2018; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Hoppey & McLeskey,
2014). Inclusive school culture does not manifest accidentally, rather principals’ behaviors set
the tone for teachers’ practices and student expectations while collaborating with all stakeholders
to enact this vision (Bai & Martin, 2015; Billingsley et al., 2018; Causton & Theoharis, 2014;
these four principals’ schools were meticulously built and deliberately fostered by leaders who
valued students with disabilities’ educational experience and communicated that effective
inclusive vision (Billingsley et al., 2018; Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; CCSO, 2017; Hoppey
& McLeskey, 2014). It was not enough for students with disabilities to be included, they need to
also be learning (Billingsley et al., 2018; Hehir, 2012). This idea does not appear to be radical
223
but a pervasive larger societal culture of low expectations for people with disabilities makes the
idea that treating all students like they have value and should learn while they are attending
school a revolutionary idea (Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010). Findings
suggest that making deliberate and systematic changes to the school’s existing practices,
collaboration and communication helped to establish an effective inclusive culture in each of the
leaders’ schools (Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Everett, 2017; Fisher et al., 2003; Florian &
Black-Hawkins, 2011; Fullan, 2003; Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Leko et al., 2015; Salisbury &
McGregor, 2002). Lillian talked about how communication of her inclusive vision and
Pamela stated that she, in collaboration with her administrative team, consciously shared an
inclusive vision that supported students with disabilities meeting high expectations. Angela and
Jacqueline, both, recounted their explicit and deliberate practices of sharing their inclusive vision
in communication with teachers, either in faculty meeting or in written communication, that they
supported with professional development. Because simply sharing vision and setting the
expectation for change was not sufficient, and principals needed their teams to buy into their
vision to create change, their leadership had to venture past communication of an inclusive
this study began building effective inclusive culture by engaging in a practice some called
“planting the seed”. This idea of “planning the seed” for effective inclusive schools encouraged
224
facilitating teacher buy-in for inclusive practice by communicating principals’ inclusive vision
but doing so at a rate appropriate to the needs of the school, often slowly and incrementally
(Salisbury & McGregor, 2002). The principals in this study also helped build effective inclusive
inclusive practice, (Bellamy et al., 2014; Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010)
utilizing resources from both outside partners and experts within their building, and distributing
leadership to build capacity to inclusive practice that supported high academic expectations.
Research supports distributed leadership through the practice of using building experts, or
“special education experts” (Carrington & Robinson, 2004; DeMatthews, 2015; O’Laughlin &
Lindle, 2015; Pazey & Cole, 2012; Thompson, 2017), to bridge the gap between teacher and
principal preparation and practice, which is especially critical given that teachers are chronically
underprepared to teach students with disabilities (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Causton-Theoharis et
al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Fisher et al., 2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et
al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2018; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994).
DeMatthews (2015, p. 1006) wrote of the need for distributed leadership in effective inclusive
schools, “a single stakeholder cannot possess all the knowledge needed to make each decision of
how to best serve a student with a disability”. By sharing leadership, responsibility, and
knowledge, principals empowered staff (Blasé & Blasé, 2004) while also capitalizing on school-
allowed the principals to practice distributed leadership, and use resources effectively, all of
225
which are research-based practices for effective inclusive schools (CCSO, 2017; DeMatthews,
Instructional leadership. Research is clear that the role of the principal is changing
(Billingsley et al., 2018; CCSO, 2012; Crockett, 2009; Lashley, 2007; Schulze & Boscardin,
2018; Theoharis et al., 2015; Waldron et al., 2011). Principals are no longer expected to simply
manage a school, rather, they are expected to be both administrators and instructional leaders
(Esposito et al., 2019; Fullan, 2003; Lynch, 2012; Rinehart, 2017). Findings of this research
suggest that instructional leadership was an indispensable tool for these four effective inclusive
principals (Esposito et al., 2019; Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Halverson et al., 2015). They spoke about
exhibiting instructional leadership for specially designed instruction and inclusive practices
al., 2003; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Harrower & Dunlap, 2003). In their roles as instructional
embedded professional development on inclusive practice, built trust, provided time and
resources, used data to make decisions, and trusted teachers. (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Halverson,
schooling (Billingsley et al., 2018). Because many teachers are unprepared to teach students with
disabilities (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Fisher et al., 2003; Florian
& Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2018; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002;
Wisniewski & Alper, 1994), principals, and districts or states, are often responsible for providing
professional development in instructional practice for in-service teachers because they lack the
226
knowledge or skills to produce achievement gains for students with disabilities in the general
education classroom (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Fisher et al.,
2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2018; McLeskey &
Waldron, 2002; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). Effective inclusive principals must know how to
teach students with disabilities, even those with significant disabilities, or at the very least, know
how to access resources that can assist teachers in gaining the knowledge and skills to effectively
teach all students with disabilities. More importantly, school leaders must also provide
opportunities for teachers to learn and apply that pedagogical knowledge to their professional
practice (Cosier et al., 2018; McLeskey et al., 2018). These four leaders, findings suggest, were
students with disabilities because they recognized their roles as instructional leaders. By
engaging in instructional leadership, the principals in this research demonstrated their inclusive
consciousness for supported effective inclusive leadership and facilitated an inclusive culture in
their schools.
