CHANGING HOW WE SERVE EXCEPTIONAL LEARNERS

EDL 604 CASE STUDY:

Changing How We Serve Exceptional
Learners

Daniel I. Snchez

Abstract
External pressures are common components of contemporary and local public education.
Federally mandated initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and its calls for professional
accountability and data reporting compliance (Koyama 2014), as well directive, yet loosely defined
elements of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA 2004), are catalyzing local education
agencies (LEAs) to shift systems and mindsets in the ways they serve the needs of learners with
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Many LEAs, including several local district schools are

leading the change from a continuum of specialized services that frequently occur outside of and
apart from the students class towards fully or nearly fully integrated specialist services into the
general education setting (Tanner et al., 1996; Hossain & Shahidullah, 2012), commonly known as
inclusive practices. One such case of this change effort is Coyote School, whose faculty diversity
is a dichotomy of veteran and new teachers with new leadership. Key personnel, who reflect the
aforementioned diversity, are interviewed about the change effort in support of inclusive
practices. Their response data are analyzed using tools from Hall & Hords (2015) Concerns-Based
Adoption Model (CBAM) framework. Finally an action plan is included for data-driven next steps in
support of managing this change effort.

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 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 (Mitchiner, M., McCart, A., Kozleski, E., Sweeney, H., & Sailor, W. (2014), Cole,
C. M., Waldron, N., & Majd, M. (2004) DeMatthews, D. E. & Mawhinney, H. (2013)) 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 lack of training and supported skill-practice development 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 the current state of this change effort at Coyote
School.
Smuggling Change Across a Fortified Mental Border
Coyote school is a nearly three-decade old elementary school with 704 students in
Pre-Kindergarten through grade 5. Over 90% of the student body is Latino; of the 29 teachers, 12
are Latino, while 15 (52%) are Anglo. In all, 78 students (11%) who attend have active IEPs.
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 change effort.

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 with the principal and resource teachers. There responses are

summarized and categorized using The Six Functions of Intervention (Hall & Hord 2015), from
which the interview questions were derived.
Dysfunctions
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 co-planning 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 pushed for compliance, and this implementation appears
6

to be loosely monitored, without any overt or contextual sense of urgency. 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 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 observed multiple instances
where students were provided independent worksheets similar to their peers and expected to
complete the frustration level work without accommodation, but she was unsure of how to
approach the general education teachers, given her being new to the school this year. She also
conveyed a sense of uncertainty regarding plans for supporting and training teachers through this
change, and she has expressed gratitude for the flexibility of administration regarding her
intermittent implementation. 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), This change effort presently
not likely to progress as envisioned by leadership.
7

Getting Ahead of Ourselves (Again)

The state of this change effort 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 managing change are often partially or not yet
established, and the vision is often 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 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
8

Perhaps due to 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 change. This has left the door of
disparity open. The principal has often referred to his time 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.
On this note, some lingering questions remain. What has been our current impact on the learning
outcomes of the learners we serve under our current practices? .
A Plan for Strategic Action
The following chart represents components of an Action Plan for facilitating
implementation of inclusive practices, framed by Hall & Hords 6 Functions of Intervention:
Function
Developing,

Baseline
The vision is unclear

SMART Goal
By the End of the Year,

Next Step
2. The committee will

Articulating, and

and different across

a shared vision

develop a vision that

Communicating a

change agents, with

developed by the

aligns with the school-

Shared Vision of the

no sense of co-

Inclusionary

wide vision and

Intended Change

authorship.

Committee will be

representative of their

reviewed with the staff

viewpoints.

and community at
large to ensure
stakeholder input
Planning and

Student pre-

considerations.
By the EOY, the

Providing Resources

placement involved Ex

inclusionary

determine logistics for

Ed team input. A

committee will

increased

master schedule was

complete an

implementation,

drafted with the

innovation

including co-planning

intention of organizing

configuration map of

and co-teaching

resources around

inclusive practices that

periods, training for

student achievement

also identifies key

co-teaching, and the

resources for various

resources (ex.

degrees of

classroom coverage,

implementation.

changes to Master

3. The committee will

schedule) needed to
Investing in

Administration has

By the EOY, Needs

achieve these.
3a. The committee will

Professional Learning

offered to get

assessment data will

develop a Needs

substitutes to support

be collected from the

Assessment survey for

co-planning and

staff and analyzed by

teachers and parents.

teacher identified PD

the inclusionary

training.

committee to prioritize

Administration

resources.
By the EOY, the

5. The committee will

progress monitoring

inclusionary

assign observation

these

committee will collect

responsibilities and

Checking on Progress

10

implementations with

and review

equip this person for

informal and formal

implementation data

said undertaking

observations.

