EXPLORING LEADERSHIP ASSEMBLAGE FOR INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

Exploring Change Facilitation of Inclusive Practices at

Coyote Elementary School

Daniel Snchez

Abstract
External pressures are common components of contemporary and local public
education, with federally mandated initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and its
subsequent levels of accountability and data reporting compliance (Koyama 2014), and
the subsequent district directives that emerge in response- and sometimes in reaction- to
said pressures. When perceived through the theoretical concept of assemblage, whereby
educational leaders act as bricoleurs, these intense external pressures create additional
challenges to internal improvement efforts and subsequent challenges. In one
southwestern district, leadership has responded with a bevy of innovations intended to
mutually expedite public appeasement, legal reconciliation and student achievement. One

key strategy for accelerating student achievement is in the form of assembling systems
for equitable access to successful learning opportunities in the forms of culturally
responsive and inclusive practices (USP 2013, IDEA 2004). The action research
presented in this article is focused on responding to the following problem: what are site
leaders doing to leverage external and internal pressures of effectively implementing
inclusive education for learners with IEPs? Literature and documents reviewed on the
topics of inclusion, inclusive practices and inclusive education for exceptional learners
through the framework of assemblage clarify key terms and help identify critical external
pressures, including legal mandates and social justice. Emerging themes determined
through analysis of interview data collected offer insights into the current internal
pressures involved in this assemblage, including disparate vision, resources and action
planning. Finally, implications, recommendations and resources are offered that include
evidence-based strategies for inclusive educations systems reform.
Assemblage Required
In her piece, Principals as Bricoleurs: Making Sense and Making do in an era
of Accountability, Dr. Koyama investigates the ways in which principals engage with,
and attend to, the data-driven accountability measures of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
and local mandates (Koyama, 2014, p. 1). Koyama uses the theoretical framework of
assemblage, in which leaders make use of available social capital, material, and
discursive practices by bringing them together to form dynamic and creative associations.

This theory situates principals as the bricoleurs who craftily facilitate the assemblage in a
manner both responsive to external pressures and still in alignment with the school vision
(Koyama, 2014). In this case of implementing an effective inclusive education, a review
of literature indicates the complexity of assemblage in this case.
Various studies have examined the impact and effects of inclusive practices on
those directly involved: practitioners, learners and administrators (within the parentheses
alphabetize the references (Caputo, A., Langher, V. (2014); Cosier, M., CaustonTheoharis, J. (2011); Downing, J., Spencer, S., Cavallaro, C. (2004); Gallagher, K.,
Odozi, A. (2015)). Learners with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) were
observed within the general education setting by Gallagher and Odozi (2015) using an
observation tool (ProACCT) that observes the a common core mathematics learning
experience through the perspective of the student or the teacher, viewing each through the
lens of 3 dimensions: class participation, cognitive demand and academic language;
observers rate the levels of each dimension at each observed teacher move and the totals
are scaled to determine the level of effectiveness for each dimension and overall. When
observing the teacher, the rating scale yielded high levels of effectiveness in each
dimension; however, when a learner with an IEP was observed during the same learning
experience, the ratings all fell within the lowest (novice) level. This study illustrates
how, despite optimal instruction, an exceptional learner without additional supports in
place may flounder within the general education setting. Cosier and Causton-

Theoharis (2011) sampled 129 school districts across New York and applied multiple
regression analysis to look for correlations between funding and inclusive practices. They
found that schools where students were highly included in general education settings
spent more on general education, and consequently less on exceptional education. They
reasoned that, given growing budgetary challenges, more schools and districts were
moving towards streamlined funding for general education. Caputo and Langher (2015)
shared results from an initial validation scale (of 276 exceptional education teachers) for
the Collaboration and Support for Inclusive Teaching, a measure of perceived support in
special education teachers regarding the degree of collaboration with regular teachers for
inclusive practice at school. Though the authors acknowledged limitations in small
sampling and the low validity ratings returned from their design and statistical analysis
for the questionnaire they developed, they likewise point put the need to apply and study
general education teachers in order to further validate and get data pertinent to coteaching, and they point to the need to continue to monitor Special Education Teachers
(SETs) for perceived lack of support from peers and administration and subsequent
loneliness that can contribute to burnout (Caputo and Langher, 2015). Given the constant
national and localized pressures, as well as studies that have shed light on the
complexities of providing inclusive learning opportunities that go beyond simply
inserting learners with exceptional needs into the general education setting, site
leadership has a lot to consider in managing this change effort.

This case study investigated the ways in which site based leadership engages
with and attends to local mandates rooted in federally vague language and legally implied
mandates, as well as evidence of, and present barriers to, assemblage specific to inclusive
practices.

