INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education Practices in Grades 7-9 A Doctoral Capstone Project Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research Department of Education In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Amy G. Pfender California University PennWest July 2023 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES i Dedication I dedicate the final product of my doctoral capstone to my family. We are a small family made up of two houses and five people on a hill in a rural community, but we are mighty in our dedication to growth and progress. To my father Dennis, your support began in 1996 as I graduated from high school and began a journey in education that I never anticipated landing where I am currently. Your quiet support and availability mean more than you know. To my children, Jonah and Emily, though I worked really hard to not miss your events or to try to be mentally present, I know that I was not always successful. However, you did not complain, and you seemed to understand in your own way. I only hope that the nights we all sat at the kitchen table working have given you a model to not settle and constantly strive for personal and professional growth. To my husband Keith, since 1994 as high school students we have navigated life together. You were the one who thought earning my doctorate would be a good idea. I did not listen for some time, but ultimately, your love and support got me to this place. Finally, I would be remiss to not recognize my mother, Roberta. In 2015, a different plan was in place for you, but we have all found the strength and courage to march onward in your absence. It was your support in everything that I did that provided me with the final push to achieve this goal. I love you all! INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES ii Acknowledgements Dr. Sharon K. Suritsky, thank you for your leadership, friendship, and words of encouragement throughout this process. During my interview in 2005, I knew that if hired by the Upper St. Clair School District, that I would learn from you and continue to grow as an educator. Dr. John T. Rozzo, thank you for your mentorship, friendship, and patience as I did this at my own rate. Dr. Todd E. Keruskin, thank you for your words of encouragement, “Press On” and feedback throughout this process. Finally, I am grateful to the Upper St. Clair School District and amazing colleagues for providing me with the opportunity to be an educator and administrator in a district of excellence and allowing me to earn my doctorate by studying a topic that is so meaningful to me. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES iii Table of Contents Signature Dedication i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract viii CHPATER 1 1 Introduction 1 CHPATER II 7 Literature Review 7 Terms and Definitions 8 Special Education Then and Now 9 Special Education Landmark Legal Cases Related to Inclusionary 12 Practices Education Guidelines and Requirements 15 Delivery of Special Education Services 22 Inclusive Education 24 Inclusionary Practices in the Classroom 26 Benefits and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education 29 Teachers’ Beliefs on Inclusionary Practices 31 District Special Education Profile 33 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Summary iv 36 CHAPTER III Methodology 38 Purpose 39 Setting and Participants 42 Intervention and Research Plan 44 Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection 50 Validity 53 Limitations 55 Summary 56 CHAPTER IV Data Analysis and Results 58 Data Analysis 58 Results 60 Special Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis 61 Special Education Teacher Interview Analysis 64 General Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis 66 General Education Teacher Interview Analysis 71 Implementing Consistent Inclusionary Practices 73 IEP Checklist Analysis 74 Discussion 81 Summary 82 CHAPTER V INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES v Conclusions and Recommendations 84 Conclusions 85 Research Question 1 86 Research Question 2 87 Research Question 3 88 Research Question 4 89 Application and Implications 89 Fiscal Implication 93 Limitations 94 Future Areas of Examination 96 Summary 98 References 100 Appendix A. Semi-Structured Interview Guide 105 Appendix B. General Education Teacher Questionnaire 107 Appendix C. Special Education Teacher Questionnaire 108 Appendix D. IEP Checklist 109 Appendix E. Semi-Structured Interview Guide Disclosure 111 Appendix F. Participation in Questionnaire for General and Special Education Teachers Disclosure Appendix G. IRB Approval Letter 112 113 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES vi List of Tables Table 1. Participants in the Semi-Structured Interview 47 Table 2. Data Collection Timeline 52 Table 3. Special Education Teacher Perceptions 65 Table 4. General Education Teacher Perceptions 72 Table 5. Themes of Recommendations or Suggestions 74 Table 6. 7th Grade Frequently Identified SDI 77 Table 7. 8th Grade Frequently Identified SDI 79 Table 8. 9th Grade Frequently Identified SDI 80 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES vii List of Figures Figure 1. Special Educator Across Grade Levels 62 Figure 2. Special Educator Across Own Classes 62 Figure 3. Special Educator Across Grade Levels 62 Figure 4. General Educator Across Grade Levels 68 Figure 5. General Educator Across Own Classes 68 Figure 6. General Educator Across Content Areas 69 Figure 7. 7th Grade Type of Special Education Support 76 Figure 8. 8th Grade Type of Special Education Support 78 Figure 9. 9th Grade Type of Special Education Support 80 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES viii Abstract The inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices creates varied educational experiences for special education students and teachers (general education and special education). Varied educational experiences leads to requests for different teachers, potential legal concerns related to the implementation of IEPs, and concerns for program effectiveness. Therefore, this study focused on the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices. The goal of the study was to provide recommendations and conclusions that lead to more consistent and fluid experiences for students and teachers across classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. In addition, it is important for the district to collect baseline data in this area as professional development now can focus on areas that have not been part of the professional development plan over the last two years due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. By utilizing an action research study approach, the information gathered was first-hand information from general and special education teachers in order to provide recommendations that will be more easily implemented due to the input of individuals directly working in the field. The implementation of consistent inclusionary practices will increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and though necessary to under the law to have individualized practices, all students will be able to have access to learning experiences that are rooted in best inclusionary practices. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 1 Chapter I Background This study focused on investigating the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary special education practices in grades 7-9. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, specialized focus and professional development in the areas of special education supports and services has been limited due to other educational priorities. Despite the school district’s strong history of educating students receiving special education services in the general education classroom for the majority of the school day, concerns have been raised regarding how consistently inclusionary practices are implemented across grade levels, content areas, and classes. Also, concerns have been expressed related to the implementation of specially designed instruction when a student transitions from one building to the next within the district. The researcher has an extensive knowledge, interest, and background in special education programming. As part of this action research study, the researcher hopes to analyze the data collected in order to provide tangible and manageable recommendations to address the research study area of concern. An analysis of student IEPs will provide insight to specially designed instruction being developed by the IEP team to support students in the least restrictive environment. By collecting data through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews from educators implementing special education services, the data will be concrete and valuable in driving improvement as a goal of this action research project. Inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices creates varied educational experiences for special education students and teachers (general education and special INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 2 education). In addition to varied experiences for students and teachers, other unintended results may occur with requests for specific teachers or even potential legal implications for the district. It is essential that teachers understand what is meant by inclusionary practices and how to work collaboratively in order to provide a consistent experience that is in alignment with a student’s individualized education plan (IEP). Capstone Focus The focus for this research is to utilize qualitative data collection measures to further understand the implementation of special education inclusionary practices and why the implementation is inconsistent at times resulting in varied experiences. Though an IEP is meant to be individualized, the specially designed instruction developed for students within the IEP can have similar accommodations and modifications providing access to education in the least restrictive environment. However, the interpretation and implementation of the accommodations and modifications has varied from teacher to teacher, class to class, and grade to grade. Therefore, students and guardians may experience frustration within the special education framework. As a result, educators may also experience frustrations. The researcher is a student-centered district administrator who takes seriously the experiences of students, but also recognizes that staff need support in providing a consistent experience for students. Therefore, the desire to research this area is rooted in student outcomes and experiences with a focus on supporting a key element of this success-the classroom teacher. Research Questions The following research questions will guide the action research study: INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES • 3 What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? Focus on this question will occur through the completion of a voluntary questionnaire completed by special educators teaching students in grades 7-9. A semistructured interview protocol has been developed. Responses from the questionnaire may guide further question development. Teachers who completed the questionnaire will also be included in an interview to gather further insight on the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices. • What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? Six randomly selected general educators from each grade level in grades 7-9 and three electives/expressive arts teachers, totaling 21 general educators, will be selected to complete a voluntary questionnaire. Two randomly selected general educators from each grade level in grades 7-9, totaling six, will be selected to participate in the semistructured interview process. An interview protocol has been developed. Responses from the questionnaires may generate additional questions to include in the semistructured interview protocols. • What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans? To collect data for this identified research question, an IEP checklist list for evaluating inclusionary practices has been developed. IEPs will be randomly selected at each grade level. In grades 7-9, 15 IEPs at each grade level, totaling 45, will be evaluated. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES • 4 What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9? In order to gain insight on the observable inclusionary practices, the data gathered through the semi-structured interview protocols will be analyzed to yield information related to this question. Based on the research questions of the study, data will be gathered utilizing several qualitative data collection measures. The measures include questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and a researcher developed IEP checklist. All data collected will be analyzed for emerging themes to support the conclusions and recommendations. Expected Outcomes The study will provide insight and baseline information on the reasons why inclusionary practices are implemented inconsistently within classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. In addition, the feedback received from study participants will be a strong foundation to provide suggestions on how to address the identified focus of the study. When all data is collected, analyzed, and grouped, the final anticipated product will be to create a training framework to guide professional development for staff working with students receiving special education supports and services. In any given year, teachers could self-assess where they “fit” in this framework to determine what levels of professional development may need to be provided. A developed framework that includes self-evaluation can lead to more individualized, meaningful, and concrete professional development based on the perceptions and needs of the educators related to a student or students IEP. When targeted professional development is provided for educators, it can be hypothesized that consistent implementation of inclusionary services resulting in consistent classroom experiences will occur. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 5 Fiscal Implications When discussing fiscal implications related to this research study, the implications will most likely be rooted in costs connected to professional development and time. In addition, the costs will be minimal in comparison to the overall district budget and may potentially be built into various budget areas, such as professional development, as part of the district’s budget process. The district’s special education budget is already evidence of the required financial contribution to implementing a continuum of supports and services for special education students. Ultimately, the use of district funds is to provide further consistency for teachers and students to avoid the unintended consequences of implementing special education inclusionary practices inconsistently. Summary At the conclusion of the study recommendations will be provided in order to support the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices to increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and though necessary under the law to have individualized practices, all students will be able to have access to learning experiences that are rooted in best inclusionary practices. At this point, the goal will be to provide recommendations related to professional development, best practices for special educators and general educators, and a potential review of personnel levels to determine if additional staff could also provide another tier of support to increase programmatic fidelity. Special education practices are rooted in history, mandates and laws, and historical legal cases. It is essential to review literature rooted in special education to INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES better understand the growth of special education inclusionary practices and requirements. The literature examined will help guide the study and provide further support for implementation of the recommendations of the study. 6 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 7 Chapter II Literature Review In order to understand the essential role of and implementation of inclusionary practices within a special education program framework, it is necessary to know what is special education, how special education has evolved in response to landmark legal cases and educational reform, and the varied approaches to providing special education services in the least restrictive environment. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Sec. 300.39, special education is defined as “specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability”. Furthermore, a child with a disability is a child who qualifies under any of the 13 federal disability categories and is in need of special education supports and services. According to Hallahan and Kauffman (1978, p. 4) “special education means specially designed instruction which meets the unique needs of an exceptional child.” In the 2021-2022 school year, 1,684,754 students were students with a disability receiving special education supports and services in the state of Pennsylvania. Within the identified school district 522 students or 13.3% of students enrolled in the district were receiving special education supports and services. On average, 68.2% of students received special education services within the regular education setting 80% or more of the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). One of the biggest goals of special education inclusionary practices is for students to receive instruction in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 8 Terms and Definitions In the field of special education, many terms are utilized related to the environment, requirements, and instruction. When examining special education practices, it is important to have an understanding of the most common terms and acronyms. Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)-Special Education and related services that have been provided at public expense and supervision and provided in alignment with the individualized education program (IEP) (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). General/Regular Education Classroom-Classroom that all nondisabled students receive instruction, but can include both nondisabled and disabled students. Individualized Education Plan (IEP)-Primary legal document of the IDEA statute where the educational program for a student with a disability is put together (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). A student’s IEP team will meet to determine the necessary specially designed instruction for the student to meet their full potential in the least restrictive environment. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)- With supplementary aids and services, children with disabilities are to be educated with non-disabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. Procedural Safeguards-Safeguard to protect the rights of students with disabilities as well as their families. Rights included, but not limited to, parental participation, access to educational records, due process, civil action, and mediation (Western Governors University, 2020). INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 9 Related Service-Transportation and services that are necessary to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education. Special Education (Self-Contained/Pull-Out/Resource) Classroom-Classroom that only students with disabilities can receive instruction; instruction and supports are specialized. Typically, the class size is smaller than a general education classroom. Supplementary Aids and Services-Services and other supports that are provided in educational settings, extracurricular activities, and non-academic settings for students with disabilities that enable participation/inclusion with non-disabled children to the fullest extent possible (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004). Special Education Then and Now One of the first acts supporting students with disabilities through federal funding was passed in 1958, “An Act to Encourage Expansion of Teaching in the Education of Mentally Retarded Children through Grants to Institutions of Higher Learning and to Sate Educational Agencies”. This law provided funding to support students studying the education of children with mental retardation. This law was the first of its kind to support training in order to create a platform for the next 20 years that supported the inclusion of students with disabilities (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). Beginning in 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the United States Congress to provide federal funding to fight the achievement gap that was growing between low-income, neglected, and homeless families and higherincome families, but did not address the needs of individuals with disabilities. Out of ESEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was put into place in 1973. Section 504 provides that “individuals with a disability shall not be excluded from participation in, be INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 10 denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination based on the fact that he or she has a disability” (Young et al., 2018). With the passing of the Rehabilitation Act by Congress, additional federal mandates would be forthcoming to further ensure special education services to students with disabilities being provided with educational services in a setting receiving federal funding. Prior to the 1970’s, individuals with disabilities had limited educational rights and options. In fact, in 1970, schools in the United States only educated one in five children with disabilities (United States Department of Education, 2022). In 1975, Public Law 94-142: The Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was written. Then, in 1990, EHA was revised and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to improve upon special education supports and services requiring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) be made available to students along with related services (Young et al., 2018). Several updates to IDEA have taken place over the years to continue to provide enhancements to the laws guiding special education services. Updates took place in 1997 and in 2004. The 1997 update included further regulations to enhance parent/guardian participation in the IEP process and students had increased access to meaningful and measurable programs (Western Governors University, 2022). The 2004 update was identified as IDEIA (though still referred to as IDEA) and brought alignment to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 focusing on accountability. Special education teachers must be highly qualified and instruction utilizing evidenced-based practices had to be implemented. Lengyel and Vanbergeijk (2021) identify the seven guiding principles that have remained consistent: 1. All students have a right to a free and public education (FAPE) INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 11 2. All students have a right to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 3. All student have a right to an Individualized Education program (IEP) 4. Non-Discriminatory assessment and evaluation 5. Parent Involvement 6. Due process procedural safeguards 7. Zero Reject (p. 26) Based on the various governmental regulations, special education programming, and services are now guided by legislative mandates, educational reform, and legal decisions. As a result of special education regulations, students with disabilities have the right to now receive a free and appropriate public education, education in the least restrictive environment, and instruction that gives consideration to a full range of supplementary aids and services. During the 2018-19 school year, 7.5 million children with disabilities received special education services to meet their individual needs with 64% of students receiving instruction in the general education classroom for more than 80% of the school day (United States Department of Education, 2022). Early programs for disabled individuals were limited and left the disabled individual feeling stigmatized prior to any educational mandates. Terms describing the disabled individual were demeaning and lacked understanding of the needs of an individual. Involvement in society, let alone educational settings, was non-existent. The dismal conditions in hospitals and institutions for the mentally ill and disabled began to drive the need for change and advocacy for disabled individuals to receive a free and appropriate public education. The federal support in education for students with INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 12 disabilities began to change the way society viewed individuals with disabilities through grants, research, and education for those interested in understanding individuals with disabilities. Special Education Landmark Legal Cases Related to Inclusionary Practices Intertwined with legislative mandates and educational reform are landmark legal case decisions that have contributed to the evolution of inclusionary practices. Education in an inclusive setting and education that meets students’ needs through appropriate special education supports and services is at the core of many high-level court cases. In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education started to pave the road for equal and inclusive rights in education with the ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States that separate was not equal. Segregation based on race within the school setting was ruled a violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. As a result, disability activists began the argument that disabled students were also being excluded from public education or educated in substandard conditions (Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Separation based on race or disability was a form of discrimination. PARC (Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens) vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ended in a settlement agreement in 1972. The basic concept behind the case was that equal treatment under the law is a civil rights issue. Out of the settlement agreement, a free public education and due process protections for all students with intellectual disabilities was required. The PARC Consent Decree would later become the basis for federal statute within the Education for all Handicapped Children Act in 1975 and later to become IDEA in 1990 (Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Regardless of the INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 13 federal statute, this case became the basis of establishing how children with disabilities could benefit from educational programs in the public education sector. Nearly a decade later in 1982, a ruling was provided in the case of The Board of Education v. Rowley. The United States Supreme Court addressed the level of services necessary to meet the standard of FAPE under IDEA (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). It was determined that an IEP must be reasonably calculated to provide access to related services and receive educational benefit. Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 1993 introduced a three-prong test in considering what is the appropriate least restrictive environment for education. The three prongs require that districts have made a “reasonable effort” in including the student in the general education classroom, have done a comparison of the educational benefit of education taking place in the general education classroom with supplemental aids and services versus a special education classroom, and the impact of inclusion of a student with an IEP on non-disabled peers (Lengyel & Vanbergeijk, 2021). Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 1993 established that inclusion with supplementary aids and services is a right to students with disabilities receiving education in the public sector, and if a student cannot be included fully with students without disabilities, they must be included to the fullest extent appropriate. In 2005, a five-year settlement agreement was finalized in the case of Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education. The foundation of the agreement identified mutual goals and principles between the parties. Principles of the Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District, 1993 case were reaffirmed that a INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 14 student with a disability must receive education to the maximum extent appropriate with non-disabled peers in the least restrictive environment. Secondly, districts needed to increase the ability to provide a full range of supplementary aids and services for inclusion in the general education classroom. In the settlement, it was also determined that students who are gifted and also in need of special education services would have one guiding document to address gifted programming and necessary supplementary aids and services within the general education setting (Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005). Ultimately, the Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2005 case put additional responsibilities on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth and Department of Education to ensure that students with disabilities were receiving instruction in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate with the necessary supplementary supports and services. Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 (United States Department of Education, 2017) further interpreted the scope of FAPE requirements within IDEA. Based on the ruling, it was determined that a school must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable and ensure that a child make appropriate progress. The United States Supreme Court emphasized the requirement that “every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives”. For effective implementation of the Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 ruling, the IEP team must develop an appropriate IEP that is “reasonably calculated” based on previous rate of academic growth and special educations services, include annual goals that aim to improve educational results and functional performance, and identify effective measures of evaluation and assessment of student growth (United States Department of Education, 2017). Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017 was the contrast of Board of INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 15 Education v. Rowley, 1982 where the United States Supreme Court emphasized that the IEP had to be developed to provide a student with a disability with meaningful educational benefit, not substantive as was ruled in Endrew v. Douglas County, 2017. Education Guidelines and Requirements Over time, general education and special education guidelines and requirements have been developed at the federal and state levels. Changes to education laws and mandates would drive changes to special education practices. Court cases would further clarify or dictate special education laws and regulations. As changes would occur at the federal level, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would update or revise the expectations for both general education and special education students. In the state of Pennsylvania, special education regulations are found under Title 22 PA Code Chapter 14 for public school districts. The most recent Chapter 14 guidelines were adopted by the State Board of Education on June 28, 2008. The purpose of Chapter 14 within the code was to meet the statutory requirements under IDEA and specify how the state of Pennsylvania would meet its obligations for thought-to-be exceptional and identified exceptional students to provide appropriate, quality education services (Pennsylvania Chapter 14: Special education services and programs, 2008). The state regulation provides further clarity or, in some cases, additional requirements beyond the federal regulations included in IDEA. Also, Chapter 14 is specific in that districts must develop a written plan on how services will be provided to students with disabilities and a free appropriate public education is guaranteed. At the federal level, under IDEA Title 34 Part 300 provides the legal requirements and mandates for special education services and assistance to states for the education of INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 16 children with disabilities. In 2020, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal standard and guidelines for special education, 45th anniversary was celebrated. The anniversary of this monumental law has a great deal of legal substance backing it. IDEA began as the Education for Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94142) in 1975 requiring all federally funded schools to provide equal access to education for students. In 1990, this law was reauthorized to be the current federal foundation of special education, IDEA. Additional reauthorizations to IDEA occurred in 1997 and 2004. Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was the first disability civil rights law in the United States and applies to all school districts or entities that receive any form of federal funding. The Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. In order to prevent discrimination under the act, accessibility, equal access, and reasonable accommodations are requirements. Reasonable accommodations must be provided to allow a student with a disability to participate in a program or service at the same level as a nondisabled peer (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). While Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act is applied to schools, similarities are apparent under the Americans with Disabilities Act that applies more to employers, but has been utilized as a basis for disability discrimination within school settings. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the 2008 amendment is a civil rights act to protect qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination and retaliation in a variety of settings to include both the private and public sectors. Section 504 applies to entities receiving federal funds, and ADA is applicable in all other settings. Like Section 504, ADA is designed to promote equal opportunities for individuals with INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 17 disabilities by removing barriers that could impact major life activities and that reasonable accommodations be provided (Rodriquez & Murawski, 2020). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 was the basis of revisions to IDEIA in 2004. NCLB’s primary purpose was to ensure that students achieved important learning goals utilizing scientifically research-based approaches to close the achievement gap by bringing every student up to proficiency in reading and mathematics on state developed assessments based on state standards by the 2013-2104 school year (Nagro et al., 2022). The accountability component of NCLB required testing for all students in reading and math in third through eighth grade and once again in high school and stated that students with disabilities were to be held responsible for the same academic content and performance standards as general education peers. NCLB clarified the “what” in special education in terms of content and curriculum. The expectation was that students with disabilities would be held accountable for the same content without any reduction in breadth or depth of the content. The curriculum would not change, but how a student was taught the content was the goal of the special educator (Zigmond, 2003). As a result, NCLB also defined the “who” by stating that students with disabilities have access to highly qualified teacher to implement the research-based instruction (Nagro et al., 2022). In 2015, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was the next educational mandate and replaced NCLB with an emphasis on the decision making of states versus the federal government regarding components of education. The 100% proficiency requirement under NCLB was waived. ESSA had five attributes that impacted students with disabilities: 1) required coordination, 2) disciplinary practices, 3) diploma options, 4) assessments and accountability, and 5) proficiency versus progress (Rodriquez & INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 18 Murawski, 2020). ESSA maintained the goal of fully preparing all students for success beyond high school by introducing college and career-ready benchmarks for education. In addition, the accountability for testing at least 95 percent of students was still a requirement (Young et al., 2018). ESSA continued with many of the previous focuses on educational access for all, educational accountability, and closing achievement gaps. Nagro et al. (2022) provides a summary of the interconnection of federal law, court cases, and policies as it relates to the evolution of access to education. The focus on education has been documented over time beginning in 1918 with compulsory education laws being developed in every state to the approval of Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. In between, landmark cases and legislation have driven the requirements for school districts in providing educational services for all students with a continued focus on inclusive education for students with disabilities. As a result, the requirements within the public education setting have continued to increase. Special Education Requirements within the Public Education Setting Special education requirements within the public education setting are guided by Chapter 14 in the PA Code. Specific processes and timelines are in place to determine if a student is a student with a disability and in need of special education services. A student must qualify for special education services through a process as identified in IDEA and Chapter 14. Throughout this process, the student must be identified as having at least one of the disabilities identified under IDEA and being in need of specially designed instruction. In §300.8 Child with a Disability, IDEA identifies 13 disability categories: Autism, Deaf-Blindness, Deafness, Emotional Disturbance, Hearing Impairment, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Other INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 19 Health Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, Speech or Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain injury, Visual Impairment including Blindness. Once a student is identified in one of the disability categories and is determined to be in need of special education services, an IEP is then developed. The foundation of a student’s special education programming is the IEP. At a minimum an IEP must be reviewed annually. Developing an IEP requires the collaboration of required team members to follow a process in the creation and/or review of the document. An IEP has required sections that must be discussed and are required based on a student’s age. Progress monitoring of the student’s IEP annual goals is required in order to ensure that meaningful educational benefit is occurring. Team members must include the student’s parent/guardian, a regular education teacher, a special education teacher, a local education agency representative, the student if they are at transition age (14 and above), any related service providers, and any other applicable members to include those by parent request or individuals related to transition services. In the event an individual who is considered a member of the team cannot participate, the team member must provide input in advance of the meeting, make contact with the parent/guardian, and be formally excused by the parent and LEA (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network [PaTTAN], 2019). The IEP team is critical to the development of a successful IEP that integrates inclusive practices to best support a student in the least restrictive environment. An IEP should tell the “story” of a student’s progress, strengths, and needs. Within an IEP are eight required components. First, the present education levels of progress and needs within academic achievement and functional performance are INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 20 included. Secondly, measurable annual goals must be developed with a description of how the child’s progress towards meeting the goals will be measured. The fourth component identifies the special education related services, supplementary aids and services, and supports for school personnel that will be provided to the child. The following section identifies a statement to the extent, if any, the special education student will not participate with nondisabled peers on the general education classroom. A sixth required component is a statement on the participation with or without accommodations on state and district-wide assessments. Throughout the document, and a required component, is the beginning and duration of services. The eighth required component begins when the child is identified to be of transition age to include components of transitioning programming (Rodriguez & Murawski, 2020). The IEP is meant to be the plan, but not the curriculum for a student with a disability. Therefore, it is important that the plan be developed to share the story of student’s progress, strengths, and needs while also determining the necessary supports and services for a student to access the general education curriculum and environment to the fullest extent possible. In the state of Pennsylvania, progress monitoring of IEP measurable annual goals is required quarterly. Progress monitoring is the ongoing process of collecting and analyzing data to determine student progress toward attainment of educational goals (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network [PaTTAN], 2018a). The data collected as part of progress monitoring determines the appropriateness of a student’s IEP and if the developed plan needs modifications to support further attainment of goals. Progress monitoring needs to occur for academic goals within an IEP and behavioral goals that may be included within a positive behavior support plan. Under the IDEA INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 21 revisions in 2004, parents must be informed of their child’s progress towards annual goals. The specifics related to progress monitoring such as frequency of data collection and when progress will be communicated are included within the student’s IEP. Progress monitoring is essential to documenting the measurable growth of a student with a disability and has been an increased requirement for educators over the last several decades. Meaningful progress monitoring is the key to determining the effectiveness of inclusive practices and the reasonable calculation of an IEP for student growth. Supplementary aids and services are addressed through the IEP and can include an array of identified supports that are unique to a student with a disability. The consideration of a full range of aids and services must be considered beyond the school day to address inclusion in school-sponsored events. Students may receive direct supports such as aide