Implications
There are several significant implications for the information gleaned from both this
research and review of literature. Findings of this study suggest specific implications for both
Implications for policy. Policy guides the practice of teaching, leading, placing, and
overall, serving, students with disabilities in K-12 public education (IDEA, 2004; O ’Laughlin &
227
Lindle, 2015). The findings of this research have implications for educational policy, specifically
Need for special education in principal preparation. Research is clear that there is a
debilitating lack of preparation for teachers or principals in how to teach or lead students with
disabilities (Bateman et al., 2017; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019;
Fisher et al., 2003; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2018;
McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). Any instruction in leading students
with disabilities often focuses on compliance, understanding legal responsibilities, and avoiding
due process complaints (Billingsley et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2019; Thompson, 2017). This method
(DeMatthews et al., 2019) and inhibits the development of an inclusive consciousness. The lack
of preparation to lead schools that include students with disabilities encourages an inability to
serve as instructional leaders, improve rates of inclusion, and produce academic achievement
gains for students with disabilities (Bateman et al., 2017; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014), all
effectively teach or include student with disabilities, principals are left to their own devices and,
as findings of this study suggest, they are less likely to encounter students with disabilities in
ways that help them acquire, develop, or demonstrate an inclusive consciousness. They are often
forced to seek their own professional development (Levin & Bradley, 2019), as did the principals
in this study, or attempt to include students in ways perceive to be appropriate, even with a
2013; Theoharis et al., 2016). Neither of these options are ideal, and affirm that there is a
228
pressing need to prepare principals to teach and lead students with disabilities in preparation
programs.
academic outcomes for students with disabilities, and how to lead effective inclusive schools
(Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bellamy et al., 2014; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Thompson, 2017). This
instruction should incorporate evidence-based practices for inclusion of and high achievement
expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities as well as those students with
preparation because even if a principal has had instruction, as a teacher, regarding evidence-
based instructional practice for students with disabilities, they will need to understand their role
as an advocate and instructional leader for students with disabilities (Bai & Martin, 2015;
DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019; O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015). Explicit direction as
willing to participate in practices that encourage high academic expectations and inclusive
also need to include a practical component in which principal candidates have meaningful
experiences with students with disabilities. Research has demonstrated that principals’
perceptions of and expectations for students with disabilities are shaped by their experiences
(Billingsley et al., 2018; Praisner, 2003; Templeton, 2017). Knowing that being exposed to
people with disabilities is an experience that can improve principals’ presumed competence in
229
students with disabilities (Biklen, 1999; Praisner, 2003; Templeton, 2017). The more capable
leaders believe students with disabilities to be, the greater the opportunity for students with
disabilities to access an inclusive education (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 201; Goor & Schwenn,
1997; Wisniewski & Alper, 1994). Experiences that put future or current leaders in a position to
interact with students with disabilities can be facilitated by principal preparation, if life does not
provide such an opportunity before a perspective leader embarks upon their leadership journey
(Billingsley et al., 2018; Templeton, 2017). By providing training to principals, conditioned fear
and stigma about people with disabilities (Connor & Ferri, 2007; Fullan, 2003) can be mitigated
drives principals’ leadership. As is also the recommendation for teacher preparation for inclusive
special education, this training should be provided in universities, or other institutions of higher
principalship to build a shared foundational knowledge about what it means to lead an effective
Implications for practice. In addition to implications for educational policy, the findings
of this research also have implications for practice and informing how principals engage in
that every student does not achieve at the same levels at the same rate, there is variability in
leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools (Skilton-Sylvester & Slesrasneky-Poe, 2009).
