University of North Florida

UNF Digital Commons

UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship

2020

Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make the

Difference
Megan Robinson McMillan
University of North Florida, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd

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

This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and

open access by the Student Scholarship at UNF Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNF
Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more
information, please contact Digital Projects.
© 2020 All Rights Reserved
Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make the Difference

by

Megan Robinson McMillan

A dissertation submitted to the Department of Leadership,

School Counseling & Sport Management

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES

December 2020

Unpublished work © Megan Robinson McMillan

 iii

This dissertation titled Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals Make the Difference

Dr. David Hoppey, Committee Chair

Dr. James McLeskey, Committee Member 1

Dr. Linda Skrla, Committee Member 2

Dr. Pamela Williamson, Committee Member 3

 iv

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

you more than you can ever know.

 iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For their invaluable contributions, feedback, and support, I am grateful to my dissertation

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

of this journey was invaluable.

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

journey. Thank you for your leadership and inspiration.

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

Principals’ capacity to navigate accountability and inclusive policy. ...................................57

Effective inclusive leadership behaviors. ..............................................................................58
Principal Preparation and Special Education Knowledge .........................................................61
Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................................64
Chapter Three: Methodology .....................................................................................................66
Functional Understandings ........................................................................................................66
Effective schools ....................................................................................................................66
Inclusive schools. ...................................................................................................................66
Inclusive consciousness .........................................................................................................67
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................68
Participants, Site Selection, and Sampling Techniques .............................................................68
Participants .............................................................................................................................69
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................................76
Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured i .......................................................................76
Document analysis .................................................................................................................81
Field notes ..............................................................................................................................82
Research journal and research log .........................................................................................82
Confidentiality in data collection ...........................................................................................84
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................86
Coding. ...................................................................................................................................87
Open coding. ..........................................................................................................................87
Axial coding ...........................................................................................................................88
Selective coding......................................................................................................................89
Credibility and Trustworthiness.................................................................................................90
Member checking...................................................................................................................90
Triangulation ..........................................................................................................................91
Peer review.............................................................................................................................91
Thick, rich description. ..........................................................................................................92
Transferability. .......................................................................................................................92
Positionality ...............................................................................................................................93
 7

Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................................94

Chapter Four: Findings...............................................................................................................95
Introduction ................................................................................................................................95
Contextualization: Defining Inclusion .......................................................................................96
Leaders’ definitions. ..............................................................................................................97
State definition. ....................................................................................................................103
Framework of the Findings ......................................................................................................105
Figure 1 ....................................................................................................................................105
Developing a Disposition for Inclusive Consciousness ...........................................................106
Mindset and mantra. .............................................................................................................106
Beliefs around providing access to inclusive education. .....................................................113
Presumed competence & least dangerous assumption.........................................................122
Ethical call to inclusion. ......................................................................................................141
Effective and Inclusive Leadership Behaviors ........................................................................150
Sharing and communicating vision. .....................................................................................151
Shared, data-based decision-making. ..................................................................................151
Communication. ...................................................................................................................155
Collaboration. ......................................................................................................................160
Building personal leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools. ...............................165
Focus on instructional leadership. ........................................................................................171
Evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. .....................................................172
Job-embedded professional development. ...........................................................................178
Navigating district constraints. ............................................................................................184
Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................................203
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations ..........................................205
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................205
Summary of the Study .............................................................................................................206
Discussion ................................................................................................................................207
Acquiring an inclusive consciousness as innate and/or developmental. ..............................208
Inclusive consciousness as innate. .......................................................................................208
 8

Inclusive consciousness as developmental...........................................................................210

Developing an inclusive consciousness: Defining inclusion. ..............................................212
Defining inclusion for students with significant disabilities. ...............................................213
Demonstrating an inclusive consciousness: Marrying inclusive and effective leadership
behaviors. .............................................................................................................................217
Seeking knowledge and job-embedded professional development. .....................................219
Building an effective inclusive school culture. ....................................................................221
Implications .............................................................................................................................226
Implications for policy. ........................................................................................................226
Need for special education in principal preparation. ..........................................................227
Implications for practice. .....................................................................................................229
Principal placement. ............................................................................................................229
Professional development. ...................................................................................................230
Limitations ...............................................................................................................................231
Future Research .......................................................................................................................233
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................234
References ...................................................................................................................................236
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................260
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................262
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................265
Appendix D .................................................................................................................................268
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................271
 9

Abstract

In effective inclusive schools, school principals are the difference-makers. Principals of

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

leadership is predicated upon their inclusive consciousness, or a dogged determination to provide

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

inclusive leadership behaviors determined their acquisition, development, and demonstration of

an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. The

discussion includes explication of findings, implications, limitations, and recommendations for

further research.
 10

Chapter One: Introduction

Background of the Study

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

challenged by lack of direction in federal mandates for inclusion, questions of interpretation of

the special education law, and a series of barriers framed in this study as gates of access, in order

to reach the level of equity available in the current educational climate.

Special Education Legislation and the Least Restrictive Environment

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

of special education law, in IDEA (2004), LRE dictates that:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in

public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are

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

aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (§300.114)

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

Interpreting the Least Restrictive Environment Mandate

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

beyond the physical to include membership in a community (Billingsley et al., 2014;

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).

With innumerable differing interpretations of inclusion, including conceptualization of inclusion

as a physical space or as a sense of belonging and community, there is significant variability in

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

disabilities the opportunity to reap the benefits of an inclusive education.

Gatekeepers and Access to Inclusive Classrooms

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, &

Karwowski, 2017), the practical application of and access to a comprehensive inclusive

education for students with disabilities varies widely (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2013; US

DOE, 2018; Williamson et al., 2006).

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

disabilities at inconsistent rates (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; McLeskey et al., 2004;

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

counterparts (McLeskey et al., 2014) incentivize self-contained placements.

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;

Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; IDEA, 2004; Williamson et al., 2006).

Because there is no federal definition of inclusion, the process of obtaining access to an

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

policies on educating students with significant cognitive disabilities working on alternate

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 &

Schumm, 1995; Waldron et al., 2011).

 18

Leaders’ perception as a barrier to inclusion. Extant literature revealed that a teacher

or principal’s understanding of disability, including experience being in the presence of and

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).

Lack of principal preparedness to lead effective inclusive schools. In addition to the

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

programs (Billingsley, DeMatthews, Connally, & McLeskey, 2018; Causton-Theoharis,

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

little, if any, explicit training, or instruction in special education instruction or in understanding

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).

Principals, during their preparation to become either a teacher or an administrator, are

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

simultaneously expected to produce improved academic outcomes as measured by academic

 20

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

inclusive schools (Crockett, 2012).

Negotiating Achievement and Inclusion Directives

For principals, legislated demand for achievement creates a particularly confounding

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

fall short in service delivery (Causton-Theoharis, 2011; Timberlake, 2014).

 21

Principals’ inclusive consciousness and effective inclusive schools. Competing

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

consciousness, evident in a leader’s tenacious commitment to leading both an effective and

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 &

Schwenn, 1997; Rinehart, 2017).

 22

Leadership behaviors of principals with an inclusive consciousness. Understanding

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)

data-driven decision-making; (e) build capacity through job-embedded professional

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).

Research to Practice: Variability in Effective Inclusive Leadership

While some administrators demonstrate inclusive consciousness and successfully lead

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

inclusive schools and conceptualizing inclusion as a culture or community of belonging in place

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

of presuming incompetence, establishing academic achievement as a priority for a population

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

The research questions that guided this investigation were:

1. How do public school elementary principals acquire and develop an inclusive

consciousness that guides their leadership?

2. How do public school elementary principals demonstrate an inclusive consciousness in

their leadership of effective inclusive schools?

 26

Overview of Conceptual Framework

To make meaning of how principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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;

and (d) social justice literature.

Intersections: Special education history, leadership practices, & accountability. The

concepts upon which the framework of this research was built served to create a foundation of

understanding concerning principals’ demands in leading effective inclusive schools. A series 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

inclusive schools in the culture of academic achievement accountability pressures. Today’s

principals lead in a complex milieu riddled with competing demands (Leko et al., 2015) and the

intersections of these pressures formed the conceptual framework of this research.

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,

principal preparation, and a leader’s knowledge of special education intersected to form a

position from which to explore how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired,

developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that drove their leadership.

Inclusive consciousness. Educational social justice literature (Castro-Villareal &

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.