support, assistive technology, accommodations, and modifications. Additional supports may be more indirect and include consultation, training, and/or support for staff who are working with a student. Under IDEA, supplementary aids and services should be available to all students who need them, designed to provide meaningful educational benefit, and provided in a manner that avoids stigmatizing students. Therefore, the development of four categories of supplementary aids and services, cited in the PaTTAN document, developed by Etcsheidt and Bartlett in 1999, include for consideration: collaborative, instruction, physical, and social-behavioral aids and services (PaTTAN, 2018b). The fact that many court cases have ruled that instruction must be provided in the least restrictive environment and the requirements for public educations settings must follow the laws has led school systems to developing special education programming for INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 22 students based on a continuum of services. Students IEPs’ will begin with discussion on what is the least restrictive environment for the student. The answer to the question of where special education students should be educated and what is the least restrictive environment is within an IEP. As stated in IDEA and the Basic Education Circular in the state of Pennsylvania: Placement Options for Special Education, LEA’s are required to ensure that the placement be determined by the child’s IEP team, that a continuum of placement alternatives be discussed, and that a child with a disability be provided with instruction in a setting different from that of non-disabled peers on when the nature or severity of the child’s disability that even with the use of supplementary aids and services education cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2017). A continuum of educational environments must be developed or implemented based on the needs of a student. Delivery of Special Education Services According to Zigmond (2003), the question of where students with disabilities should be educated was debated in the mid-1980’s as research was identifying the failures of the “pull-out special education” model. The various instructional settings offer different opportunities based on the educational environment and needs of the students. Within the delivery continuum of least to most restrictive, a variety of educational programs can be implemented to best meet the needs of a student. A beginning consideration is that the least restrictive environment is instruction being provided in the regular education setting with supplementary supports and services. The general education classroom affords students with disabilities the opportunity to learn beside and INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 23 engage with students who do not have disabilities. Typically, the curriculum and materials are the same as non-disabled students in the classroom. In the event a student requires an accommodation or modification, the range of supplementary aids and services is considered. In Pennsylvania, the term “itinerant” is used to describe the lowest level of special education support. A portion of a student’s day can have instruction occur in the regular education setting with supplementary supports and services while the other portion of the day the student receives instruction in the special education classroom. Within the special education classroom, smaller teacher-student ratio exists while also receiving instruction through specially designed instruction and materials. Special education students can receive more intensive instruction on basic academic skills, explicit instruction in controlling behaviors or interacting with peers, or receive instruction on an area that students in the general education classroom do not need to receive instruction on at that time within the special education classroom (Zigmond, 2003). The special education teacher has training and background in working with disabled students and the best practices to teach students in order to have appropriate academic gains. Within the continuum of special education services provided within the state of Pennsylvania, students who receive special education supports and services outside of the regular education classroom for more than 20% but less than 80% of the school day are receiving a supplemental level of support. At times, the needs of a student along with the special education process may lead to a decision that instruction will occur in a specialized setting with full-time special education supports and services and not have instruction occur within a regular education INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 24 setting. The most restrictive environment occurs through instruction in-the-home as the necessary educational setting. Inclusive Education In an interview, Jamie Pearson, Ph.D., stated that inclusive education means that students with and without disabilities learn alongside one another, in the same classroom setting, with lessons that are accessible for all (Bowen, 2020). Educational professionals and advocacy groups have debated to what degree an inclusive education should be provided to students with disabilities. Court cases such as Gaskin have also argued to what extent an inclusive education should be provided. Regardless of the various debates, an inclusive education occurs when students with a disability are educated in a general education classroom with the required supports and services under the law. Two perspectives on inclusive education, inclusionist versus full inclusionist, were presented by Fuchs and Fuchs (1998). Inclusionists focused on children getting appropriate academic instruction to master skills and knowledge necessary for future successes in and out of school within a continuum of special education placements. The full inclusionists believed that the appropriate place for all children was the regular classroom and believed that schools were the best place to provide opportunities for friendships and changing the stereotypic thinking around individuals with disabilities. The inclusionist viewpoint was connected with students with primarily learning disabilities, behavior disorders, and mild mental retardation; whereas, the full inclusionist represented the student with severe mental retardation (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). The Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) is a national organization focused on the education and support of individuals with learning INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 25 disabilities. LDA believes that the decisions regarding educational placement of students must be based on the needs of each individual and does not support “full inclusion” or any policy that requires the same placement, instruction, or treatment for all students with disabilities. Though many students with learning disabilities benefit from being served in a regular education classroom, for some students the appropriate placement is not the general education classroom. Some students may need alternative instructional environments and approaches that cannot be provided within the context of a regular classroom placement. The pure concept of placement of all students with disabilities in the general education classroom is viewed by the LDA as much of a violation of IDEA as the placement of all children in separate classrooms on the basis of a student’s disability (Learning Disabilities Association of America, n.d.). Researchers in the field of special education have also provided opinions on the debate over full-inclusion. Zigmond cited her own research from 1996 with Baker questioning the “appropriateness” of full inclusion as the sole service delivery model for students with learning disabilities in public schools. “We cannot support the elimination of a continuum of services for students with [learning disabilities]. Inclusion is good, full inclusion may be too much of a good thing”, (Zigmond & Baker, 1996 as cited in Zigmond et al. 2009). Clearly, advocacy groups, parents, and experts in the field will continue to debate how much “inclusion” is appropriate for students with a disability. Though inclusive education is mandated under the law, it is clear that there is “no one size fits all” model of inclusion. The time a student with a disability spends in the general/regular education classroom is unique to each learner and should be guided by the IEP process. Given the historical overview of inclusive education, the philosophical INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 26 debate over inclusive education and to what degree has been ongoing and will continue to be a focus area of educators and advocacy groups. Inclusionary Practices in the Classroom Inclusive education is more than a student’s IEP. Though a student’s IEP is the plan of how a student will access education in the least restrictive environment through special education supports and services, an inclusive classroom requires an inclusive classroom and curriculum. A variety of inclusionary practices can be implemented in a classroom environment. Common inclusionary practices include, but are not limited to, co-teaching or scheduled supports in the general education classroom, differentiation of instruction, small group instruction, and the implementation of modifications and accommodations. An inclusive educational setting also requires intentionality with a specific focus on the classroom and curriculum while also not implementing one practice at a time. A comprehensive inclusive education and classroom, according to Vandercook et al. (2021), is based on the following acknowledgements: each child is a general education student, the general education curriculum and routines and the IEP comprise a student’s educational program, and the IEP for a student receiving special education services is not the curriculum. As a result of a comprehensive inclusive approach, one of the first classroom practices to really support the implementation of an inclusive setting is teacher collaboration, mindset, and a planning process that leads to a common vision that creates a sense of community for all students. The beginning of co-teaching marked the reinvention of the classroom setting where special educators began to assume a new role of support and collaboration within INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 27 the general education classroom. The expertise of the special education and general education teachers are collaboratively shared and applied to create a successful, inclusive environment. Fuchs & Fuchs (1998) identified co-teaching as a popular form of collaboration “whereby the special educator plays a primary, secondary, or co-equal role in helping adapt the mainstream experience for children with disabilities”. Different evidence-based models for implementing co-teaching successfully have been identified: one-teach, one assist; station teaching; parallel teaching; alternative teaching; and team teaching (Young et al., 2018). Co-teaching requires common planning time, intentionality, and a strong partnership to be successful. When students are successful within a co-taught classroom, the goal of inclusive education through special education supports and services is achieved. Magiera and Zigmond (2005) studied the instructional experience for students with disabilities in a co-taught and solo-taught classroom. In this study, limited instructional benefits were found for students with disabilities in a co-taught classroom. Two significant differences did emerge during the study. First, students received more individual instructional interactions under co-teaching interactions. Second, when special education teachers were in the classroom, interactions occurred less frequently between the general educator and special education student. The results of the study had implications for co-teachers as well as students. It was indicated that researchers found insignificant differences in practices under co-taught conditions due to lack of teacher preparation and training to engage in a co-taught teaching arrangement and lack of common planning time to support co-teaching from behind the scenes (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 28 Differentiation is an identified evidenced-based instructional strategy utilized for special education students to participate in the general education setting. Carol Ann Tomlinson is known as the guru of differentiation. She defines differentiation as “an instructional approach to help teachers teach with individuals as well as content in mind. Differentiation really means trying to make sure that teaching and learning work for the full range of students” (Bell, 2011). Tomlinson identifies that some of what is talked about in differentiation comes from the work of special education and some from gifted education. According to Tomlinson, differentiation is multi-faceted, but is driven by student readiness, student interest, and student learning profile (Bell, 2011). Accommodations and modifications are also identified through the development of the IEP and play a significant part in the effectiveness of an inclusive environment. An accommodation changes “how” a student learns a material and a modification changes the “what” a student is learning. When considering classroom instruction, an accommodation might include listening to an audio version of the book that all students are reading. A modification would change what is being read to change the expectation of the learning and thus the expectation of what is being learned in comparison to peers within the classroom (The Understood Team, n.d.). Providing accommodations and modifications to students in the general education classroom has served as the basis of inclusive practices for students when considering the continuum of special education placement options. Classroom accommodations and modifications can go beyond academic supports and also be environmental supports. It is important through the IEP process to clearly review the types of supports based on the needs of the student to determine if a support must be academic or behavioral. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 29 Small group instruction can occur in a variety of ways to support the special education student. Co-teachers have identified that cooperative learning and the use of small groups as two instructional techniques that have been most effective (Austin, 2001). The use of small group instruction can occur in a co-taught classroom, in a smaller setting as a supplement to the general education instruction, or in a special education classroom in a resource or “pull-out” setting as determined by the IEP team and based on student need. Inclusive practices in the classroom are also provided through a continuum and based on the needs of a student. Co-teaching, differentiation, accommodations, and modifications are a few of the inclusionary practices that can be implemented. Highquality and evidence-based instructional practices must be implemented consistently to ensure that student’s needs are being supported in the inclusive setting. It is also clear that teachers providing instruction in an inclusive setting need the appropriate training and supports to implement evidence-based and best instructional practices. Though the inclusive supports, academically and behaviorally, are critical for a student with a disability’s success, non-disabled peers also benefit. Benefits and Effectiveness of Inclusive Education The benefits and effectiveness of inclusive education can be unique to each student with an IEP and to the general education student. Many studies cite academic and social benefits. The inclusive environment also provides an opportunity for exposure to individual differences and fosters an environment of peer acceptance. Research shows that giving all students an opportunity to interact and learn side-by-side helps build empathy among neurotypical learners who are learning with peers who are different from INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 30 them. Inclusive classrooms offer students with disabilities more equitable access to education and create more success academically and socially (Bowen, 2020). An inclusive environment with co-teaching provided students with a reduced student-teacher ratio with teachers providing the perspective that the collaborative teaching strategies were effective in educating all students (Austin, 2001). A recent study conducted in the state of Indiana continued to build on a study conducted by the Intermediate Unit in 2020 that examined outcomes for students in grades 3-8. Results from the study showed that students in more inclusive settings, regardless of disability category, achieved higher on state assessments than students in more restrictive settings. On average, a high school student in 10th grade who spent 80% or more time in the general education classroom scored 24.3 points higher on the state English assessment and 18.4 points higher on math than peers without a similar inclusion experience (Arundel, 2022). The findings provided further validation of what federal special education law requires about placement in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. The benefits of an inclusive educational settings will continue to be reviewed. Students without disabilities can benefit from inclusive practices by receiving instruction in a smaller setting through the reduction of student numbers to teacher ratio while also having exposure to individual student differences. However, studies that have focused on the benefits are also clear to identify the barriers in the research ranging from the different needs of students, the number of special education students in an inclusive setting, experience and professional development of the classroom teacher, and the mindset of the educator providing the instruction in the general education setting. As a INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 31 result, it is difficult to identify strongly with verifiable data the benefits of inclusion. However, it is clear under the law that students with disabilities must be included in the general education classroom. Teachers’ Beliefs on Inclusionary Practices Meaningful education of students with and without disabilities relies on a partnership between general educators and special educators. However, researchers over time have identified that general education teachers have a different set of beliefs related to special education than special educators. General educators have difficulty with the practicality of providing individualized and intense instruction to students with 25-35 students in a class. However, special educators believe that instruction must be individualized to be effective (Zigmond, 2003). Ultimately, the differences in beliefs leads to the reliance of the expertise that each educator brings to the educational environment for all students. The general educator is traditionally identified as the content expert while the special educator provides the knowledge on how to best provide instruction to a student with a disability. It is essential to have this type of well-rounded knowledge at the table when developing an inclusive environment for a student with a disability, but to also consider the environment for all students. For the purposes of examining teacher’s beliefs on inclusionary practices, the overarching inclusionary practice that receives perspective feedback from educators is co-teaching. The National Study on Inclusion in 1995 identified that co-teaching had become the most popular staffing model for implementing inclusion (National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion [NCERI], 1995). A study conducted by Austin (2001) focused on teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching, but also gathered information on INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 32 perceptions connected to co-teaching and inclusive education. General education and special education teachers completed surveys and were interviewed. Data from semistructured interviews revealed that most co-teachers found the experience to be positive. A majority of co-teachers identified cooperative learning and the use of small groups as the two instructional techniques the found most effective…..Most co-teachers interviewed expressed the belief that the collaborate teaching strategies they were using were effective in educating all students, citing a reduced student-teacher ratio as the principal benefit…..Similarly, the teachers stated that they believed inclusive education was socially beneficial for students with and without disabilities because it promoted a tolerance for differences and a general sense of acceptance and it provided general education peer models for students with disabilities. However, there were several exceptions to this perception. The preeminent reservation was that the inclusion of some students might be expressly for socialization, despite the evident disparity in academic achievement of those students compared with their general education peers (pp. 250-251). Jordan et al. (2009) reviewed four areas related to inclusive education through an analysis of previous studies. The areas included effective inclusion for all students, teachers who believe students with special needs are their responsibility tend to be more effective overall with all their students, teacher’s beliefs about the disability and their responsibilities for inclusion may be part of a broader set of assumptions, attitudes and beliefs about ability and the nature of knowledge and knowing how learning proceeds, and teacher preparation for inclusive settings. Based on the review of the article, it is INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 33 clear that teachers’ beliefs about who has primary responsibility for students with special education needs can be the difference between effective and ineffective inclusion. A relationship exists between beliefs and practices. Unfortunately, the concept of inclusive education is not always addressed in preservice programs or professional development. As a result, a set of teacher’s beliefs is developed based on professional experiences. Teacher’s perspectives on inclusive education are an area that continue to need further study and professional development. The partnership between a general educator (the content expert) and the special educator (disability and supports expert) can determine the effectiveness of an inclusive environment for students. An educator’s mindset is also a key factor in how inclusive education is approached and implemented across the school setting. As a result, education systems need to be mindful of professional development to implement best inclusive practices in special education and to provide consistency in how a service model is delivered. District Special Education Profile The identified district is located outside of Pittsburgh in the South Hills Area. Based on the 2021-2022 Special Education Penn Data Report, the district enrollment was 3,929 students. Students identified as having a disability and in need of special education students totaled 522. The Special education report is broken into category percentages for the identified 13 disability categories within IDEA. The largest disability category reported within the district is specific learning disability (SLD) at 29.7% of the identified students in need of special education. The smallest disability category intellectual disability (mental retardation) at 3.3% of the 522 of the identified students (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 34 Every three years, in alignment with a district’s strategic plan, a school district is required under the Pennsylvania Public School Code to submit for approval to the Bureau of Special Education a District Special Education Plan. A district’s special education plan is an action plan that describes the local Board of Director’s commitment and assurances that a quality education will be provided to each student eligible for special education supports and services (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.). The plan contains many required sections; however, for the purposes of this study, it is important to focus on the section related to least restrictive environment that outlines the district’s continuum of program offerings and supplementary aids and services. According to the District Special Education Plan, the district “remains committed to providing inclusionary learning experiences and educating students in the least restrictive environment setting. The district provides various services and supports to ensure that students with disabilities are educated alongside students without disabilities to the greatest extent possible” (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). The district’s special education data report supports the district’s commitment to providing instruction in the least restrictive environment for students with 68.2% of special education students receiving instruction in the regular classroom for 80% or more of the school day. This report also revealed that the percentage of students being educated in the regular class setting less than 40% of the day was not reportable due to small group size (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). The district also identifies that numerous universal practices are implemented to support the academic and social/emotional needs of all students. A continuum of levels of support, based on an inclusionary model, for participation in the general education INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 35 classroom are offered. The continuum within the regular educations setting is identified as student participation in one or more of the following for core content classes: general education class with special education personnel consultation and general education classroom with scheduled supports (paraprofessional or co-teaching). Special education resource classes are offered in core content areas for students in need of more direct instruction or a smaller classroom setting. If a student’s needs also warrant additional supports, such as a paraprofessional, a continuum is also available within the smaller classroom setting (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). All decisions related to the least restrictive environment are based on the individual needs of the student and as part of the IEP process. Another component within the least restrictive environment is the district’s efforts in providing a variety of academic programming and training efforts to ensure meaningful participation of student with disabilities in the general education curriculum. The district does not follow a cyclical curriculum review process; therefore, as needs arrive in programming, instructional staff members are directly involved in the review, development, and implementation of new instructional programs. As a result, an array of options for student participation in the general education curriculum exists. The district’s plan states, “A variety of evidence-based and research-based instructional approaches and programs in core academic areas are utilized to support participation in the general education curriculum” (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). Supplemental aids and supports for participation in the general education setting are also identified to include a continuum of related services, personal care assistants, nursing, assistive technology, and psychological services. The district partners with the local intermediate unit and INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 36 PaTTAN for training while also utilizing additional outside agencies for ongoing consultation and support for students and staff (Upper St. Clair School District, 2022). The district meets the requirement under Chapter 14 by having a written plan of how special education supports and services will be provided within the district. Clear evidence of special education being provided in an inclusive setting and in the least restrictive environment is documented. Based on the plan, and as stated by researchers, a continuum of special education services does exist even with a high percentage of students being educated in the general education classroom. Summary Over almost the last seven decades, special education services and programming have continued to evolve to have a focus on inclusivity and providing education in the least restrictive environment. The evolution of special education can be directly linked to the laws that have been enacted for the protection of disabled individuals. According to Zigmond et al. (2009), “the preferred delivery model of special education is full inclusion with co-teaching, the content for special education students is standards-based instruction utilizing the grade level general education curriculum, and specially designed instruction for students consists of small differentiations on assignments to keep everybody working on the same page and keeping special education students accountable for learning the same material” (p.196). Zigmond’s description of the preferred special education setting would successfully meet the mandated expectations under IDEA and provide the highest level of inclusive education. When working in public education or an educational setting receiving federal funding, it is essential to understand special education process to INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES support inclusive education in order to avoid claims of disability discrimination and to provide access to an equitable education for all students. 