Making Sense of Legal Decrees and Loose Directives

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 2004) is the reauthorization of
landmark national legislation that provides the parameters for protecting the rights and
serving the educational needs of learners with exceptional differences. It contains
processes designed to preserve the right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education
(FAPE) within the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for learning. It also provides a
framework for such processes as pre-referral, evaluation, and educational programming
elements for and individual (IEP), while intentionally embedding vague language
intended to promote autonomy for states and districts in their governance,
implementation and supports in compliance with federal mandates. One such ambiguity
is the definition of the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which stipulates, "...to the
maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities including children in public or
private institutions or care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and
special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from
regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is

such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services
cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (IDEA 2004 section 300.114(a2)). This federal
mandate is at the center of a contentious change effort towards inclusive practices that
has national momentum (Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004); DeMatthews, D.
E. & Mawhinney, H. (2013); Mitchiner, M., McCart, A., Kozleski, E., Sweeney, H., &
Sailor, W. (2014)) and is permeating local educational agencies, as evidenced by one such
district website for exceptional education featuring a link to www.thinkinclusive.us
(http://www.tusd1.org/contents/depart/exced/index.asp 2015), despite the fact that the
term inclusion from which inclusive practices derive- is not included in any section
of IDEA (Tanner et al., 1996).
The National Institute for Urban School Improvement (funded by Office of
Special Education Departments (OSEP), US Department of Education, defines
Inclusion as an effort to make sure students with disabilities go to school along with
their friends and neighbors while also receiving whatever specially designed instruction
and support they need to succeed as learners and to achieve to high standards
(Ferguson et al., 2000). Inclusive practices can vary from school to school; there are,
however, commonly accepted co-teaching models that serve this purpose, along with
essential considerations for successful implementation, including administratively
supported co-planning time (Pillars, 2015). The term inclusive education is being used
more by prominent national and state advocates such as Michael Remus to incorporate

both the concept of inclusion and the strategies of inclusive practices, as well to highlight
the social justice and attitudinal paradigm inherent in perceiving and serving each child to
their maximum potential within the context of mutually equitable learning experiences
(M. Remus, personal communication. 2016, March 6).
Given the lack of training and supported skill-practice development, the
challenge to current culture and climate, the process of mindset and paradigm shifts
needed and the subsequent obscurity of the legal literature, along with derivational terms
with likewise fuzzy delineation, it is little surprise that service models in support of
young learners with IEPs vary at and within every level of subsequent practices, with said
terms provoking more confusion than cohesion (Gallagher & Odozi, 2015). This lack of
clarity, particularly in contrast to a clear way of previously serving exceptional learners,
appears to be at the crux of site-based decision-making efforts related to assemblage of
inclusive practices at Coyote School.

The Curious Case of Coyote School

Coyote school is a nearly three-decade old elementary school with 710 students in
Pre-Kindergarten through grade 5. Over 88% of the student body is Latino, while just
under 5% is white, 3.5% is Native American, less than 4% of all other ethnicities. The
figure below contains the complete, current demographic school statistics:

(TUSD Stats 2016)

Presently, over 95% of the student body qualifies for free or reduced lunch.
Additionally, internal documents indicate 83 students (11-12%) have active IEPs. As for
the faculty, there are 29 teachers, 12 (41%) are Latino, while 15 (52%) are Anglo.
Additionally, 40% of the faculty has been teaching at the school for 10 or more years,
while just over 30% are in the first year teaching at the school (and some are in their first
professional teaching assignment). Leadership at Coyote has fluctuated with frequency;
over the past 5 years, there have been 3 different principals and 4 assistant principals.
Currently, the principal is in the second year in the position, following 7 years as an
assistant principal, and the current assistant principal is in her first year in this role. With
the current principal has come the districts initiative to implement inclusive practices.
Coyote School is in its second year of promoting implementation of inclusive practices.
What follows is a personal account of the previous steps that led to the current state of
this assemblage.
During his first year at Coyote School, the principal met with the exceptional
education teachers and tasked them with pre-placing all learners with IEPs for the
following school year in order to increase in-class services. That team was provided a

mock draft of potential teachers and assignments, and, given little additional direction,
they proceeded to cluster learners with IEPs assigned to teachers whom they perceived to
be effective at accommodating and differentiating instruction for diverse learners. The
principal then presented the information to the faculty at large without reviewing it, and
the backlash was immediate. Teachers protested their designation and lobbied in support
of one another, often citing the risk to their students scores and professional evaluation.
Ultimately, learners with IEPs were redistributed, and the change in distribution from last
year to the next represented slight or no change in the average number of learners in each
classroom. Thus the stage appeared set for a stalled progression into the new (current)
school year.
The principal and new assistant principal met once early this year to set
expectations to an Ex Ed staff that included 1 veteran resource teacher with nearly 10
years of practice at Coyote (in addition to 5 more years in this position at another site), 1
new resource teacher whose previous experiences included elementary school teaching,
and 1 new speech therapist who previously worked in a hospital setting with older clients.
The expectations were to render services within the classroom as much as possible, and
to conduct deliberate dialogue with the IEP team when there was an exception to this
expectation. Over the course of this semester, informal and formal interviews were
conducted principals, resource teachers and a state level administrator. Their responses
are summarized and categorized using The Six Functions of Intervention (Hall & Hord

2015), from which the interview questions were derived.