An inclusive consciousness, like an equity consciousness, is characterized by the dogged

determination to maintain high academic expectations for all learners, with particular regard to

learners with disabilities, even those with significant cognitive disabilities, and the

implementation of research-based leadership practices for leading effective inclusive schools

(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.

(2006) which dictated:

(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)

The concept of an inclusive consciousness further expounds upon equity consciousness

and includes the caveat that effective inclusive leaders with an inclusive consciousness possess

an unwavering commitment to the construct of presumed competence, or presumption that a

 29

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

disabilities in high academic achievement expectations. Leaders with an inclusive consciousness

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

inclusive leaders to emerge as an inclusive consciousness.

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

qualitative study, the researcher used a constructivist approach to co-constructing meaning

alongside the participants in order to understand their worldview and lived experience in leading

inclusive and effective schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).

To appropriately demonstrate how leaders acquired, developed, and demonstrated

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

outliers, as compared to their district and/or state averages.

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

capacity (Creswell, 2013; Hatch, 2002).

Trustworthiness and Credibility

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

of findings and can be repeated by future researchers.

Significance of the Research

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

inclusive consciousnesses in principals is invaluable (Theoharis, Causton, & Woodfield, 2015;

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

inclusive schools through experience decreased rates of absenteeism, improved academic

achievement, and higher rates of self-esteem in addition to immersion in diverse culture

(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).

Principals’ leadership is second only to teachers’ instruction in influencing student learning

(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,

driven by a principal’s inclusive consciousness, students with disabilities can experience

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 that drives their leadership in effective inclusive schools.

Organization of the Study

This research endeavored to understand how principals acquired, developed, and

demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership and how that 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

of special education in today’s educational environment. Existing knowledge in current literature

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

methodology employed to answer how principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an

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

recommendations for future research.

Chapter Summary

The intersection of inclusive education, academic accountability demands, and the

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

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

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

achievement metrics in addition to being included in general education spaces (Castro-Villareal

& 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’

roles in inclusive schools, and principal preparation are reviewed.

Historical Context of Inclusion

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

from self-contained settings to inclusive classrooms.

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).

Education in segregated classrooms. Now legally entitled to a free and appropriate

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

trained teachers, greater individualization or instruction in a homogenous classroom, and an

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

explained the condition created by reliance on a self-contained model:

Unfortunately, despite evidence of positive outcomes for inclusive practices, many

students continue to receive their special education services in segregated special

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)

In their work, Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) condemned self-contained classrooms for

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.,

2015; US DOE, 2018).

 40

Evolution from self-contained placements toward inclusive placements. Although,

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

advent of the Regular Education Initiative (REI), a tentative solution to self-contained

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

inclusion (Dudley-Marling & Burns, 2014).

 42

Understanding Inclusion

Inclusion, although seemingly intuitive, is fervently debated in the field of special

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.

Defining inclusion. Inclusion is a concept that is widely discussed and applied by

educators, lawmakers, advocates, and stakeholders but not is universally understood

(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

categorized as ‘having special education needs’; (b) inclusion as a response to disciplinary

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

as a principled approach to education and society.

In presenting these six definitions, Ainscow et al. (2006) sought to address the most

prominent themes in attempting to define inclusion at present. Inclusion as a concern with

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

exclusion frames inclusion as a solution to “overcoming discrimination and disadvantage” (p.

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

equity, community, and participation for students with disabilities in schools.

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

“broader understanding…principally concerned with working towards greater acceptance of

differences, restricting schools and communities to accommodate diversity, and overcoming

social and environmental barriers to participation” (p.23). Similarly, Causton-Theoharis,

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

inclusion as a physical placement in a general education classroom alongside peers without

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

inclusion in its entirety.

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:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in

public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are

not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with

disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or

severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (IDEA, 2004)

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, 2013).

 46

Functional definition of inclusion. Borrowing from the ideas of DeMatthews and

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.

Perceptions of inclusion in practice. Because there has been no consensus regarding

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.

(2006, p. 348) refers to:

The provision of services to students with disabilities, including those with severe

disabilities, in their neighborhood schools, in age-appropriate regular education classes,

with the necessary support services and supplementary aids-for both children and

teachers. The goal of inclusion is to prepare students to participate as full and

contributing members of society. Inclusion means meeting the law’s requirement of a

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

delivered in special education-only classrooms as “segregation” and argue to morality of

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;

Kavale & Forness, 2000).

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

school/other facility, including residential facilities, hospital/homebound environments,

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,

rather is focused on the appropriate dimension of free appropriate public education.

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

schools to become both effective and inclusive.

Inclusion as a place. In practice, debate persists about whether inclusion is defined

simply as physical placement in a general education classroom or if inclusion operates as a

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.

Inclusion as a mindset of community and belonging. As defined by Gal, Schreur, and

Engel-Yeger’s (2010, p. 89), “inclusion in general education is a philosophy of acceptance and

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

provided the supports to be successful in academic, social, and extra-curricular activities

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

right to be valued and that students will see diversity as a problem.

Intersection of Special Education Law and Accountability Culture

The responsibility of schools is immense. There is significant pressure from stakeholders

to provide equitable and inclusive education for all students including students with disabilities

while simultaneously raising expectations to produce results on academic achievement measures

 52

(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

without disabilities (DeMatthews, 2015).

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

Department of Education’s 40th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the

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

school day (US DOE, 2014).

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

with a significant cognitive disability were included in general education classrooms, as

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;

McLeskey et al., 2012; Timberlake, 2014; Williamson et al., 2006).

 54

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

academic excellence under the pressure of meeting public demand:

School leaders are, therefore, held accountable for school performance through a highly

developed national accountability framework. This framework includes individual target-

 55

setting for each school, the publication of exam results and a national expectation regime

whereby reports on the performance of individual schools are publicly available…

Eschewing achievement appears as an acceptance of mediocrity while neglecting inclusion

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

and other measures of accountability” (p. 210).

Principal’s Role in the Effective Inclusive School

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;

Theoharis et al., 2015; Waldron et al., 2011).

 56

Understanding effectiveness as juxtaposed with inclusion. The concept of

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.

DeMatthews (2015) defined effective by way of an achievement gap threshold. To be considered

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

operational definition of effective as it has been defined by the aforementioned scholars.

Effective is defined to mean observable academic achievement evident in standardized test

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,

2015; NCLB, 2001).

Principals’ capacity to navigate accountability and inclusive policy. Of the

stakeholders responsible in building effective inclusive schools, extant literature is clear that

principals play a critical role in establishing and maintaining schools that successfully

demonstrate high standards of academic achievement and commensurate rates of inclusion of

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

accountability pressures and increased participation of students with disabilities in general

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;

(c) encouraging teacher-centered professional development; (d) using data-based decision

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

negotiate inclusive policies with accountability expectations, there is significant evidence to

suggest that engaging in leadership that supports inclusion and meeting student need will result

in improved accountability as a byproduct (DeMatthews, 2015; Manset & Semmel, 1997;

McLeskey et al., 2014; Szumski, Smogorzewska, & Karwowski, 2017). This knowledge that

schools successfully implementing inclusive practices will be naturally more likely to be

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).

Effective inclusive leadership behaviors. As researchers have identified leadership to be

a difference-maker for inclusive schools, several evidence-based practices for inclusive

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

implement inclusive programs.

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

on the characteristics of problem-solving organizations” and that effective administrators within

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

incorporate evidence-based leadership practices will be best positioned to affect improved,

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

with visioning, coaching, mentoring, mediating, leading, and managing (Tschannen-Moran,

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

and a major responsibility of an effective inclusive leaders is engaging in instructional leadership

that improves the outcomes of all students (CEEDAR Center, 2020; Esposito et al., 2019;

Hoppey, Black, & Mickelson, 2018).

Principal Preparation and Special Education Knowledge

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;

Rinehart, 2017; Roberts & Guerra, 2017; Zaretsky, 2004).

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

led by principals with no training in special education.

 63

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

designed to meet their needs as building administrators, especially regarding their

leadership role in inclusion. (p. 143)

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

preparation, Pazey and Cole (2012) wrote:

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

facilitate academic achievement of students with disabilities as a core component of leading

schools in today’s society (Billingsley et al., 2017; DeMatthews et al., 2019; Garrison-Wade,

Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007; Frick et al., 2012; Lynch, 2012).