The knowledge of a principal’s capacity to lead effective inclusive schools, as is made evident by
230
Principals with a strong inclusive consciousness could be placed in schools that have a high
population of chronically unaddressed and under instructed students with disabilities, in the
inclusive consciousness, along with other effective leadership behaviors, may provide a
schools. As more principals build capacity for effective inclusive leadership, it will become less
important to be intensely strategic with which principals are placed in which schools; however,
as the pool of principals adept at leading effective inclusive schools remains limited, it is critical
to place effective inclusive leaders in the schools in which they can make the most significant
difference. Until such a time as there are enough leaders to ensure all schools are led by a
principal with a strong inclusive consciousness, it stands to reason that schools with large
populations of students with disabilities should be led by a principal who believes that these
students are both capable scholars and valuable members of the school community.
Professional development. For principals already leading in schools with students with
disabilities, changes to principal preparation programs are of little use to build their capacity
and/or knowledge of effective inclusive leadership. Once principals are in the field, districts and
states need to take up the mantle to build effective inclusive capacity. Findings of this research,
and extant literature suggest that the most immediate need to address the issue of inequity in
DeMatthews et al., 2019; Fullan, 2003; Patterson, 2000; Thompson, 2017). Research
demonstrates that building capacity for in-service professionals is most effectively addressed
231
through job-embedded professional development (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Theoharis et al.,
2016; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Findings also suggest that, while principals with an
inclusive consciousness that drives their leadership may believe their inclusive consciousness to
to have positive experiences with students with disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2018; Praisner,
2003; Templeton, 2017). If inclusive consciousness does not have to be a preexisting facet of a
leader’s disposition, and can be developed (Bialka, 2017; Cameron, 2016; Praisner, 2003), there
for current principals should include opportunities to: (a) interact with students with disabilities
in inclusive settings being held to and meeting high academic standards; (b) engage in
professional learning communities focused on inclusive practice; (c) speak with and observe
other leaders engaging in effective inclusive leadership; (d) receive coaching; (e) and assess
progress through on-going feedback about their school’s effective inclusive culture via
stakeholder input (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000). To address knowledge and practical gaps in
for students with disabilities, information on how to incorporate inclusive practice into
leadership, and training related to building effective inclusive school culture are recommended.
Limitations
Several limitations were present in this research. The findings of this study were limited
by the participants, in the sample size, geography, and demographics. Because many principals
find the ability to balance inclusive practice and academic achievement demands difficult
232
(Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Day et al., 2008; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014), there were a
limited number qualified principals from which to draw the sample (Pazey & Cole, 2012);
therefore, the researcher solicited recommendations for participants from a state-wide network of
inclusion specialists and included four principals in the study. Principals selected to participate in
this research were known to be effective and inclusive through their relationship with state-wide
inclusion professional development trainers. There are, likely, other qualified leaders that were
not recommended for participation because they have not previously solicited the assistance of
the discretionary project for inclusive schools. Along with a limitation in the number of
participants, this research was limited by geography. All participants were selected from
different districts within one state, but each district had a different way of training principals and
supporting inclusion. Additionally, the participants selected were homogenous in that they were
all white, middle-aged women, that had led public K-5 elementary schools in Florida. The lack
for Education Statistics, 2020) but may have had an influence on findings, specifically, as they
relate to disposition and defining inclusion. Research has outlined a need for representation of
diverse populations in school leadership and the findings of this research may have been
Another limitation of this research was the capacity to collect data via face-to-face
interviews and conduct observations to confirm assertions made by participants about practice
and behaviors. While a growing body of research has documented the validity of interviews
conducted virtually (Lo Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016; Salmons, 2012), there are some
software or telephone, not the least of which are a limited ability to observe and respond to body
language cues. Virtual collection of data was necessary due to both geographical distance of the
researcher from the participants, because the participants were spread across Florida, and the
Future Research
This study adds to a small body of literature that endeavors to elucidate the conditions in
which effective and inclusive schools can intersect (Billingsley et al., 2018; Billingsley &
McLeskey, 2014; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Hoppey &
McLeskey, 2014; Hehir, 2012; Waldron et al., 2011); however, there are limitations to this
research given that the literature on effective inclusive schools and their leaders is still emerging
(Billingsley et al, 2017). In future research, a larger sample of principals from across several
states would allow for more significant conclusions to be drawn about effective inclusive leaders
and the ways in which they acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness that
drives their leadership. Additionally, future research would incorporate observations to confirm
or refute the leaders’ assertions about their own behaviors and practices (Patton, 2002).