[Dys]Functions
Hall and Hord (2015) state the following 6 functions of intervention:
Developing, Articulating, and Communicating a Shared Vision of the Intended Change;
Planning and Providing Resources; Investing in Professional Learning; Checking on
Progress; Providing Continuous Assistance; Creating a Context Supportive of Change.
When asked about the vision, it was evident that there were divergent perceptions of what
this looked like; these perceptions were largely shaped by equally diverse sense of
context for what may be, and what has been the means to serving this portion of the study
body. Whereas the principal conveyed a sense of urgency and surprise that moving
towards inclusive practices was meeting with such resistance, he has previously
recognized a prevalent fear from the staff at large in response to many other collective
change efforts, such as core literacy instruction changes. He recognized the opportunity
to tighten resources with accelerated student achievement in mind. He also referenced
having the Ex Ed team pre-place students with IEPs and the master schedule as part of his
plan for facilitating this change that were not executed as expected. He has repeatedly
communicated the availability of substitutes that can be arranged upon request for coplanning time, and he noted he has observed during informal and formal observations that
the resource staff is either in an orientation level of use or non-use of this innovation.
Aside from early meetings in the year where he reiterated expectations that most if not all

learners with IEPs receive services within the general education setting, the principal has
not pursued implementation. He cited such barriers as inadequate staffing (2 resource
teachers combined for a service load of up to or near 60 students all year, and an effort to
hire a district-approved third resource teacher was unsuccessful), as well as fixed
mindsets and lack of training and understanding. Similarly, the assistant principal noted a
staff culture of fear and lack of knowledge of inclusive education and inclusive practices
as the barriers, with first steps to address this including dialoguing together to define key
terms and concepts. Conversely, the veteran resource teacher perceived the vision as a
mandate to cease current practices (of pulling students out of the classroom to work with
them), and expressed doubt and confusion regarding any resources or continuous support.
Additionally, he pointed out there has thus far been no training for teachers in how to
implement in a manner that does not significantly reduce the perceived quality of his
support, and he has been vocal over several conversations about the challenging teacher
to student ratios and his perception that both classroom teachers and parents likely prefer
pull out services. He did, however, consider how fewer transitions could benefit
exceptional learners. The novice resource teacher appeared to already have a sense of the
purpose and benefit to learners that aligned with the principals vision. Much of this
teachers concern centered on perceived barriers related to unclear communication of this
vision to general education teachers, as well as general education practices; she had
expressed initial enthusiasm for collaborating with general education teachers to

implement inclusive education, but their initial resistance and the subsequent large
service loads contributed to her ceasing to pursue inclusive education this school year.
Finally, she conveyed a sense of uncertainty regarding plans for supporting and training
teachers through this change, and she noted the need to organize strategies that support
teacher understanding and reduce resistance.
Given the disparity and ambiguity of the functions illustrated by this key
personnel, along with resource teacher concerns about general education collaboration
barriers that are not exclusive to this case (Caputo & Langher, 2014), site-based
leadership has explored assemblage of key personnel and strategic student placement, but
they have been met with internal pressures and resistance stemming from ambiguities
from both terms not yet defined, concepts not yet understood and an overall mismatch in
(exceptional and general) teacher to student ratios.
Getting Ahead of Ourselves (Again)
The state of this assemblage is not dissimilar to countless other innovations
often and currently promoted within and across districts and charters (Stern et al, 2014).
Reflective of a culture of disjointed resources, key elements for strategic, creative and
sustainable assemblage are partially or not yet established: the vision is formed and
owned by leadership, then peddled, sold to or resisted by the intended audience without
involving them and without consideration for their own skill mismatch compared to the
new expectation (Fetter et al., 2002).