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

maker “…has to recognize a problem as an anomaly and to convince others…individuals can be

powerful inhibitors or facilitators” (p. 85). The motivation behind how and why principals

acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness focused on leading effective

inclusive schools is of utmost importance for understanding why some principals are effectively

implementing inclusion and also meeting accountability demands while others struggle. Because

education concerning inclusion and special education is inconsistent in principal preparation

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

opportunities for students with disabilities.

 66

Chapter Three: Methodology

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,

development, and demonstration of an inclusive consciousness for leading effective inclusive

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

behaviors (Hatch, 2002).

Functional Understandings

To facilitate shared understanding of terms used in discussion and explanation of the

research, functional understandings were developed for the meanings of effective schools,

inclusive schools, and inclusive consciousness.

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

valuable members of the school community.

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,

2001; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; Hoppey et al., 2018).

Inclusive consciousness. Inclusive consciousness, in this research was defined as a

leader’s dogged determination to successfully negotiate the intersection of effective leadership

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

leadership practices as well as demonstrated a tenacious commitment to evidence-based practices

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

an adamant, uncompromising commitment to equitable education for students with disabilities

 68

that was both effective and inclusive (Billingsley, DeMatthews, Connally, & McLeskey, 2018;

DeMatthews, Kotok, & Serafini, 2019; Theoharis, Causton, & Woodfield, 2015).

Research Questions

This research was guided by the following questions:

1. How do public school elementary principals acquire and develop an inclusive

consciousness that guides their leadership?

2. How do public school elementary principals demonstrate an inclusive consciousness in

their leadership of effective inclusive schools?

Participants, Site Selection, and Sampling Techniques

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

principals’ leadership behaviors that their inclusive consciousness could be significantly

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

experiences of elementary school principals with inclusive consciousnesses and to understand

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

research questions. This type of sampling, also referred to as criterion-based sampling

(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

principals directly contacted, four were selected to participate in this research.

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

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants of Effective Inclusive Elementary Schools

Participant Gender Race District size Locale Years as

(Pseudonym) principal
Angela Waters Female White Small Town 6
Jacqueline Martin Female White Very large City 12
Lillian Schmidt Female White Midsize City 18
Pamela Howard Female White Midsize City 11

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

participants, because of their success in transforming underperforming schools, were moved, or

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

through their leadership at each new site.

The information in Table 2 provides a brief description of the characteristics of each

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

school setting is not included.

 72

Table 2

Characteristics of Elementary Schools Under Effective Inclusive Leadership

Participant School Name District District Years as School % of Title 1

(Pseudonym) (Pseudonym) size principal grade during Students status
participant’s with
leadership disabilities
(range)
Angela Greenville Taylor Small 5 B&C 13.8%- Yes
Elementary 17.7%
Jacqueline Sunnyside Cefare Very 4 B&C 11.9%- Yes
Elementary large 17.4%
Jacqueline Wagstaff Cefare Very 4 A&B 19.4%- No
Elementary large 22.4%
Jacqueline Lakeside Cefare Very 3 D to C 10.7%- Yes
Elementary large 17.2%
Jacqueline Jones Creek Cefare Very 1 C to B 14.2% Yes
Elementary large
Lillian Millbrook Eason Midsize 12 C&A 11.8%- Yes
Elementary 18.3%
Lillian Mason Eason Midsize 2 F 14.8%- Yes
Elementary 22.7%
Lillian Navarro Hampshire Small 2 B 14.8%- Yes
Elementary 15.6%
Lillian McCollum Rhodes Small 2 F to C 10.9% Yes
Elementary
Pamela Copper Cove Ferguson Midsize 11 A 12.6%- No
Elementary 18.3%

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

use of self-contained placements in favor of inclusive opportunities. Ideally, inclusivity would

 73

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

classrooms, but in all aspects of the school experience.

Effective schools. Achievement performance was measured by statewide standardized

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

detailing the performance of students with disabilities on state-wide standardized achievement

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

been assigned a letter grade, as determined by the statewide grading system of an A, a B, or a C

(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

ranged from 2002-2020.

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

maintained a C or B school grade throughout her leadership.

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

principalship, she improved a school’s grade from an F to a C in one year.

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

To determine how the four participants acquired, developed, and demonstrated an

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

Department of Education Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) achievement data

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

analysis throughout the study (Hatch, 2002).

Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interview was selected as the primary

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

and appropriate method by which to gain access to information on participants’ perspective

(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

conducted used an in-depth, semi-structured format to capture each participant’s distinctive

experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Semi-structured interviews are less structured than standardized interviews, which

allowed the researcher to be flexible in approach (Creswell, 2013). Semi-structured 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

deeper questioning and redirection of participants to remain focused on ascertaining the

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

maintain some ability to guide the discussion, as needed.

Each principal participated in two, one-on-one semi-structured interviews (Creswell &

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).

Both interviews addressed questions of how leaders acquired, developed, and

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

to begin to make meaning of each principals’ developmental path to effective inclusive

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,

2016). The first interview protocol is included in Appendix A.

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

absolute truth as to how leaders acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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

demonstration of an inclusive consciousness in each participant’s leadership. The researcher

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

needed to lead effective inclusive schools.

 80

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

computer and removed from both recording devices and Zoom ®.

Transcription. Transcription of interviews were verbatim records of interview responses.

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

(Creswell & Creswell 2018; FL DOE, 2019a; FL DOE, 2019d).

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

analysis of the interview transcripts.

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

researcher serves as a research instrument in qualitative methodology (Janesick, 1998). Due

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

themselves (Ortlipp, 2008).

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

understandings of participants’ responses, general reflections on the interview, the researcher’s

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,

2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

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).

Confidentiality in data collection. Participation in qualitative research carries with it

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

data and documentation.

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.

In addition to protection of computer-based files, other documents and tools used to

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

the research (Creswell, 2013).

 87

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

coded for themes in this systematic manner.

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

strategies (Creswell, 2013).

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

research questions as to how leaders acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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),

resulting in the final themes explained in Chapters Four and Five.

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.

Credibility and Trustworthiness

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

representations of their experience. One participant responded with minimal grammatical

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.

Triangulation. Triangulation was used, through document analysis, to define effective

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

articulated of inclusive consciousness (Patton, 2002). Additionally, member checking was

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

applied correction where appropriate.

Thick, rich description. In order to impart to the reader a narrative that allowed for a

shared understanding of how a principal acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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

were embedded within the analysis to help develop this description.

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

hypothesis”, or a hypothesis that reflects situation specific conditions in a particular context

(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

to engage in similar procedures.

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,

or inclusion specialist, charged with providing awareness and professional development to

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

principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership

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

those of the researcher (Moustakas, 1994).

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

basic qualitative research as a methodology, provided functional definitions of critical concepts,

supplied research questions, and explained data collection procedures including in-depth, semi-

structured interviews conducted one-on-one with principals in an effort to co-construct meaning

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

as was the researcher’s plan to ensure trustworthiness and credibility.

Chapter Four: Findings

Introduction

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

students with disabilities in their schools, and a reputation of demonstrating inclusive

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

inclusive leadership behaviors.

Contextualization: Defining Inclusion

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

acquisition of an inclusive consciousness, the most fundamental element to how a leader

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,

equity-building, indispensable educational practice in their leadership.

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

difference-maker in student experience. She said:

[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

potential and we don’t ever cap it based on a disability.

 98

Lillian emphasized her belief in inclusion, commitment to presumed competence (Biklen,

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

valued members of the school community.

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

definition. She stated:

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

place, the right planning in place.

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.

Pamela. Pamela’s definition of inclusion also incorporated conversation about

placement, specifically as inclusion applied provision of the least restrictive environment in

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

have the funding for that.

 100

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

dedicated to providing students with disabilities a free appropriate public education-with

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

whatever and see how that works?’”.

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

by exponentially increasing graduation rate, seeing coteaching improve student achievement

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

option for every student.

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

defined inclusion, she responded:

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

exposure. To me, it’s more about the social.

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

disabilities because inclusive opportunities encouraged a sense of belonging and togetherness

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.

Cross-case analysis. Each leader incorporated elements of equity-building practice into

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

inclusion first appeared in statute in 2013. The statutory definition is as follows:

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

age-appropriate heterogeneous groups in core academic and elective or special areas

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

research (§1003.57(1)(a), Fla. Stat., (2013)).

 104

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.