Additionally, further investigation into this topic should include input from teachers in effective
inclusive schools and their perceptions of the principals’ leadership to create a more robust and
Even further study into how leaders acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive
consciousness that guides their leadership of effective inclusive schools would do well to include
a purposefully diverse sample. Every principal in this study was a white woman. While it is
234
important to think about what it means for white women to be using their privilege to bring
equity to students with disabilities, especially because they make up such a large portion of
teachers and leaders (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020) it is the responsibility of the
socially conscious researcher to recognize that white women, often, have a set of cultural beliefs
and practices that are different from those of their students with disabilities (Kirk & Okazawa-
Rey, 2013; Milner, 2012; Ng & Rury, 2006). Research has demonstrated that boys of color are
& Mawhinney, 2013; Pazey & Cole, 2012; US DOE, 2019) and further research conducted with
Fazit
This research endeavored to co-construct meaning with four elementary school principals
regarding how they acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that
guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. Evidence suggested that principals who are
adept at attaining high academic achievement results alongside high rates of inclusive education
for students with disabilities have dispositions that lend themselves to effective inclusive
have a disposition for effective inclusive leadership, leaders also reported formative experiences
encouraged their belief in effective inclusive practice. Once an inclusive consciousness was
acquired, the four leaders in this research developed and demonstrated their effective inclusive
235
leadership by developing their own definitions of inclusion and engaging in effective and
inclusive leadership behaviors to ensure that the students with disabilities in their schools had
Although research into effective inclusive school leadership is limited (Billingsley et al.,
2017; Crockett et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2019; Thompson, 2017), this study is congruent with
current research that espouses that a lack of training and knowledge of inclusive practice limits
principals’ ability to lead effective inclusive schools (Bateman et al., 2017; Billingsley et al.,
2018). Findings of this study are encouraging in that they suggest that capacity to lead effective
inclusive school can be built. Inclusive consciousness does not appear, according to the results of
this study, to exist as a binary-a yes or no, an on or off. Instead, inclusive consciousness, and a
leader’s ability to acquire, develop, and demonstrate it, may be more appropriately explained by
to people with disabilities. If inclusive consciousness may be developed, there are significant
implications for both policy and practice insofar as principal preparation can encourage the
inclusive school leadership is the goal of this research, as inclusive schools will, presumably,
bring equity not just to students with disabilities, but to the marginalized populations in
References
Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., Ware, J., & Mwavita, M. (2016). The informational significance
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A., &
Allen, R. E. & Wiles, J. L. (2016). A rose by any other name: participants choosing research
Angelle, P. & Bilton, L. M. (2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in
issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 5-10.
Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. (2006). Learning in inclusive
Bai, H. & Martin, S. M. (2015). Assessing the needs of training on inclusive education for public
Ballard, S. & Dymond, S. (2017). Addressing the general education curriculum in general
education settings with students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Bateman, D., Gervias, A., Wysocki, T. A., & Cline, J. L. (2017). Special education competencies
Bellamy, G. T., Crockett, J. B., & Nordengren, C. (2014). Preparing school leaders for every
Bettini, E., Gurel, S., Park, Y., Leite, W., & McLeskey, J. (2019). Principals’ qualifications in
special education and students with and at risk for disabilities’ reading achievement
Bialka, C. (2017). Understanding the factors that shape dispositions toward students with
Biklen, D. (1999). The metaphor of mental retardation: Rethinking ability and disability. In H.
Bersani, Jr. (Ed.), Responding to the challenge: Current trends and international issues
Billingsley, B., DeMatthews, D., Connally, K., & McLeskey, J. (2018). Leadership for effective
Billingsley, B. S. & McLeskey, J. (2014). What are the roles of principals in inclusive schools?.
Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice. (pp. 67-79). New York, NY: Taylor
and Francis.
Billingsley, B, McLeskey, J., & Crockett, J. B. (2017). Principal leadership: Moving toward
inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities. Gainesville, Florida:
Ceedar Center.
Blasé, J. & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful principal
promote teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bon, S. C. & Bigbee, A. J. (2011). Special education leadership: Integrating professional and
personal codes of ethics to serve the best interests of the child. Journal of School
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability
Boscardin, M. L., Schulze, R., Rude, H., & Tudryn, P. (2018). Do leaders of special education
Bowen, D. H. & Mills, J. N. (2017). Changing the education workforce? The relationships
among teacher quality, motivation, and performance pay. Teachers College Record,
119(4), 1-32.
239
182.
Brinker, R. P. & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the
Cameron, D. L. (2016). Too much or not enough? An examination of special education provision
and school district leaders' perceptions of current needs and common approaches. British
Carrington, S. & Robinson, R. (2004). A case study of inclusive school development: A journey
Carter, S. & Abawi, L. (2018). Leadership, inclusion, and quality education for all. Australasian
education: The social justice implications of policy and practice. Teachers College
Causton, J. & Theoharis, G. (2014). How do schools become effective and inclusive?. In J.
Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice. (pp. 30-42). New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis.
Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Bull, T., Cosier, M., & Dempf-Aldrich, K. (2011). Schools
Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, M. (2011). Does self-contained
special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice.
CEEDAR Center. (2020). The role of inclusive principal leadership in ensuring an equitable
education for students with disabilities. Gainesville, FL: Connally, K. & Kimmel, L.
Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across inclusive
Connor, D. & Ferri, B. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
Cosier, M., White, J. M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Examining the variability in general education
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Our responsibility, our promise: Transforming
educator preparation and entry into the profession. Washington, D. C.: CCSSO.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2017). PSEL 2015 and promoting principal leadership
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
Crockett, J. (2002). Special education's role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools.
Cruzeiro, P. A. & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal’s role with consideration for special
Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Leithwood, K., Kington, A. (2008). Research into the
impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Policy and research contexts. School
DeMatthews, D. E., Kotok, S., & Serafini, A. (2019). Leadership preparation for special
DeMatthews, D.E. & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring
Devecchi, C. & Nevin, A. (2010), Leadership for inclusive schools and inclusive school
Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9,
141–150.
support of students with autism. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(1), 27-38.
Dudley-Marling, C. & Burns, M. B. (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in the United States.
Dukes, C., & Berlingo, L. (2020). Fissuring barriers to inclusive education for students with
severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 14-
17.
Dukes, C., Darling, S. M., & Bielskus-Barone, K. (2017). States' description of common core
state standards to support students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Penguin Random
House.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Pub. L. No. 94-142) (1975)
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-476) (1990)
243
Esposito, M.C. K., Tang, K., & Kulkarni, S. (2019). Ensuring inclusive environments for
students with disabilities: School leaders play a linchpin role. Journal of Educational
Everett, D. (2017). Helping new general education teachers think about special education and
Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C., Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2017). The rationales for creating
Inclusive School Access and Success for All Students (pp. 17-30). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Fan, C., Gallup, J. L., Bocanegra, J. O., Wu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Using the CEC advanced
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be
Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In C. Tilstone, L. Florian, & R. Rose
Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the
Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2001). Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: Lessons
Florida Department of Education. (2020a). Florida school accountability reports. Retrieved from
http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/accountability-reporting/school-grades/
Florida Department of Education. (2020b). School public accountability reports [Data file].
Florida Department of Education. (2020c). State Education Profile, 2020. Retrieved from
http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7602/urlt/SEAProfile20.pdf
Florida Department of Education. (2020d). State and Local Education Profile Archives.
https://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-7540/dps-2016-13.pdf
Florida Department of Education Edudata Portal. (2019). Florida Report Card [Data file].
Retrieved from
https://edudata.fldoe.org/ReportCards/Schools.html?school=0000&district=00
Florida Department of Education EdStats Portal. (2019). FSA English Language Arts (ELA)
https://edstats.fldoe.org/SASWebReportStudio/gotoReportSection.do?sectionNumber=1
245
Florida Department of Education EdStats Portal. (2019). FSA Mathematics [Data file]. Retrieved
from
https://edstats.fldoe.org/SASWebReportStudio/gotoReportSection.do?sectionNumber=1
Florida Department of Education Edudata Portal. (2019). School report card [Data file].
Florida Inclusion Network. (2018). Inclusive scheduling C.U.E. Card. Retrieved from
https://www.floridainclusionnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FINAL-CueCard-
Inclusive-Scheduling-11.19.18.pdf
service delivery for all learners: Assessing the differences. Remedial and Special
Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2012). Responding to the collective and individual
'best interests of students": Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press, Inc.
Gal E., Schreur, N. & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities: Teachers’
Gandhi, A. G. (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading
91-112.
Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C. L. (2007). Inclusive leadership: Preparing principals
for the role that awaits them. Educational Leadership and Administration, 19, 117-132.
Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Has inclusion gone too far? Education Next, 18(4), 8-16.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
Goor, M. B. & Schwenn, J. O. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special education.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2015). The new instructional leadership:
Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative
Harrower, J. K. & Dunlap, G. (2001). Including children with autism in general education
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: Slate
Hawley, W. D. & Rollie, D. L. (2007). The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as
Heck, R. & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school
46(3), 659-689.
Hehir, T. & Katzman, L. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide
Hitt, D. H. & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leadership practices found to
Hoppey, D., Black, W. R., & Mickelson, A. M. (2018). The evolution of inclusive practice in
two elementary schools: Reforming teacher purpose, instructional capacity, and data-
Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive
Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. (2014). What are qualities of effective inclusive schools?. In J.
Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice. (17-29). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Hoppey. D. & Mickelson, A. (2017). Partnership and coteaching: Preparing preservice teachers
to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Action in Teacher Education, 39(2),
187-202.
Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership to
Janesick, V. (1998, April). Journal writing as a qualitative research technique: History, issues,
Kaplan, A., Cromley, J., Perez, T., Dai, T., Mara, K., & Balsai, M. (2020). The role of context in
Karanxha, Z., Agosto, V., & Bellara, A. P. (2014). The hidden curriculum: Candidate diversity in
34-58.
Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (2002). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion
Keyes, M. W., Hanley-Maxwell, C., & Capper, C. A. (1999). “Spirituality? It’s at the core of my
Kirk, G. & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2007). Identities and social locations. In Adams, M., Blumenfeld,
W. J., Castañeda, C., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M.L., & Zúñiga, X. (Eds.), Readings for
Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 9-15). New York, NY: Routledge.
249
Kurth, J. A., Lyon, K. J., & Shogren, K. A. (2015). Supporting students with severe disabilities
practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 261-274.
Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of
82(1), 25-43.
Lewin, D. (2014). What’s the use of ethical philosophy? The role of ethical theory in special
Levin, S. & Bradley, K. (2019). Understanding and Addressing Principal Turnover: A Review of
the Research (research brief). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School
Principals.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. K. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research
Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2),
40-47.
250
Mallory, B. & New, R. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion:
Challenges for early childhood special education. The Journal of Special Education,
28(3), 322-337.
Manset, G. & Semmel, M. (1997) Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities
31(2), 155-180.
Milner, H. R. (2012). Losing the color-blind mind in the urban classroom. Urban Education,
47(5), 868-875.
McLeskey, J., Billingsley, B., & Ziegler, D. (2018). Using high-leverage practices in teacher
McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. (2004). Is inclusion an illusion? An
examination of national and state trends toward the education of students with learning
19(2), 109-115.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., & Williamson, P. (2011). Learning disabilities and the
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward
educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special
McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2000). Inclusive schools in action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with
learning disabilities: Can they both be effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities
MsLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2015, February). Effective leadership makes schools truly
McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., & Redd, L. (2014). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive
McKenzie, K. B., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2006). Preparing instructional leaders for social
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Characteristics of public school principals.
Ng, J. C. & Rury, J. L. (2006). Poverty and education: A critical analysis of the Ruby Payne
http://www.tcrecord.org
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 25(3), 477-
490.
Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and using reflective journals in the qualitative research process.
Patterson, J., Marshall, C., & Bowling, D. (2000, February 1). Are principals prepared to manage
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Paul, J., French, P., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2001). Ethics and special education. Focus on
Pazey, B. L. & Cole, H. A. (2012). The role of special education training in the development of
Pazey, B. L. & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of
Peters, S. & Oliver, L. A. (2009) Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an
Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., Yurkofsky, M. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). From mass schooling
Powell, R. (2017, December 13). New report shows how ‘school choice’ puts students with
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students
Reynolds, M. C. & Birch, J. W. (1977). The interface between regular and special education.
Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 1(1),
12-27.
Riester, A. F., Pursch, V., Skrla, L. (2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school
success for children from low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 281-304.
Rinehart, T. (2017). Are principals prepared for the role of instructional leaders for all students
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An
Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
Salend, S. J. & Garrick Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and
without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126.
Salisbury, C. L. & McGregor, G. (2002). The administrative climate and context of inclusive
Salmons, J. (2012). Designing and conducting research with online interviews. In J. Salmons
(Ed.), Cases in online interview research (pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Samuels, C. (2017, February 28). Weighing special ed. as a school choice option. Education
Schulze, R. & Boscardin, M. L. (2018). Leadership perceptions of principals with and without
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973).
255
Shaked, H. (2020). Social justice leadership, instructional leadership, and the goals of schooling.
Sheng, Z., Wolff, L., Kilmer, L., & Yager, S. (2017). School administration manager: Redefining
the principal’s role as an instructional leader. Journal of School Leadership, 27, 119-145.
Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Sampson Garner, P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, (40)2, 67-
75.
Spaulding, L. S. & Pratt, S. M. (2015). A review and analysis of the history of special education
and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal,
42(1-2), 91-109.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Stone, J., Sayman, D., Carrero, K., & Lusk, M. (2016). Thoughts on Dewey’s democracy and
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students
Templeton, R. R. (2017). Special education leadership at the elementary school level: How does
Theoharis, G., Causton, J., & Tracy-Bronson, C. P. (2016). Inclusive reform as a response to
Theoharis, G., Causton, J., & Woodfield, J. (2015). Inclusive leadership and disability. In G.