(time & type of

(trainings, materials,

services rendered in

scheduling with

class, co-planning

teachers, parent
surveys)
4. The committee will

Providing Continuous

Early meetings

lessons).
By EOY, the

Assistance

occurred with time

inclusionary

work with teachers to

dedicated to

committee will survey

organize for changes

organizing inclusive

and analyze teachers,

to services to target

practices.

parents & students

groups (arranging and

feedback to deduce

attending IEP

changes in strengths

amendment meetings,

and needs.

onboarding parents
and collaborating with
related services;
scheduling service
delivery and
collaborating for
service planning), as
well as determine an
observation cycle

Creating a Context

Context is localized

By the EOY, the

schedule and tool.

1.The principal will

Supportive of Change

and owned only by

inclusionary

establish an

leadership.

committee will collect,

Inclusionary

review and report data

Committee

on ID-protected

representative of

11

student cases the

multiple perspectives

focus on progress

(Ex Ed, Gen Ed, Admin,

framed by Present

Parent Rep). The

Level of Academic

committee will

Functioning and

determine committee

Performance (PLAFP)

meeting logistics

and provide a

(meeting schedule,

narrative report to

purpose, norms,

staff/stakeholders at

agenda and meeting

larger that illustrates

format, decision-

tangible benefits from

making protocol),

integration of services.

assign and determine

committee member
roles (meeting
facilitator, time
keeper, note taker,
data analyst)
1a. Describe the
current state of this
change effort using
comprehensive
(qualitative and
quantitative) data, and
discuss committee
assumptions about
the data and
endeavor.

12

Appendix
Interview Questions with compressed responses
1. What is your/the vision of successful implementation of inclusive practices at our school? How
have you/ has the principal articulated this vision and developed it with others?
P- As many students as possible, with teams determining exceptions, receiving
differentiated instruction with accommodations and service supports within the classroom
setting. I have stated this expectation in this way multiple times with the Ex Ed team.
T1- I feel that I am supposed to provide support to all my students in their classrooms. [The
principal] has been clear about having us do this since last year.
T2- I think the idea is for students to stop getting pulled out of the class and to limit the
interruptions to their instruction. I dont think this has been communicated clearly,
especially with the grade level teachers.
2. What resources for inclusive practices have been planned for and provided?
P- I have offered to provide subs so that they can plan together or with classroom teachers.
I am also willing to help them attend trainings and conferences. I let them place students
with IEPs so that they had fewer places to get to them, and I made the master schedule in
part with the idea of them getting to classrooms in a less disjointed manner.
T1- None. He just expects us to start going in the classroom. Im sure many teachers would
prefer to have students come out for their services, especially with how much of a handful
some of the students can be.
T2- I was supposed to be assigned a mentor, but that still hasnt happened. I dont mind
being in the classroom, but some of the teachers dont differentiate, and I get caught trying
to give math support during a reading time.
3. What types of investments, monetarily and otherwise, have been made in support of
professional learning on inclusive practices?

13

P- The money is there for subs for regular co-planning. Sometimes, people have to learn
from doing.
T1- Im not sure. It doesnt look like anyone is making any more than before.
T2- None that I have experienced, even from the district, which is not surprising. This is the
latest in a long line of things we are told to do, but not taught how to do it.
4. What strategies or methods have you/ been used to measure progress of inclusive practice
implementation?
P- Right now, I can tell you that one teacher does not provide inclusive practices, and the
other has tried it here and there, based on my walkthroughs and formal observations.
T1- I have yet to get feedback or more input about this. I dont even think this was
communicated during my evaluation
T2- For now, I think they are letting us be flexible with trying this out, but they probably
expect to follow up by the endo of the year. To be honest, I am not quite sure.
5. What is your/the plan for providing continuous support for successful implementation of
inclusive practices?
P- My plan for support is through ensuring all are on master schedule.
T1- If there is one, I dont know what it is.
T2- Im not sure.
6. How have you created a context supportive of this change effort?/ Why is successful
implementation of inclusive practices at our school so important?
P- Ive asked staff to think of circumstances why [inclusive practices] shouldnt happen for
kids. What I mean is, why shouldnt a student get their writing support within the
classroom? I think once they start to do it, well all see the benefits to the students.
T1- Well, I can understand how reducing the number of interruptions to a students work in
the class might be helpful, and getting extra adults in the classroom is a big plus, even
though it wont be much more than it already is.
T2- Because if we do it well, the kids win.

14

References
Caputo, A., Langher, V. (2014). Validation of the collaboration and support for inclusive 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.
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, 1124.
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.

15

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.
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.

16