Even though no principal included every element of Florida’s definition in their

definition, building community, including students with disabilities in age-appropriate

classrooms, creating heterogeneous groups, and providing research-based support for inclusion

were all included in their demonstration of inclusive consciousness. Participants’ commitment to

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

compliant with state expectations of inclusion.

Framework of the Findings

After analysis, two prevailing themes regarding how principals of effective inclusive

schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership

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

Organizational Framework: Themes

1. Disposition for Inclusive Consciousness

a. Mindset and mantra.
i. Beliefs around providing access to inclusive education.
b. Presumed Competence and the Least Dangerous Assumption
i. Personal experiences.
ii. High expectations.
iii. Ethical call to inclusion.
2. Effective and Inclusive Leadership Behaviors
a. Sharing and communicating vision.
i. Shared, data-based decision-making.
ii. Communication.
iii. Collaboration.
b. Building leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools.
c. Focusing on instructional leadership.
i. Evidence-based practices for students with disabilities.
ii. Job-embedded professional development.
d. Navigating district constraints.
 106

Developing a Disposition for Inclusive Consciousness

As data were analyzed, the prevailing theme of disposition emerged as a significant

influence on the participants as they acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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

influenced by their disposition including conversations around developing a mindset in support

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

decision-making to inform their inclusive leadership.

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

achievement expectations, access to equitable educational experiences, and students with

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

analyzed data and managed resources.

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.”

Lillian’s inclusion of students with significant cognitive disabilities in her definition of

“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

wanted to learn. She stated:

…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.

We want that child to grow and learn.

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.

Angela. Communicating a similar message, Angela’s inclusive mantra of “all kids”

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

difficulty, and seeing the whole student:

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

back every day?

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

with their learning experience.

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

just innate. You know, it’s who I am”.

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

students with disabilities. I'm thinking of all the kids”.

The value of considering all students in her decision-making cannot be understated

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

demonstrated her inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership.

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”,

“everybody” encompassed the spirit of valuing the needs of all students.

For Pamela, acquiring, developing, and demonstrating her inclusive consciousness

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

consciousness in future leaders.

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.

Jacqueline. Jacqueline believed that every student deserved an opportunity to be included

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

why they can't be in there.

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

restrictive environment placement.

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

all students should have access to inclusive education:

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

kids with profound disabilities in a regular kindergarten classroom.

Lillian remembered a student with significant disabilities’ experience in the inclusive

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

educational placements outside of the inclusive classroom.

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

needs. She explained:

 118

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

disability because of their impact on other students, she explained:

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-

contained to classroom to a general education setting:

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,

don't take our babies and it's like, well, no!

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

conviction for offering students opportunities to move from self-contained to inclusive

 120

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

to a general education classroom. She said:

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

meet student need.

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

a continuum of services based on student need.

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

access to the benefits of an inclusive education.

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

mention the benefits of being in general education as a dimension of their consideration of

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

guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools.

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

manifested in several forms including experiences as a struggling learner, parenting children

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

teacher and, later, as a principal of an effective inclusive school, as an opportunity to right

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-

[inclusive education] just became a passion to me.

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

her perception of people with disabilities.

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-

well, they had to have been below 70...

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

working with people with disabilities. She remembered:

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

the rest of the story!

 126

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

working with people with high incidence disabilities. Pamela explained:

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

academically able, hence the LD/ED thing.

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.

Howard stated later, “Now, I work with all of them!”.

It is important to note that Pamela’s career began at a time when people with low

incidence disabilities, specifically those with cognitive disabilities, experienced significant

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

there and participate then if they were sitting in self-contained classroom.

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

help fill it. She remembered:

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

since she began teaching.

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

choices later in her principalships in effective inclusive schools.

Lillian. Lillian discussed multiple experiences that influenced the acquisition of her

inclusive consciousness. One deeply personal and one professional experience were highly

influential in her development as effective inclusive leader. In professional experience, Lillian

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

we got him, we can help all kids.

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

ethical responsibility she felt in teaching Josh:

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

level we got him, we can help all kids.

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

for every kid in my building.

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

that child was her own.

Cross-case analysis. Each participant identified an experience, or set of experiences, that

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

expectation of people with disabilities which helped to produce a belief in presuming

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

mindsets. These effective inclusive principals demonstrated their inclusive consciousness by

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

dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984) are discussed below.

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

education based simply on a disability designation. She explained:

 134

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

need to do, there is no reason why they can't be in there.

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

around presumed competence:

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

something different helped spark my first belief in inclusion.

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

make sure that all students are successful.

In Jacqueline’s personal experience, students with disabilities were not appropriately

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

simply making minimal gains:

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

demonstrated her inclusive consciousness.

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

effective inclusive leadership. In addition to maintaining high expectations for students 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

increasing that goal?”

Lillian held students accountable to high standards by holding teachers accountable to

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

to make academic gains.

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

sufficient. She explained:

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

practice than in helping teachers increase their expectation rigorous instruction.

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

students with disabilities.

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

and should be appropriately challenged.

Each principal’s commitment to maintaining high academic expectations was ingrained

in their disposition, a demonstration of their inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive

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

ensure that teachers understood their vision for high expectations.

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

difference-maker was identified as part-in-parcel to each principal’s disposition as well as part of

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

high academic expectations in the inclusive classroom.

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

principals demonstrated their inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership by

 142

ensuring that the majority of students with disabilities in their schools were held to high

academic expectations and educated in the inclusive classroom.

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

environments presented an ethical challenge to her mindset. She explained:

[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

and the skill level drops to basic skills.

Having experiences that demonstrated resource pullout and self-contained placements as

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

without disabilities. She explained:

 143

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

moving a student to a more restrictive environment:

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

kids that I said, “We can’t do this”.

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

peers without disabilities.

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

instruction. She described her personal experience with resource classrooms:

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

inclusive practice of co-teaching. She remembered implementing co-teaching practices, as a high

school teacher, in the inclusive classroom, and seeing students with disabilities’ graduation rates

greatly improve. She recalled:

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

granted access to an inclusive classroom. Through presuming competence in students with

disabilities, she was able to witness students with disabilities achieving academic and social

success in inclusive placements. She explained:

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

and participate than if they were sitting in self-contained classroom.

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

experiences seeing teachers of self-contained or resource classrooms set lower academic

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

allow students to underperform to meet teachers’ low expectations or be subject to presumed

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

services in a students’ least restrictive environment. While successfully able to navigate

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

was not equipped to provide that service. She explained:

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

continuum of services...children that have daily functioning needs...we cannot do. We

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

that looked for them.

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.

Jacqueline. Ms. Martin’s experience as a teacher of students with behavioral disabilities

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

increase achievement and acquire socially appropriate behaviors:

[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

behavior, that sold me.

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:

I would absolutely do it [include students with significant disabilities in general education

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

changing that mindset, showing them how to do it.

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.

Cross-case analysis. Driven by their own inclusive consciousnesses, the principals

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

in general education classrooms operated as their default setting, an essential baseline

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

to students with significant cognitive disabilities.

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.

Effective and Inclusive Leadership Behaviors

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

instructional leadership; and (d) navigating district constraints.

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-

making, communication, and collaboration.

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

inclusive schools. Within the framework of data-based decision-making, they engaged in

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

inclusive vision for their schools.

Pamela. Shared, data-based decision-making helped Pamela uncover opportunities to

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

disabilities. She explained:

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

of learners in an inclusive classroom.

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

adults and everything’s individualized.

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

her inclusive vision.

Jacqueline. Jacqueline spoke at length about how shared, data-based decision-making

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

with disabilities have in positively impacting school achievement data:

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

appropriate. She explained:

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

students needing assistance. She explained:

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

sides. What is causing it? What is it?

 155

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

inclusive consciousness for all learners in her school.

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

behavior, increasing academic performance, and providing students with disabilities

opportunities to be educated in the least restrictive environment.

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,

of her communication with her team and teachers:

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

the teachers and the students were successful.

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

inclusive education. She stated:

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:

So just reinforcing it through weekly [emails]- by me providing them resources to use

and then telling my expectations of using them...I just say please make sure that this is

included in your lessons next week.

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

conducting classroom walkthroughs and school-wide assemblies on evidence-based practices to

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

for effective inclusive leadership.

Jacqueline. Jacqueline Martin reflected on her own values of ensuring that

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

demonstrated her inclusive consciousness. Ms. Martin said:

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

and what's not 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

implemented effective inclusive practices.