Theoharis & M. Scanlan (Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (13-38).
Thessin, R. A. & Seashore Louis, K. (2020). The principal’s role has changed. Is professional
Timberlake, M. (2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation
of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with
Tobiason, G. (2019). Countering expert uncertainty: Rhetorical strategies for the case of value-
Trainor, A. A., & Graue, E. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research
Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 40-54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
library/instructional-coordinators.htm
U. S. Department of Education. (2020). National blue ribbon schools program. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/index.html
Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning
Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. (2017). Leading an Inclusive School Access and Success for All
20, 58-74.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal
24(2), 51-60.
Williamson, P., McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., & Rentz, T. (2006). Educating students with mental
Wisniewski, L. & Alper, S. (1994). Including students with severe disabilities in general
Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. (2017). The foundation: Administrative leadership and support in
school access and success for all students (47-70). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Zapata, Y. P. (2017). The principal’s role in creating and sustaining inclusive education. In R. A.
Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Leading an inclusive school access and success for all
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Interview 1.
a. Specifically, tell me about your interest in inclusive education for students with
disabilities.
a. How did your principal preparation prepare you to lead an inclusive school?
a. Probes – Why is the inclusion of students with disabilities important to do, from
your perspective?
b. Probes – What, if any personal experiences do you have with students with
a. What do you do to embed these practices into the culture of the school?
6. How does leading an inclusive school in the midst of the accountability movement
impact your decisions about how you lead and/or think about inclusion?
261
7. What sort of district supports are in place to help you effectively lead an effective and
inclusive school?
9. Is there anything you want to share about how you value inclusion and its impact in your
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
a. What motivated you to move to so many positions, both in and out of the
b. How did your experience at the state DOE influence your leadership, specifically,
expectations?
c. In our last interview, you said that you felt it was time for you to become a school
principal. What motivated this decision? Why did you feel this move was
necessary?
2. Much of your experience as a teacher and leader has been at the secondary level. Talk
about the impact that experience has had on your leadership when you are making
3. Talk to me about your experiences establishing a coteaching program in when you moved
4. I want to talk to you more about your definition of inclusion. The last time we talked, you
mentioned the importance of taking a critical look at the student’s least restrictive
process for how students gain access to the general education classroom from a self-
a. How do you lead special education programing for students with mild disabilities
b. How do you lead special education programming for students with significant
disabilities?
i. How, if at all, does your experience at Sunland influence how you lead a
5. When looking to include students in general education classrooms, you mentioned that
inclusion takes a lot of training and support. How do you provide that support to
teachers? If you can, give specific examples of what you do to support teachers.
a. What specific on-the-job support do you provide for teachers struggling with
b. Your school uses a variety of inclusive structures. How do you decide which
coteachers?
6. You expressed interest in speaking with principals of the middle and high schools your
educational career. What kind of role does this type of collaboration play in your day-to-
day leadership?
a. How do you use collaborative methods to lead a school that is both inclusive and
high achieving?
264
7. I want to have a better understanding of how you understand special education law and
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
1. When we last spoke, you talked about supporting all kids and the philosophy of “all
means all” driving your leadership. You stated that you support students regardless of
whether or not they have formal IEP paperwork. Where does this commitment to serving
all students come from? Why do you do it? What do you think sets you apart from other
principals who might not prioritize meeting the needs of students with identified
disabilities?
2. In our last interview, you talked extensively about the importance of the human element
of leading an effective and inclusive school. You talked about having compassion for
your students and building relationships. Your focus on students as people and meeting
social-emotional need was unique to you and something that most others did not address.
Why do you think the compassionate element of your leadership is so important? How do
3. You stated that your leadership practices are rooted in helping teachers understand how
to help struggling students and that you often use best practices for students with
disabilities as a baseline for improving instruction for all students. Why do you use
instructional strategies for students with disabilities as a starting point for good teaching?
Why have you modeled your instructional leadership in best practices for students with
disabilities?
266
4. You mentioned several structures in place in your schools that you routinely use for
supporting both students with disabilities and teachers of students with disabilities. Talk
me through what these structures are? Also why did you engage in these processes? What
b. Collaborative problem-solving
5. In our last interview, you talked about removing a self-contained allocation to create
another inclusion teacher to meet the needs of students at your school. Talk about how
you allocate resources to support inclusion in your school. Why did you choose to
prioritize services for students in the inclusive setting? What kind of challenges do
6. In our last interview, we talked about how students gain access to the inclusive setting.
Why are you willing to move students from self-contained classrooms to the general
education setting? Walk me through your decision-making process for how students gain
access to the general education classroom from a self-contained setting, or vice versa.
a. How do you lead special education programing for students with mild
disabilities?