This practice is akin to (formal and informal) teachers simply stating and
restating expectations while reacting to unexpected behaviors in a manner that oppresses
deviation and does not develop conceptual knowledge and procedural fluency, ultimately
perpetuating challenges to change and keeps responsibility with the teacher. In the case of
Coyote School, the expectation has been stated and restated, yet not overtly reinforced,
by the sole proprietor of the innovation- the principal. Just as significant is the clarity of
the present format when framed by the six functions. The vision of specialist support
(pull out) services as it has been implemented for years is clear to all, the resources, albeit
disjointed, are known, the isolation of planning and supports is commonly accepted, the
subsequent implications for student outcomes has largely been unquestioned and not
discussed, with previous leadership granting autonomy to exceptional education services
while focusing their attention on advocating for students to go through processes that
perpetuated this system of practice. Leadership needs to utilize strategic sense and
planning if they are going to make change happen (Hall & Hord, p. 148).
Convergence
Perhaps due to locally undefined deconstruction of ambiguous legislative
mandates or not yet determined resources, along with additional relevant factors such as
awaiting the hiring of a third resource person since the beginning of the year, or focusing
on additional change efforts, including PBIS and PLCs, the principal has given little
direct supervision to this assemblage. This has left the door of disparity- the evil twin of

assemblage- open. The principal has often referred to his prior experiences as a teacher,
when he was often presented with new strategies and materials, and he took it upon
himself to learn by doing. He is expecting the teachers around him to do likewise. If he
acts too leniently, the others will not feel compelled to change, which would veer more
towards a responder change facilitator style (Hall & Hord p. 148) and away from the
initiator facilitator style (p. 148) that thinks ahead and sustains momentum. On the other
hand, if he coerces others to change without understanding why or how, the rate of
improvement might mirror that of young learners who are taught mathematical
algorithms without developing there conceptual understanding of the operations they
perform.
The road less traveled to least restricted education
In the face of mounting external pressures to provide equity and excellence in
learning outcomes for each learner, without exception or bias, school leaders must
consider the culture and climate of the school. Both administrators and the first year
resource teacher all agreed that staff must define inclusive education, inclusion and
inclusive practices to begin the process of change. This action step would fulfill the key
step to facilitating change of developing, articulating, and communicating a shared
vision of the intended change (Hall & Hord 2015). Partnering with district leadership to
make the external pressure for this initiative more overt may also establish a context
conveying the importance of this change effort. Given the paradigm shift that has to occur

to challenge assumptions, a strategic plan designed for systems reform is needed, with
consideration for intentional focus on common ground in language, planning and
providing equitable instruction for successful learning outcomes for every child; that
latter will require skilled instructional leadership (Boscardin 2005). This strategic plan
would need to indicate the kind of available and accessible resources and strategies for
implementation, with budget funds attached for initial and sustained professional
learning. Most importantly, leadership will need to ensure that inclusive education gets
defined and envisioned by every school adult as a meaningful aspect of the schools
culture and climate, and they will need to actively monitor, collaboratively analyze and
aptly share data inputs (related research, funds, resources and implementation) and
outputs (student learning and achievement) with a variety of stakeholders in advocacy for
and assemblage of inclusive education.

References
Boscardin, M. (2005). The administrative role in transforming secondary schools to
support inclusive evidence-based practices. American Secondary Education, Vol. 33, No.
3 (Summer 2005), pp. 21-32. Published by: Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland
University
Caputo, A., Langher, V. (2014). Validation of the collaboration and support for onclusive
teaching scale in special education teachers. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
Vol. 33(3) 210222
Cole, C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across

inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42(2), 136-144.

Cosier, M., Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Economic and demographic predictors of
inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education 32(6) 496505.
DeMatthews, D. E. & Mawhinney, H. (2013). Addressing the inclusion imperative: An
urban school districts responses. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(61), 1-30.
Downing, J., Spencer, S., Cavallaro, C. (2004). The development of an inclusive charter
elementary school- lessons learned. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities. Vol. 29, No. 1, 11-24.
Gallagher, K., Odozi, A. (2015). Protocol for the assessment of common core teaching:
the impact of instructional Inclusion on students with special needs. Contemp School
Psychol 19:7788.
Chapter01. Hossain, M. M. (2012). An Overview of Inclusive Education in the United
States. In J. E. Aitken, J. P. Fairley, & J. K. Carlson (Eds.), Communication Technology
for Students in Special Education or Gifted Programs, pp. 1-25. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
IDEA, 2004. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs
%2C300%2CB%2C300%252E114%2Ca%2C2%2C on 11/1/2015.
Koyama, J. (2014). Principals as bricoleurs: making sense and making do in an era of
accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50, 279-304.
Mitchiner, M., McCart, A., Kozleski, E., Sweeney, H., & Sailor, W. (2014). Emerging
trends and future directions in effective inclusive elementary schools for students with
extensive support needs. In J. McLeskey, N. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.),
Handbook of research and practices for effective inclusive schools (pp. 447-491). New
York: Routledge.
Tanner, C. Kenneth; Linscott, Deborah Jan Vaughn; Galis, Susan Allan. Inclusive
Education in the United States. education policy analysis archives, [S.l.], v. 4, p. 19, dec.
1996. ISSN 1068-2341.