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

inclusion in her school by communicating effectively and openly:

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.

Lillian engaged in open and honest communication in her leadership of effective

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

her vision of effective inclusive leadership but participated in it as well.

Cross-case analysis. To each of these four leaders, communication was invaluable to

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

independently. Participants spoke about engaging in collaboration by seeking experts, or trusted

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

school. Lillian recalled:

 161

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

they developed and demonstrated their inclusive consciousness.

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,

may not have the time or resources to provide.

Ms. Howard relied on her assistant principal, dean, and school psychologists, and outside

experts from a statewide discretionary project, specializing in improving rigorous, inclusive

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

helped disseminate her inclusive vision:

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

disabilities in her new school.

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

effective inclusive school. Through their commitment to collaboration, these leaders

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

their inclusive consciousnesses.

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

demonstrating their inclusive consciousnesses by acknowledging their knowledge gaps and

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

high academic standards that intersected with inclusive education.

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

professional experience as an effective inclusive leader. She explained:

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-

embedded opportunities to seek knowledge about how to become an excellent inclusive

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.

Jacqueline. Attributing her knowledge of inclusion to her teacher preparation program,

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

explained the influence of her preparation on her leadership:

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.

Jacqueline spoke of seeking professional development in inclusive practice by attending district-

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

remained relatively unchanged with limited adjustment to content or delivery.

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

out to people who did know...

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

in her school could access an equitable education.

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

attending in-service training in the development and demonstration of her inclusive

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

resource classrooms, self-contained classes, in a coteaching arrangement-both as a general

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

inclusive education at the macro level to her own principalship.

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

effective inclusive schools.

Focus on instructional leadership. To be great leaders of effective inclusive schools,

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

success in demonstrating an inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership.

Evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. Principals of effective inclusive

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

possessed an instructional arsenal of instructional techniques and strategies, including

scaffolding, coteaching, data-based decision making, and differentiated instruction, among

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

used in inclusive classrooms:

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

they're not at a frustrational level.

Using practices like conferencing, pre-assessment, scaffolding, and data-based

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”.

Jacqueline. Jacqueline used modeling and observation heavily in her instructional

leadership for effective inclusive schools. She spoke about looking intentionally at identifying

and utilizing teachers who could model and share instructional strategies that supported

evidence-based practice for students with disabilities for job-embedded professional

development. Her instructional leadership encouraged disrupting outdated and ineffective

instructional practice, like underutilizing special education support staff and neglecting

collaborative planning, to improve student achievement for all students, with and without

disabilities. She explained:

 174

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

not going to see the scores grow.

Jacqueline was committed to engaging in practices like collaborative planning and

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

long-underserved population of students with disabilities in their schools.

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

must occur before achievement can improve. She clarified:

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

general education classroom, using training as a remedy to reticence.

Lillian. Lillian’s leadership of effective inclusive schools incorporated knowing, using,

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,

specifically, as an evidence-based instructional practice for students with disabilities in inclusive

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

the expectation of differentiation in classrooms:

[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]

classes outperformed, gain-wise, the kids in the [non-inclusive] class...Why is that

 176

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

the data showed that it was working for all kids.

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.

Pamela. Pamela’s instructional leadership to support evidence-based practices for

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

elementary principalship. Howard, when speaking of being given an opportunity to establish a

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.

By establishing and supporting coteaching as an evidence-based practice to improve

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.

Cross-case analysis. Instructional leadership, for these four principals, meant

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

learners. In this research, principals believed that practices like collaborative/co-teaching,

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

to understand, demonstrate, cite personal and/or research-based evidence of their effectiveness,

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 and put their knowledge into practice.

Job-embedded professional development. To achieve improved academic 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

students with disabilities, these leaders focused on job-embedded professional development to

build teacher capacity for effective inclusive education.

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,

Jacqueline designed a school-wide, job-embedded professional development opportunity to

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

consciousness by providing job-embedded professional development.

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

universal design, how to plan for differentiation, classroom management, de-escalation

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

with disabilities well.

Pamela. Pamela Howard described utilizing building-level experts to provide job-

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

instructional leadership offered job-embedded opportunities to learn from building-level experts

and encouraged teachers to reach out to one another when they needed assistance understanding

how to implement effective inclusive practice in their own classrooms.

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

teaching students with disabilities. Angela said:

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

other stuff that I don't really know how to do.

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

recalled professional development she provided to a struggling teacher:

My instructional coach would go in [to the teacher’s classroom]. I assigned my

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

students with the kind of demographics our school had.

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.

Cross-case analysis. Much of the job-embedded professional development implemented

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

dedicated to building teacher capacity.

Navigating district constraints. Along with focusing on instructional leadership to

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

professional development in effective inclusive practice, and general ignorance of inclusive

 185

practice at the district-level were all obstacles these participants had to overcome in the

demonstration of their inclusive consciousnesses.

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

I’ve learned and that’s how we... build it.

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.

She also circumvented district limitations by using loopholes in policy/practice to access

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

instance, she re-assigned a student-focused paraprofessional to support all students in a

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

keep her building running well. She recalled:

 187

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.

At our heyday, I was hosting between 30 and 35 students [pre-service teachers] in my

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

In addition to creative problem-solving to access staff she needed through developing a

university partnership, Lillian took a data-based approach to managing resources, specifically in

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

providers as was possible.

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

a disagreement in leadership philosophy. She stated:

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

applicants for jobs. Now, you have two.

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

leader for “all kids”.

Angela. In leading effective inclusive schools, all participants experienced some

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

vision. She lamented:

 191

[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

inclusive special education teacher. She explained:

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

person...we gave up that [self-contained] teaching unit.

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

district’s personnel staffing parameters to create another position to improve delivery of

inclusive education in her school.

Working in a smaller district and having personal connections to district leadership

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

and advocating for the needs of her effective inclusive school:

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

speaking with her assistant superintendent and volunteering to surrender non-instructional

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

kids but…that doesn’t always happen.

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

further her inclusive vision.

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

with students. Angela explained the inclusive scheduling process:

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

inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership.

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

year where we have more true coteaching situations.

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

for the needs of the students:

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

was and demonstrated her inclusive consciousness in her resource distribution.

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

access to an effective inclusive education.

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,

you think, I already know what the answer is going to be.

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

as a part of the solution, too.

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

inclusive environment. She recalled:

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

structures that support students with disabilities. She said:

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

sure that they're meeting the needs of all the students.

Recognizing the problem, Jacqueline began to dismantle it by establishing systems for

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

leaders in effective inclusive schools, she established a professional development practice in

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

development opportunities in inclusive education as trite and immaterial, a flagrant statement on

the district’s lack of interest in or commitment to building capacity for teachers or leaders to

effectively support inclusive education. She remarked:

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

approach district leadership to access assistance, Jacqueline’s demonstration of her inclusive

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

In addition to navigating the constraint of structures that supported inclusion, Jacqueline

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

near it, they might be at the wrong school.

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

as an inclusive partner, advocated for reclassification of teacher allocations, restructured teacher

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

research demonstrated their inclusive consciousness for effective inclusive leadership by

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

inclusive leadership (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015).

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

study demonstrated their commitment to effective inclusive education by defining inclusion in a

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

Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations

Introduction

Successfully leading an effective inclusive school is an accomplishment few can boast,

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)

research on equity consciousness, and characterized by a dogged determination to maintaining

high academic expectations and high rates of inclusion of all students (McLeskey & Waldron,

2015).
 206

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this study was to understand how four leaders of effective inclusive

elementary schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that

guided their leadership. Their inclusive consciousness was an indispensable characteristic in

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

recommendations for future research.

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

co-construct meaning alongside participants while maintaining a structure open enough 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

discussion of salient findings to address the research questions:

1. How do public school elementary principals acquire and develop an inclusive

consciousness that guides their leadership?

2. How do public school elementary principals demonstrate an inclusive consciousness in

their leadership of effective inclusive schools?

The methods by which principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive

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

the discussion of each principal’s leadership for effective inclusive schools.

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

inclusive consciousness. Regarding how effective inclusive leaders acquired an inclusive

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

these findings to extant literature are discussed further below.

Acquiring an inclusive consciousness as innate and/or developmental. Research has

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

amenable to inclusion that predated their principalship.