267
b. How do you lead special education programming for students with significant
school when teachers and staff are not fully prepared to implement inclusion. You talked
about allowing the teachers to buy-in slowly rather than forcing practices on them. Why
did you make this choice? How did you address these teachers and staff who do not
8. When we last spoke, you talked about the flaws you see in state achievement demands
and noted that you prioritize students over grades. I want to have a better understanding
of how you understand special education law and the accountability expectation. What
drives you to focus on celebrating student growth regardless of what the state determines
a. How do you know you have struck a successful balance between inclusiveness
and high achievement? What does that look like for students with disabilities?
9. Is there anything you want to share about how you demonstrate your commitment to
inclusion and high achievement in your school that we have not yet discussed?
268
Appendix D
Interview Protocol
1. You talked in our last interview about your desire to make a difference and feeling like
your leadership at a previous school wasn’t allowing you to make a significant difference.
a. How does this desire to make a difference influence the way you lead for
inclusion?
b. How does this desire to make a difference influence the way you lead for high
achievement?
2. You mentioned that you have an expectation that schools are using best practices that
serve the needs of all students but that when you get to the schools, you find that they are
not. Can you provide an example of this occurring? When you would enter a new school,
as principal, what did you do to begin to establish inclusive culture and high expectations
3. When we last spoke, you talked supporting teachers in implementing inclusive practices
that also facilitate high achievement. Talk to me about how you do this. If you can, give
specific examples of what you do to support teachers to engage in best practices for
inclusion.
school when teachers and staff do not believe in inclusion. How did you address these
269
teachers and staff who were not supportive of inclusion? What options do administrators
5. You mentioned several structures in place in your schools that you routinely use for
supporting both students and teachers with disabilities. Talk me through what these
structures are? Also why did you engage in these processes? What impact they have on
your school.
b. Collaborative problem-solving
6. In our last interview, we talked about how students gain access to the inclusive setting.
You stated that a student’s scores, specifically, low scores on accountability measures,
would not prevent you from supporting that student moving to the inclusive setting. Why
are you willing to include these students? Walk me through your decision-making
process for how students gain access to the general education classroom from a self-
a. How do you lead special education programing for students with mild
disabilities?
b. How do you lead special education programming for students with significant
disabilities?
270
7. I want to have a better understanding of how you understand special education law and
a. How do you know you have struck a successful balance between inclusiveness
and high achievement? What does that look like for students with disabilities?
8. Is there anything you want to share about how you demonstrate your commitment to
inclusion and high achievement in your school that we have not yet discussed?
271
Appendix E
Interview Protocol
1. In our last interview, you talked about taking an interest in the scores of students with
disabilities. You also said that you partnered with an expert at the university to help you
develop inclusive practices to improve the scores of students with disabilities. Why did
b. How did you know to use inclusive practice to improve achievement for SWDs?
2. You talked about how having well-trained staff and access to lots of resources helped you
quickly establish an effective and inclusive culture at a previous school. How were you
a. You also talked about working in schools that struggle with inclusion as a
impact how you lead an inclusive school that also meets achievement demands?
3. You talked about seeing students with significant cognitive disabilities responding well to
being included in general education classrooms. What influenced you to include students
a. You also talked about the benefits of including students with disabilities for
students without disabilities. Talk to me about how you understand the interaction
272
of students with and without disabilities in the classroom and how that figures
4. You talked, in our last interview, about noticing the trends and getting ahead of them
rather than being reactive. Specifically, you noted the need to replace teachers retiring
and address the increase in the population of students with autism at your school. Talk to
me about that decision to be proactive and why you chose to get in front of these issues.
5. You mentioned several structures in place in your schools that you routinely use for
supporting both students and teachers with disabilities. Talk me through why you engage
a. Inclusive scheduling
b. Collaborative problem-solving
6. When we last spoke, you talked supporting teachers in implementing inclusive practices
that also facilitate high achievement. Talk to me about how you do this. If you can, give
specific examples of what you do to encourage teachers to engage in best practices for
inclusion.
7. I want to have a better understanding of how you understand special education law and
a. How do you know you have struck a successful balance between inclusiveness
and high achievement? What does that look like for students with disabilities?
8. Is there anything you want to share about how you demonstrate your commitment to