37 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 38 Chapter III Methodology The literature review outlines the history of special education, legal mandates, landmark legal cases, and best inclusionary practices. The researcher has identified that over the history of special education, philosophical differences have and continue to exist related to inclusionary practices and outcomes for students. In action research, the goal is to identify a problem in the school setting with purposely chosen participants in order to have results that inform practice (Hendricks, 2017). Within this action research study, a research process will utilize various data collection methods through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and review of documents on the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. The participants selected will be special educators and general educators who teach various content areas and have varied years of teaching experience. Information collected from the participants through the identified data collection tools will inform practices connected to the implementation of inclusionary special education practices. This chapter will identify the purpose of the study, the setting and participants, the action research plan to include the design, methods, and data collection, and finally the validity of the capstone project. Each section will focus on the identified topic of “Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education Practices in Grades 7-9”. By examining this topic more deeply, insight will be gained on teacher perspectives, comfort and effectiveness, and needs related to the implementation of inclusionary special education practices. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 39 The methodology of the project will utilize information gathered through the literature review and will include data collected through multiple data points including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and an analysis of individualized education plans (IEPs). With the data collected and analyzed, recommendations and conclusions will be made related to the implementation of special education inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across grade levels and content areas; in the event that consistent practices are identified by participants, information will be reviewed to further provide information to support the consistent implementation of special education inclusionary practices. Given that it is a requirement for students receiving special education supports and services to receive instruction in the least restrictive environment, it is necessary to study the inclusionary practices that support instruction for students. Informal feedback throughout the researcher’s employment has identified that the inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 are inconsistently implemented across grade levels and within classrooms creating varied experiences for several stakeholder groups, especially students with IEPs. Purpose As presented in the literature review, philosophical differences exist related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and overall expectations for a student receiving special education services. The purpose of this doctoral capstone project is to collect data and analyze the data to provide recommendations that will increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide students with learning experiences that are rooted in best inclusionary practices. When inclusionary practices are implemented inconsistently, the educational experiences for special education students and teachers (general education and special education) are varied. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 40 Varied educational experiences can lead to requests for different teachers, potential legal concerns related to the implementation of IEPs, and concerns for program effectiveness. In addition, transition between grade levels and teachers could be present unintentional difficulties for students. Therefore, this study is warranted to provide recommendations that lead to more consistent and fluid experiences for students and teachers across classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. The goal is to use data collected to guide conclusions and recommendations that will support more consistent and stronger inclusionary practices across classrooms, grade levels, and content areas. Teachers will receive further support as well to become stronger practitioners in this area. Data may also reveal that certain practices are more relevant and essential at various grade levels and within particular content areas. It is also important for the district to collect baseline data in this area to drive future professional development programming for professional staff. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, professional development was provided in response to different needs for the successful implementation of in-person and remote instruction. With the data collected, the desired outcomes will be for the researcher to support colleagues in implementing more consistent practices that will increase the fidelity of special education programs implemented within the district. Research questions were identified to guide the research design and data collection procedures. 1. What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 41 2. What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? 3. What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans? 4. What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9? Two primary parties exist in the school environment when implementing inclusionary practices. The special education and general education teacher(s) are responsible for the implementation of the inclusionary practices and specially designed instruction as outlined within each student’s IEP. The first two questions, “What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” and “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” were developed to collect information specific to the individual educator to gain a sampling of insights on perceptions. In addition, the collection of information was also utilized to form any additional questions as part of the semistructured interviews. Data sources for the first two questions included a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview protocol. The third question “What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” provided the researcher with information on inclusionary practices that are included within a student’s IEP. A researcher developed checklist was utilized to collect this qualitative data. Information collected on this question will incorporate similarities and emerging trends within IEPs in grades 7-9. Based on the similarities and emerging trends, targeted professional development could be designed within the proposed framework that will be developed. Given that the IEP INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 42 document review will intentionally occur throughout the identified data collection, points of clarification or questions related to the analysis can be included in the semi-structured interview protocol. The fourth research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?” gathered further information as to why inclusionary practices are implemented differently. Information collected through the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and IEP analysis will yield answers to this question. With utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol, additional information can be collected based on teachers’ content areas and grade levels. The IEP analysis will provide information specifically connected to students at each grade level receiving special education services at each grade level. Students at specific grade levels may receive different inclusionary practices or how the inclusionary practice is written into an IEP could be the basis for why inclusionary practices are implemented differently. The fourth research question is rooted in action research by collecting a variety of data points involving essential components of inclusionary practice implementation. Setting and Participants The Upper St. Clair School District is a public school located in the south hills area outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. District enrollment is approximately 3,900 students with 905 students in grades 7-9. In grades 7-9, approximately 100 students are identified as receiving special education supports and services and have IEPs. Districtwide the average identification rate for special education is 13.3%. For many students in this district, the least restrictive environment is the general education classroom. The Upper St. Clair School District has a strong history of educating students receiving INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 43 special education services in the general education classroom for the majority of the school day. On the 2021-2022 State Special Education Data Report, 68.2% of district special education students were educated inside the regular education classroom for 80% or more of the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). Participants in the study included all special education teachers and a random selection of general education teachers teaching students in grades 7-9. Given the grades identified, two buildings out of the six within the district served as interview sites. Fort Couch Middle School houses grades 7 and 8, and Upper St. Clair High School houses grade 9. The study does not include any active engagement with students. However, a random selection of 15 student IEPs across each of the three grade levels being studied will be selected for an analysis through a checklist developed by the researcher. IEPs selected were of students with various needs; however, each of the selected students needed to be included in the general education setting for a minimum 70% of the school day. Throughout the district, the majority of special education students receive instruction in the general education setting for 80% or more of the day. Throughout the study, all actively engaged participants received information related to voluntary participation, consent, and a process to withdraw from the study. Informed consent was indicated by agreeing to participate in the questionnaire on the first Google Form slide. If a participant indicated that they did not wish to participate, the questionnaire was not provided. When a participant was notified for the semi-structured interview, the interview disclosure was provided in advance (Appendix A). In order to schedule an interview, a participant was provided with a calendly.org link for “Action Research” participation. If an individual did not wish to participate, they would not INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 44 select a time to be interviewed. At the onset of an interview, the disclosure was provided to be signed, and then a statement related to consent and withdrawing from the study was read. Intervention and Research Plan Given the literature review, it is clear that special education inclusionary practices have been a focal point of studies, legal cases, and implementation of best practices within the field of special education. The research plan collected various forms of data in order to provide both general and special educators with recommendations to enhance the overall experience for students and teachers related to the implementation of inclusionary practices. The implementation of consistent inclusionary practices will increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide a framework to guide professional development for staff. The research plan began officially in January 2023 by collecting qualitative data through several sources. Data was collected from participants who are currently or who have implemented special education inclusionary practices. Inquiry data was collected on the perceptions and experiences of the educational professionals. Given the first-hand experiences of participants, the data provided the researcher with meaningful personal insights and experiential information. Additional qualitative information was also collected by analyzing IEP documents utilizing a researcher designed checklist. First in the research process, a questionnaire was issued to special educators in grades 7-9 via Google Forms to collect information on the first research question, “What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” All eight special education teachers in grades 7-9 received an email with INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 45 information related to the questionnaire. It was made clear throughout the questionnaire communication and consent that the information collected would be anonymous. A 100% participation rate of special educators was achieved for the questionnaire a The semi-structured interview protocol also collected information on the first question. Based on the responses from the questionnaires and throughout the interview, additional follow up questions were asked. The protocol also provided participants the opportunity to further expand on their perceptions and provide recommendations for improvement. Given the small sample of available special education teachers in grades 7-9, all eight special education teachers were selected to participate in the semi-structured interview. Teachers were contacted via email in a confidential manner that other participants would not see who was selected. When emailed, the disclosure and consent was attached to the email. A link through calendly.org was provided for ease of scheduling and identifying a