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

disabilities as valued and capable people as a non-negotiable commitment (Billingsley et al.,

 209

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;

Falvey et al., 2017; Templeton, 2017).

 210

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

Extant literature addresses inclusion as a method of bringing equity to education for

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

equity to educational experiences of students with disabilities.

Developing an inclusive consciousness: Defining inclusion. Research about inclusive

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 being included in general education classrooms alongside students without

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

students with high-incidence disabilities to those with significant disabilities, participants

diverged in their expectation and practice of effective inclusive leadership.

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

principals demonstrated an inclusive consciousness in their leadership that revealed a

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.,

2016; Timberlake, 2014).

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

general education classroom by demonstrating an ability to benefit from inclusive placement

(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;

Cameron, 2016; Theoharis, 2015; Vaughn & Schumm, 1995).

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

cognitive disabilities’ participation in effective inclusive schooling (Olson et al., 2016;

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.

Demonstrating an inclusive consciousness: Marrying inclusive and effective

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)

practicing distributed leadership; (c) facilitating high-quality learning experiences; (d)

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

achievement opportunities and inclusive placements as non-negotiables in their schools. The

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 &

Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014).

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

consciousnesses, most intentionally, by integrating effective and inclusive leadership practices to

 219

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.

Seeking knowledge and job-embedded professional development. One of the practices to

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

for inclusive practice. In addition to identifying a significant knowledge gap in principal

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

experience high academic achievement (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). 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.

Participants discussed providing job-embedded professional development to teachers in several

ways including partnering with state discretionary agencies to come to their schools and help

their teachers understand evidence-based practices for inclusion, establishing professional

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;

CCSO, 2017; Templeton, 2017).

Communicating an effective inclusive vision. The effective inclusive school cultures at

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,

facilitating teacher buy-in through communication and capacity-building, and fostering

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

expectation of collaboration quickly supported an inclusive culture where teachers engaged in

problem-solving before predetermining placement of a student in a self-contained setting.

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

vision to building capacity for teachers.

Building capacity, supporting teachers, and encouraging collaboration. The principals in

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

culture by providing job-embedded professional development for effective instruction and

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-

based expert knowledge of evidence-based practice. Using readily available school-based

expertise supported a climate of collaboration, created a supporting organization for learning,

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,

2015; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Waldron et al., 2011).

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

including collaborative teaching, scaffolding, differentiated instruction (Everett, 2017; Fisher et

al., 2003; Goor & Schwenn, 1997; Harrower & Dunlap, 2003). In their roles as instructional

leaders, they also encouraged collaboration, empowered/supported teachers, provided job-

embedded professional development on inclusive practice, built trust, provided time and

resources, used data to make decisions, and trusted teachers. (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Halverson,

Grigg, Prichett, & Thomas, 2015).

Engaging in instructional leadership is a critical component of effective inclusive

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

committed to accessing their own professional development on evidence-based practice for

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

policy and practice.

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

policy that informs special education.

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

of principal preparation inadequately prepares principals to lead effective inclusive schools

(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

behaviors inherent in principals with an inclusive consciousness. Without training in how to

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

strong lack of knowledge or direction as to evidence-based practice (DeMatthews & Mawhinney,

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.

Inclusive instruction in principal preparation. Principal preparation programs need to

incorporate instruction in high-leverage practices (McLeskey et al., 2018), how to improve

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

high incidence disabilities. It is necessary to incorporate this type of instruction in principal

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

to how to engage in effective inclusive leadership can, presumably, encourage principals to be

willing to participate in practices that encourage high academic expectations and inclusive

placement of students with disabilities.

In addition to instruction in effective inclusive practice, principal preparation programs

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

to facilitate acquisition, development, and demonstration of an inclusive consciousness that

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

education, in in-service district-based preparation programs, and in any other pathway to

principalship to build a shared foundational knowledge about what it means to lead an effective

inclusive school that addresses the needs of students with disabilities.

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

leadership for effective inclusive schools.

Principal placement. Information on how leaders acquire, develop, and demonstrate an

inclusive consciousness should be used to inform principal placement. Just as it is understood

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

their inclusive consciousness, ought to be used to when assigning principals to schools.

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

absence of a large pool of principals with a strong inclusive consciousness. Demonstration of

inclusive consciousness, along with other effective leadership behaviors, may provide a

framework by which to address challenges for students with disabilities in underperforming

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

effective inclusive leadership in practice is building principal capacity (Bellamy, 2014;

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

be innate, it is possible that inclusive consciousness can be engineered by encouraging principals

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

is a unique opportunity for professional development to assist in a principal’s acquisition and

development of an inclusive consciousness that drives their leadership. Professional development

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

sitting principals, job-embedded professional development for effective instructional practices

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

of diversity in the sample is representative of current leadership demographics (National Center

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

impacted by a more diverse sample (Karanxha et al., 2014).

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

limitations to conducting interviews, albeit synchronous, using online video conferencing

 233

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

occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic during data collection.

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

multi-faceted understanding of how their demonstration of inclusive consciousness is

experienced by their teachers.

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

overrepresented in special education programs (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; DeMatthews

& Mawhinney, 2013; Pazey & Cole, 2012; US DOE, 2019) and further research conducted with

principals of color may reveal different methods of acquisition, development, and/or

demonstration of inclusive consciousness based on socio-cultural factors, not just personal

factors alone (DeMatthews et al., 2019).

Conclusion

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

leadership. Additionally, findings suggest that, although some dimension of acquiring,

developing, and demonstrating an inclusive consciousness may be inherent, it is not enough to

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

access to rigorous academic experiences alongside inclusive opportunities.

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

a spectrum, or continuum, of consciousness, impacted by positive experiences with and exposure

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

acquisition and development of an inclusive consciousness so that it can be demonstrated in their

leadership of effective inclusive schools. Ultimately, informing and encouraging effective

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

American public schools (Skilton-Sylvester & Slesaransky-Poe, 2009).

 236

References

Adams, C. M., Forsyth, P. B., Ware, J., & Mwavita, M. (2016). The informational significance

of A-F school accountability grades. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1-31.

Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational

Needs, 7(1), 3-7.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., Howes, A., &

Smith, R. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London: Routledge.

Allen, R. E. & Wiles, J. L. (2016). A rose by any other name: participants choosing research

pseudonyms. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 149-165.

Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J. (2011). A social constructivist approach to disability:

Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 367-384.

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

education research: Re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda.

Review of Research in Education, 30, pp. 65-108.

Artiles, A. J. (2019). Reenvisioning equity research: Disability identification disparities as a case

in point. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 325-335.

Bai, H. & Martin, S. M. (2015). Assessing the needs of training on inclusive education for public

school administrators. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(12), 1229-1243.

 237

Ballard, S. & Dymond, S. (2017). Addressing the general education curriculum in general

education settings with students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 155-170.

Bateman, D., Gervias, A., Wysocki, T. A., & Cline, J. L. (2017). Special education competencies

for principals. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 48-56.

Bellamy, G. T., Crockett, J. B., & Nordengren, C. (2014). Preparing school leaders for every

student’s learning (Document No. LS-2).

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

growth in kindergarten. Exceptionality, 27(1), 18-31.

Bialka, C. (2017). Understanding the factors that shape dispositions toward students with

disabilities: A case study of three general education pre-service teachers. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(6), 616-636.

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

in developmental disabilities. Essays in honor of Gunnar Dybwad (pp. 35–52).

Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Billingsley, B., DeMatthews, D., Connally, K., & McLeskey, J. (2018). Leadership for effective

inclusive schools: Considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of

Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 65-81.

 238

Billingsley, B. S. & McLeskey, J. (2014). What are the roles of principals in inclusive schools?.

In J. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of

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

Leadership, 21, 324-359.

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability

system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268.

Boscardin, M. L. (2007). What is special about special education administration? Considerations

for school leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 189-200.

Boscardin, M. L., Schulze, R., Rude, H., & Tudryn, P. (2018). Do leaders of special education

share similar perceptions of standards guiding the leadership and administration of

special education? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(2), 61-84.

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

Boyce, J. & Bowers, A. J. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional

leadership as leadership for learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2), 161-

182.

Brinker, R. P. & Thorpe, M. E. (1984). Integration of severely handicapped students and the

proportion of IEP objectives achieved. Exceptional Children, 51(2), 168-175.

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

Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 22-38.

Carrington, S. & Robinson, R. (2004). A case study of inclusive school development: A journey

of learning. The International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(2), 141-153.

Carter, S. & Abawi, L. (2018). Leadership, inclusion, and quality education for all. Australasian

Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 49-64.

Castro-Villareal, F. & Nichols, S. L. (2016). Intersections of accountability and special

education: The social justice implications of policy and practice. Teachers College

Record, 118(4), 1-24.

Causton, J. & Theoharis, G. (2014). How do schools become effective and inclusive?. In J.

McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of Effective

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

of promise: A school district-university partnership centered on inclusive school reform.

Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192-205.

 240

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.

Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61-78.

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

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

Connor, D. & Ferri, B. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes

in special education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63-77.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative

criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cosier, M., White, J. M., & Wang, Q. (2018). Examining the variability in general education

placements for students with intellectual disability. International Journal of Whole

Schooling, 14(2), 16-52.

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

for the success of students with disabilities. Washington, D. C.: CCSSO.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 241

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crockett, J. (2002). Special education's role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools.

Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157-168.

Cruzeiro, P. A. & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal’s role with consideration for special

education. Education, 126(3), 569-579.

Day, C. (2005). Principals who sustain success: Making a difference in schools in challenging

circumstances. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8(4), 273-290.

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

Leadership and Management, 28(1), 5-25.

DeMatthews, D. E. (2015). Clearing a path for inclusion: Distributing leadership in a high

performing elementary school. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 1000-1038.

DeMatthews, D. E., Kotok, S., & Serafini, A. (2019). Leadership preparation for special

education and inclusive schools: Beliefs and recommendations from successful

principals. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 1-27.

DeMatthews, D. E. & Mawhinney, H. (2013). Addressing the inclusion imperative: An urban

school district’s responses. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 21(61), 1-30.

DeMatthews, D.E. & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring

challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844-881.

 242

Devecchi, C. & Nevin, A. (2010), Leadership for inclusive schools and inclusive school

leadership. In A.H. Normore (Ed.) Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership

Reform: The Development and Preparation of Leaders of Learning and Learners of

Leadership (Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 11), (pp. 211-241).

Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9,

141–150.

Dotger, B. H. & Coughlin, A. (2018). Examining school leaders' simulated interactions in

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.

Global Education Review, 1(1), 14-31.

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

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 143-154.

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

Administration and History, 51(1), 43-52.

Everett, D. (2017). Helping new general education teachers think about special education and

how to help their students in an inclusive class: The perspective of a secondary

mathematics teacher. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 1-13.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub.L. 114-95 (2015)

Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C., Villa, R. A., & Thousand, J. S. (2017). The rationales for creating

and maintaining inclusive schools. In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Leading an

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

preparation standards for special education administration to examine competencies for

special education directors. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(1), 39-56.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do special educators need to know and be

prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special

Education, 26(1), 42-50.

Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In C. Tilstone, L. Florian, & R. Rose

(Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice. London, UK: Routledge.

Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: Key lessons for the

professional development of teacher educators from Scotland's inclusive practice project.

Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275-285.

 244

Florian, L. & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational

Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828.

Florian, L. & Rouse, M. (2001). Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: Lessons

learned. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 399-412.

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].

Retrieved from http://doeweb-prd.doe.state.fl.us/eds/nclbspar/index.cfm

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.

Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/academics/exceptional-student-edu/data/

Florida Department of Education. (2016). Technical assistance paper: Least restrictive

environment considerations related to individual education plans. Retrieved from

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)

[Data file]. Retrieved from

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].

Retrieved from https://edudata.fldoe.org/index.html

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

Frattura, E. & Capper, C. A. (2006). Segregated programs versus integrated comprehensive

service delivery for all learners: Assessing the differences. Remedial and Special

Education, 27(6), 355-365.

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

ethical imperatives in special education leadership. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 49(2), 207-242.

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’

attitudes and requirements for environmental accommodations. International Journal of

Special Education, 25(2), 89-99.

 246

Gandhi, A. G. (2007). Context matters: Exploring relations between inclusion and reading

achievement of students without disabilities. International Journal of Disability, 54(1),

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

qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Goor, M. B. & Schwenn, J. O. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special education.

Intervention in School & Clinic, 32(3), 133-141.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school

improvement. In M. Wallace & L. Poulson (Eds.). Learning to read critically

educational leadership and management (pp. 1-25). London: Sage.

Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2015). The new instructional leadership:

Creating data-driven instructional systems in school (2007). Journal of School

Leadership, 25, 447-481.

Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative

research: The rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323-345.

Harrower, J. K. & Dunlap, G. (2001). Including children with autism in general education

classrooms. Behavior Modification, 25(5), 762-784.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: Slate

University of New York Press.

 247

Hawley, W. D. & Rollie, D. L. (2007). The keys to effective schools: Educational reform as

continuous improvement (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Heck, R. & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school

improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal,

46(3), 659-689.

Hehir, T. & Katzman, L. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide

programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hitt, D. H. & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leadership practices found to

influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational

Research, 86(2), 531-569.

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-

informed practice. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27(1), 22-45.

Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive

school. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245-256.

Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. (2014). What are qualities of effective inclusive schools?. In J.

McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of Effective

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.

Inclusion, Fla. Stat. §[1003.57(1)(a)] 2013.

 248

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)

Irvine, A., Lupart, J., Loreman, T., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2010). Educational leadership to

create authentic inclusive schools: The experiences of principals in a Canadian rural

school district. Exceptionality Education International, 20, 70-88.

Janesick, V. (1998, April). Journal writing as a qualitative research technique: History, issues,

and reflections [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Kaplan, A., Cromley, J., Perez, T., Dai, T., Mara, K., & Balsai, M. (2020). The role of context in

educational RCT findings: A call to redefine “evidence-based practice”. Educational

Researcher, 49(4), 285-288.

Karanxha, Z., Agosto, V., & Bellara, A. P. (2014). The hidden curriculum: Candidate diversity in

educational leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(1),

34-58.

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (2002). History, rhetoric, and reality: Analysis of the inclusion

debate. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.

Keyes, M. W., Hanley-Maxwell, C., & Capper, C. A. (1999). “Spirituality? It’s at the core of my

leadership”: Empowering leadership in an inclusive elementary school. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 203-237.

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

in inclusive schools: A descriptive account from schools implementing inclusive

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

special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children,

82(1), 25-43.

Lewin, D. (2014). What’s the use of ethical philosophy? The role of ethical theory in special

education needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(4), 536-547.

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

interviews. Sociological Research Online, 12(1), 103-117.

Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student

achievement? Results from a national survey. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement, 21(3), 315-336.

Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation

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

effective? A comparative review of model programs. The Journal of Special Education,

31(2), 155-180.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

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

preparation to reduce the research-to-practice gap in inclusive settings. Australasian

Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 3-16.

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

disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,

19(2), 109-115.

McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., & Williamson, P. (2011). Learning disabilities and the

LRE mandate: An examination of national and state trends. Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 26(2), 60-66.

 251

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

Education, 46(3), 131-140.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2000). Inclusive schools in action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Professional development and inclusive schools:

Reflections on effective practice. The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 159-172.

McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with

learning disabilities: Can they both be effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities

Research & Practice, 26(1), 48-57.

MsLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. (2015, February). Effective leadership makes schools truly

inclusive. Kappan, 96(5), 68-73.

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., & Redd, L. (2014). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive

elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 48(1), 59-70.

McKenzie, K. B., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2006). Preparing instructional leaders for social

justice. Journal of School Leadership, 16(2), 158-170.

Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murawski, W. (2009). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-teaching

marriage work!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Murawski, W. (2010). Collaborative teaching in elementary schools: Making the co-teaching

marriage work!. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

 252

National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Characteristics of public school principals.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cls.asp

Ng, J. C. & Rury, J. L. (2006). Poverty and education: A critical analysis of the Ruby Payne

phenomenon. Teachers College Record, (2006, July, 18). Retrieved from

http://www.tcrecord.org

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (2001)

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.

The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705.

Patterson, J., Marshall, C., & Bowling, D. (2000, February 1). Are principals prepared to manage

special education dilemmas?. NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 9-20.

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

Exceptional Children, 34(1), 1-16.

Pazey, B. L. & Cole, H. A. (2012). The role of special education training in the development of

socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership

programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243-271.

 253

Pazey, B. L. & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of

socially just leaders. In M. Grogan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational

leadership (pp. 166-193). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peters, S. & Oliver, L. A. (2009) Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an

era of high-stakes testing. Prospects, 39, 265-279.

Peurach, D. J., Cohen, D. K., Yurkofsky, M. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). From mass schooling

to education systems: Changing patterns in the organization and management of

instruction. Review of Research in Education, 43, 32-67.

Powell, R. (2017, December 13). New report shows how ‘school choice’ puts students with

disabilities at risk. Rewire. Retrieved from https://rewire.news

Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students

with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.

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

including those with disabilities? A director's perspective. Journal of Special Education

Leadership, 30(1), 57-59

 254

Roberts, M. & Guerra, F. R. (2017). Principals' perceptions of their knowledge in special

education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1), 1-16.

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An

analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

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

elementary schools. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 259-274.

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

Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org

Schulze, R. & Boscardin, M. L. (2018). Leadership perceptions of principals with and without

special education backgrounds. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 28, 4-30.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,

1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74.

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.

International Journal of Educational Management, 34(1), 81-95.

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.

Skilton-Sylvester, E. & Slesaransky-Poe, G. (2009). More than a least restrictive environment:

Living up to the civil covenant in building inclusive schools. Perspectives on Urban

Education, Spring 2009, 32-37.

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

(special) education. Journal of Thought, Fall-Winter 2016, 3-17.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 256

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students

without special education needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational

Research Review, 21, 33-54.

Templeton, R. R. (2017). Special education leadership at the elementary school level: How does

knowledge influence leadership? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 19-30.

Theoharis, G., Causton, J., & Tracy-Bronson, C. P. (2016). Inclusive reform as a response to

high-stakes pressure? Leading toward inclusion in the age of accountability. Teachers

College Record, 118, 1-30.

Theoharis, G., Causton, J., & Woodfield, J. (2015). Inclusive leadership and disability. In G.

Theoharis & M. Scanlan (Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (13-38).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Thessin, R. A. & Seashore Louis, K. (2020). The principal’s role has changed. Is professional

learning keeping up? The Learning Professional, 41(2), 40-46.

Thompson, P. A. (2017). Effective leadership competencies of school-based special education

administrators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 31-47.

Timberlake, M. (2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation

of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with

Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 83-99.

Tobiason, G. (2019). Countering expert uncertainty: Rhetorical strategies for the case of value-

added modeling in teacher evaluation. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and

Policy, 57(1), 109-126.

 257

Trainor, A. A., & Graue, E. (2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research

dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 267-274.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2013). Becoming a trustworthy leader. In M. Grogan (Ed.), The Jossey-

Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 40-54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Instructional coordinators. Occupational Outlook

Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-

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

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office

of Special Education Programs. 19th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 1997, Washington, D. C. 1997.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office

of Special Education Programs. 36th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 2014, Washington, D. C. 2014.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office

of Special Education Programs. 40th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 2018, Washington, D. C. 2018.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office

of Special Education Programs. 41st Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of

the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 2018, Washington, D. C. 2019.

 258

Vaughn, S. & Schumm, J. S. (1995). Responsible inclusion for students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 264-270, 290.

Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. (2017). Leading an Inclusive School Access and Success for All

Students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Waldron, N. L. & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through

comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,

20, 58-74.

Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal

in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership,

24(2), 51-60.

Williamson, P., McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., & Rentz, T. (2006). Educating students with mental

retardation in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 347-361.

Wisniewski, L. & Alper, S. (1994). Including students with severe disabilities in general

education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 15(1), 4-13.

Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. (2017). The foundation: Administrative leadership and support in

managing complex change. In R. A. Villa & J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Leading an inclusive

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

students (148-158). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 259

Zaretsky, L. (2004). Advocacy and administration: From conflict to collaboration. Journal of

Educational Administration, 42(2), 270-286.

 260

Appendix A

Interview Protocol

Interview 1.

1. Talk to me about your educational career.

a. Specifically, tell me about your interest in inclusive education for students with

disabilities.

2. Talk to me about your experience with special education.

a. How did your principal preparation prepare you to lead an inclusive school?

i. Probe – Describe some valuable in-service professional development that

assisted you in developing your disposition?

ii. Probe – Describe some valuable principal preparation program

content or courses that assisted you in developing your disposition?

3. What does inclusion mean to you?

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

disabilities that encourage you to support inclusive education?

4. What inclusive practices do you use at your school?

5. How do you determine which inclusive practices to prioritize in your school?

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?

a. Probe- Allocations for paras and teachers?

b. Probe- External pressures like LRE mandates or budgetary pressures?

c. Probe- How do you determine which resources to use and how?

8. Does the district constrain your inclusion efforts? If so, how?

a. How do you manage these constraints?

9. Is there anything you want to share about how you value inclusion and its impact in your

leadership that we have not yet discussed?

 262

Appendix B

Interview Protocol

Interview 2: Pamela Howard.

1. You have had a very diverse and prolific professional career.

a. What motivated you to move to so many positions, both in and out of the

traditional public-school system?

b. How did your experience at the state DOE influence your leadership, specifically,

as it relates to including students with disabilities while maintaining high

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

decision about inclusion and achievement in your current position.

3. Talk to me about your experiences establishing a coteaching program in when you moved

to a high school from your middle school placement.

a. What was the motivation to establish that program?

b. How did you go about implementing the program at the school?

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

environment when considering placement. Walk me through your decision-making

 263

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

with specific regard to readiness?

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

school that includes students with significant disabilities?

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

including students with disabilities?

b. Your school uses a variety of inclusive structures. How do you decide which

grade levels will be supported by paras, dually certified teachers, or two

coteachers?

6. You expressed interest in speaking with principals of the middle and high schools your

students attend to understand the long-term impacts of inclusion on the students’

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

b. Tell me about how collaborative problem-solving is utilized in your school.

7. I want to have a better understanding of how you understand special education law and

the accountability expectation. How do you balance the demands of increased

inclusiveness and achievement demands?

 265

Appendix C

Interview Protocol

Interview #2: Angela Waters.

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

you demonstrate and develop that part of your leadership?

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

impact do they have on your school?

a. Job-embedded professional development

i. Specific training to help teachers understand ESE

b. Collaborative problem-solving

i. How do you get all parties to the table?

c. Data-based decision-making for students with disabilities

i. How do you go about analyze data to make decisions about achievement

or inclusion for students with disabilities?

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

choices like this pose? How are they received by stakeholders?

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

disabilities (Access Points)?

7. We talked previously about encountering resistance to establishing an effective inclusive

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

understand inclusion or are not ready to jump into inclusive practices?

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

to be proficient academic performance? Additionally, how do you balance the demands

of increased inclusiveness and achievement demands?

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?

What about students without 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

Interview #2: Jacqueline Martin.

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.

What does it mean to you to make a difference as a leader?

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

for all students?

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.

a. What specific professional development have you provided to support inclusion?

4. We talked previously about encountering resistance to establishing an effective inclusive

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

have in addressing this concern?

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.

a. Job-embedded professional development

b. Collaborative problem-solving

i. How do you get all parties to the table?

c. Data-based decision-making for SWDs

i. How do you go about analyze data to make decisions about achievement

or inclusion for SWDs?

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-

contained setting, or vice versa.

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

the accountability expectation. How do you balance the demands of increased

inclusiveness and achievement demands?

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?

What about students without 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

Interview #2: Lillian Schmidt.

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

you focus on improving inclusion to improve scores?

a. Where did that decision come from?

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

able to make the inclusive changes so quickly at your previous school?

a. You also talked about working in schools that struggle with inclusion as a

philosophy and as a practice. How do the struggles of establishing inclusion

impact how you lead an inclusive school that also meets achievement demands?

i. How do you adapt your leadership style to when establishing inclusion in

a school where it is not firmly established?

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

with significant disabilities? Why is this important to you?

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

into your vision for an effective inclusive school.

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

in these processes and the impact they have on your school.

a. Inclusive scheduling

b. Collaborative problem-solving

i. How do you get all parties to the table?

c. Data-based decision-making for SWDs

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.

a. What specific professional development have you provided to support inclusion?

i. Balancing high achievement and inclusion?

7. I want to have a better understanding of how you understand special education law and

the accountability expectation. How do you balance the demands of increased

inclusiveness and achievement demands?

 273

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?

What about students without disabilities?

8. Is there anything you want to share about how you demonstrate your commitment to

inclusion in your school that we have not yet discussed?