location within their building for the interview to occur. Teachers were reminded that participation was voluntary, and if they wished to not participate, then a time to be interviewed should not be selected. No reminder emails for participation were necessary to be sent for scheduling. A 100% participation rate of special educators was achieved for the semi-structured interview. In order for data to be collected on the second research question, “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? a random selection process was conducted for the general education teachers to receive the general education questionnaire. The random selection process was completed by having a list of all 7th thru 9th grade core content area teachers identified in a list sorted by grade level. Each teacher received a number. A website, random.org, was utilized to pick the INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 46 random numbers for teacher selection. Six teachers from each grade level were selected totaling 18 teachers. Teachers identified as “special areas/elective” teachers were also identified and placed in one list. Three teachers from this list were selected. Overall, 21 general education teachers were selected for the questionnaire. Once the selection process was completed, the general education teachers received an email with information related to the questionnaire. A reminder email was sent to general education teachers a week after the initial prompt to complete the questionnaire. It was also made clear throughout the questionnaire communication and consent that the information collected would be anonymous. One general educator selected to not participate in the study and three did not respond. Therefore, the response rate by general educators was 81% with 77% of general educators completing the questionnaire. The semi-structured interview protocol continued the data collection process on perceptions and observable inclusionary practices. Two teachers at each grade level in content area courses were randomly selected to participate in the interview totaling six interviews to be conducted with general educators. The random selection process was completed by having a list of all 7th thru 9th grade core content area teachers identified in a list sorted by grade level. Each teacher received a number. A website, random.org, was utilized to pick the random numbers for teacher selection. Two teachers from each grade level were selected totaling six teachers in core content areas. Teachers were contacted via email in a confidential manner that other participants would not see who was selected. When emailed, the disclosure and consent was attached to the email. A link through calendly.org was provided for ease of scheduling and identifying a location for the interview in their building. Teachers were reminded that participation was INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 47 voluntary, and if they wished to not participate, then a time to be interviewed should not be selected. One reminder email for participation was sent notifying randomly selected individuals that this would be the last email sent for participation. A 67 % participation rate of general educators was achieved for the semi-structured interview. Based on the responses from the questionnaires and throughout the interview, additional follow up questions were asked. The protocol also provided participants the opportunity to further expand on their perceptions and provide recommendations for improvement. The background of participants in the semi-structured interviews is included in Table 1. Participant information will provide further insight on the perspectives and experiences of general and special educators. A range of 3 years to 28 years of experience was identified. The information on participants will serve as a component of the data analysis to support final conclusions and recommendations. Given the nature of the random selection process and voluntary participation, the participation rate of the general educators could also serve as a limitation to this study. At the conclusion of the data collection window, four general educators were participants in the semi-structured interviews. Table 1 Participants in the Semi-Structured Interviews Participant Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Primary Job Duty Special Educator Special Educator Teacher 3 Special Educator Teacher 4 Special Educator Specific Content/Responsibility 7th and 8th math resource ELA and math resource 7th ELA inclusion 8th ELA inclusion 8th math inclusion (Algebra) 7th math inclusion (PreAlgebra) 7th and 8th ELA resource Total years of Experience 18 11 22 15 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Teacher 5 Special Educator Teacher 6 Special Educator Teacher 7 Special Educator Teacher 8 Special Educator Techer 9 Teacher 10 Teacher 11 Teacher 12 Teacher 13 Teacher 14 Regular Educator Regular Educator Regular Educator Regular Educator Regular Educator Regular Educator 8th ELA inclusion 7th ELA inclusion 8th math resource 7th math inclusion 9th and 11th ALS* 9th math resource 9th conceptual Bio inclusion 9th and 11th ALS 9th ALS 9th English resource 9th English inclusion 7th grade social studies 7th grade English 8th grade Algebra 9th grade Biology 9th grade English 9th grade social studies 48 12 28 15 15 19 3 23 15 No response No response Once the questionnaires were issued to the special and general educators, the focus began to shift on collecting data for the research question, “What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” Data was collected through a researcher developed checklist evaluating the inclusionary practices included within a student’s IEP. Student IEPs were randomly selected utilizing the IEP management system, IEP writer. A spreadsheet was created to include all students in grades 7-9 receiving special education services. When the spreadsheet was created, only a student identification number was included along with a grade level. The spreadsheet was sorted by grade level. In order to have an IEP reviewed, the student needed to be included in the general education setting for 70% or more of the school day. In addition, students receiving services through either life skills or emotional support were not included in order keep the IEP analysis specific to learning support or speech and language support students. Based on the researcher’s professional background, students INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 49 receiving special education through life skills or emotional support have a vast and varied amount of specially designed instruction that could possibly go beyond the scope of the study. Within each grade level, 15 students were selected totaling 45 IEP documents for review. It is important to note that it may not be possible for the student’s name to remain completely anonymous given the nature of an IEP document; however, the student identifying information is not relevant to the outcomes of the study. The primary section of the IEP to review will be Section VI: Program Modifications and Specially Designed Instruction while keeping in mind type and level of special education support. The final research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?” also utilized multiple modes of data collection. This question was examined by responses collected on the questionnaires and through the semi-structured interview protocol. In addition, the IEP checklist analysis yielded a great deal of information on this question. Fiscal implications related to the study are minimal. In order to conduct the study, no costs are being incurred by the district. Based on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations a possibility does exist that additional fiscal responsibilities may be connected to professional development for staff related to the research topic. Given the various special education mandates, the fiscal responsibilities related to this study are already dictated by law and essential for the district to be in compliance for the implementation of special education supports and services. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 50 Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection A qualitative research method was implemented utilizing multiple forms of data collection to answer the research questions. The data collection measures utilized included questionnaires, semi-structured interview guides, and a researcher developed checklist to review student IEPs. Risks to participants was minimal and only included a certain population of staff who have direct experience related to the research topic. Educators completing the questionnaires remained anonymous and due to the nature of the semi-structured interview, participants could not remain anonymous, but were informed at minimum three times that participation was voluntary. Students were not involved in the study. Questionnaires were completed through a Google Form to answer questions related to special education inclusionary practices. Consent was gathered prior to beginning the survey. The information collected through the questionnaire was electronically transferred to a spreadsheet for analysis. Data collected through the questionnaires will be analyzed for emerging trends in order to provide answers related to the correlated research questions. Semi-structured interviews were completed in either of the two identified buildings with consenting participants. The interview guides were completed during the interview with the researcher taking scripted responses for each question. The interview guides were kept on a passcode protected USB. The semi-structured interview gathered open-ended data on the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the inclusionary practices form the educators selected to participate in the action research study. Confidentiality of the interviews was maintained by each interview being assigned a number with no mention INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 51 of teacher name during the interview. The only identifiable information will be who is a general educator and special educator for the purposes of the study. Data collected through the semi-structured interviews will be analyzed for emerging trends in order to provide answers related to the correlated research questions. The IEP checklist analysis was completed by the researcher. Based on the criteria to review IEPs of students included 70% or more of the school day and also to focus on students receiving learning support and speech and language support, 45 IEPs were selected, 15 at each grade level. The analysis of the IEPs took longer than the researcher had anticipated given the numerous varied accommodations within the specially designed instruction. In addition, some of the content being analyzed in each IEP was not located in a consistent area making it difficult for the researcher to just focus on certain areas within the IEP. During this process, the researcher’s knowledge of IEPs was beneficial, but the inconsistent writing added time to each IEP review. The researcher would spend a range of time from between 5 to 15 minutes completing the IEP checklists. Information collected will be further analyzed in Chapter IV. The data collection period took place over a two-month window between January 2023 and March 2023 (Table 2). The developed data collection timeline was adhered to throughout the study. Questionnaires were provided first to special educators. The random selection process for general educators was completed in order to next provide the general education questionnaire to selected participants. While participants were completing the questionnaire, the semi-structured interviews began to be scheduled. The interviews were conducted first with special educators. While this process was taking place, the general educators to participate in the semi-structured interview were selected. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 52 The interviews with general educators were scheduled next. Throughout the interview process, the analysis of student IEP documents was also taking place. Table 2 Data Collection Timeline Research Questions What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? Data Collection Timeline Questionnaire-All special educators Administer teaching students in grades 7-9 will January 2023 be provided with a questionnaire to complete related to perceptions of Administer inclusionary practices February/March 2023 Semi-Structured interview Protocol-All special educators teaching grades 7-9 will be included Questionnaire-Six randomly Administer selected general educators from January 2023 each grade level in grades 7-9 will be selected (totaling 21 completed questionnaires) Administer March/April 2023 What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans? Semi-Structured Interview Protocol-Two randomly selected general educators from each grade level in grades 7-9 will be selected to participate (6 total) IEP checklist for evaluating inclusionary practices within the IEP-15 student IEPs will be selected at each grade level totaling 45 IEPs will be evaluated Semi-structured Interview Protocol Administer February thru March 2023 What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9? Data Sources This question will yield answers based on additional clarification Administer January thru March 2023 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 53 during the semi-structured interview process An analysis of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and the IEPs will yield answers to this question The data collection tools utilized asked for information that correlated with the capstone project research questions that were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Penn West University-California. IRB approval was received on October 18, 2022. This approval was received via email designated in Appendix G. All data collection instruments are attached (Appendices A thru D). Consent for participation was also approved by the IRB (Appendices E and F). The research design, methods, and data collection were planned intentionally in order to yield the necessary information for the purpose of the study. An effective timeline was developed for data collection. The developed data collection tools engaged the randomly selected participants. All data collected was in alignment with the research questions and provided rich and experiential insights from randomly selected professionals. The validity and limitations will provide further critical information related to the findings of the study. Validity Triangulation is “a method in which multiple forms of data are collected and compared to enhance the validity and credibility of a research study” (Hendricks, 2017). Multiple strategies of data collection were utilized to increase the validity of the data collection throughout this action research study resulting in triangulation of the data. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 54 Based on the type of study and processes utilized, the study is credible, transferable, and dependable. Utilizing multiple data sources, or triangulating the data, in this qualitative action research study help strengthen the validity and credibility of the study. By identifying participants who have close connections to the research topic, personal and professional in-depth knowledge collected for analysis is credible. The qualitative data collected included the opportunity for participants to provide insight through a questionnaire completed by the participant. Detailed note taking by the researcher through interviews captured additional information related to special education inclusionary practices. With an analysis of student IEP’s another form of data was collected that was concrete and provided through authentic written documents. Due to the appropriate nature of action research based on the identified problem results of the study can be transferable to other settings and individuals within the district or other districts of similar structure resources. If this study was to occur in another district of similar demographics, setting, and programmatic design, the initial results of this study would lead to ongoing investigation with other participants. Within the current setting, the results would also provide to be useful at other grade levels and transition points to make recommendations that would enhance programmatic fidelity. Study findings have a high level of dependability. Though a small random sample size was utilized, a variety of participants were selected. The participants were told throughout the data collection process that participation was voluntary. In addition, researchers were informed through consent what information would be collected anonymously and what information would be identified by a participant number. By INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 55 utilizing appropriate consent methods, participants were provided ample opportunity to not participate and have a clear understanding of the goal of the research study. Based on selection, informed consent, and methodology of the study, findings would be able to be replicated to other participants and settings. As a result, the study findings are dependable to support additional research in this area. Limitations Several variables may have served as limitations to the study. Initial limitations were due to provided timelines and the nature of action research. This particular study focused on a targeted population to include teachers and students in grades 7-9. In order to conduct the necessary research in the provided time frame with reasonable data amounts to analyze, it was necessary to limit the scope. Additional identified limitations included sample size, knowledge of the researcher, and the researcher’s presumed bias. The overall sample size of participants utilized in the study is a limitation. A smaller sample size was determined to be necessary to complete the study within a designated timeframe and to have manageable data to analyze. However, the participation size is a “snapshot” of district teachers who provide instruction to students receiving special education services. The participants give a small sample of teacher perceptions and experiential information of the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices in grades 7-9. The 50% participation rate of general educators is also a limitation related to the sample population. Also, by selecting only active classroom teachers, an important group of stakeholders, building principals, were not included in the study. Principals are key members of IEP teams, and as the required local education agency member of an IEP team, are responsible for the implementation of INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 56 services in the building. Future studies with more participants, including Principals and assistant principals, could impact the collection and analysis of the data and provide more thorough conclusions or recommendations based on a greater data set. A second potential limitation of the study could also be the nature of the action research environment. Though the selected participants were valid and credible based on educational and professional experiences, a possibility does exist that the participants were too familiar with the researcher’s invested interest in the research topic due to being a former special educator in the district. Therefore, responses could potentially be skewed if the participants did not provide their own constructive and specific feedback. Though action research provides the benefit of researching a topic within a researcher’s work environment, the relationship of the participants to the researcher could impact responses and outcomes. The third limitation is the researcher’s presumed bias to the topic and participants. As a former special educator, director of student support services, and now an assistant superintendent, the researcher has an invested interest in the topic and a clear passion in the field of special education. Though the participant selection process was done in a way to reduce bias, the researcher may have different experiences and knowledge about participants related to the topic. Even with the development of specific questions and random selection to reduce bias, the researcher could be unaware of personal and professional biases within the study. Summary This qualitative research study was designed to gain insights from individuals with first-hand knowledge and experience related to the implementation of inconsistent INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 57 special education inclusionary practices. A study was warranted in this area in order to provide recommendations and conclusions that lead to more consistent and fluid experiences for student and teachers across classrooms, grade levels, and content area. Chapter III Methodology outlined the purpose of the study, participants and setting, intervention/research plan, and methods of data collection. In addition, methods of validity and limitations were identified. Multiple data points were collected. The data were collected through three methods-a questionnaire, a semi-structured interview, and a researcher developed checklist. The participants were active teachers within two school settings teaching special education students in grades 7-9. By collecting information on special educator and general educator teachers’ perceptions and observations and analyzing IEPs, the data collected will help guide conclusions and recommendations to increase programmatic fidelity and consistency for teachers and students. Finally, by utilizing various forms of inquiry data, the study yielded rich data to inform conclusions and recommendations in the area of special education inclusionary practices. The analysis will provide results to the identified research questions and will be communicated in the following chapter-Chapter IV-Data Analysis and Results. By conducting this action research study, the researcher has been able to provide opportunities within the identified district for reflection of practices that can enhance the opportunity for educators to participate in new practices to increase the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 58 Chapter IV Data Analysis and Results In this chapter, the data analysis and results are presented in alignment with the four research questions that were identified in the previous chapters. The results include primarily qualitative data gathered through questionnaires and participation in semistructured interviews from special education and general education teachers. Minimal quantitative data was collected utilizing a Likert Scale during the structured interview process. Additionally, data specific to student IEPs in grades 7-9, was collected through a researcher designed checklist. Data collection was specific to special education and general education teacher’s perceptions related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices, the inclusionary practices implemented, and identified inclusionary practices within IEPs. Throughout the analysis and summary of results, the researcher examined the data for themes and patterns within responses. The themes and patterns began to answer the four research questions and will lead to further recommendations on steps to develop in order to implement more consistent inclusionary practices for students in grades 7-9. The data collected and analyzed is specific to one district, but the data analysis could benefit other districts with similar demographics, percentage of special education students, and level of special education resources. Data Analysis Multiple tools were utilized in order to collect data that was primarily qualitative in nature. Data was collected over a two-month period of time by utilizing a questionnaire, semi-structured interview guides, and a researcher-developed checklist to INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 59 analyze student IEPs. The data collection was not designed to provide comparative data after an intervention. Data was collected in order to be critically analyzed to provide further recommendations based on the key research questions. By utilizing an online google form questionnaire format for special educators and general educators, all responses were easily transferred into an Excel spreadsheet or pie charts. The researcher utilized a coding scheme to review open-ended responses by looking for positive (+) and negative comments (-). This data was reported on an additional tab within the Excel spreadsheet. Additional open-ended response questions also resulted in comments being reported on the newly created tab to begin to look for emerging trends within comments and recommendations provided by teachers. The information reported was color-coded for further analysis. The teacher semi-structured interview responses were analyzed by the researcher similarly to the questionnaires. However, given that all of the interview responses were collected by the researcher on a document, the coding scheme required an individual review of each participant’s responses. The goal of the process was similar to the analysis of the questionnaire. The researcher utilized a coding scheme to review openended responses by looking for positive (+) and negative comments (-). This data was reported on an additional tab within the Excel spreadsheet. Additional open-ended response questions also resulted in comments being reported on the newly created tab to begin to look for emerging trends within comments and recommendations provided by teachers. The information reported was color coded for further analysis. A final component of the data analysis was the review of the IEP checklists. The researcher reviewed components of the checklist to answer the questions “What are the INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 60 identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” The completion of the checklists required more time than initially anticipated by the researcher. This was due to the various degree of student need that may have included more SDI in the IEP and/or the method in which the SDI were written. Once the checklists were completed, the analysis was conducted by condensing information onto a spreadsheet. Type of special education support was tallied by hand. A summary of the percentage of time a student participates in the general education setting was developed. The identified SDI on the checklist were listed with a manual collection of the SDI, and the identification of whether the SDI was “specific to provide consistent implementation”. Additional notes for further recommendation were collected. This component of the data analysis was time intensive in order to determine the best method of reporting the data. Results Four different data collection sets were analyzed: the special education teacher questionnaire, the general education teacher questionnaire, semi-structured interview guides with identical questions for the special education and general education teachers, and the IEP checklist. When beginning the data analysis phase, the researcher broke the data results into sections: special education teachers’ responses, general education teachers’ responses, and IEP checklist themes. Information analyzed related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and professional development are included at the conclusion of the results section. Given that the majority of the data collected was qualitative, by breaking the data results into sections, themes and patterns will be reported through either percentages, qualitative statements, or narrative based on the INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 61 emerging trends and patterns identified. All respondents provided meaningful input in various ways when completing the questionnaire and/or participating in the semistructured interviews. Special Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis The special education teacher questionnaire (Appendix C) was completed by eight special educators with varied years of teaching experience. When analyzing the questionnaire, the majority of the questions were open-ended to receive an in-depth understanding of the implementation of inclusionary practices. Additionally, three specific questions allowed the respondent to provide a “yes” or “no” response. The questions were specific to the implementation of inclusionary practices across grade levels, classrooms, and content areas. When asked “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across grade levels?”, the majority of respondents (62.5%) indicated that inclusionary practices were not implemented consistently across grade levels (Figure 1). Special educators were also asked to reflect on the consistent implementation of inclusionary practices in their own classes as shown in Figure 2. The majority of respondents, 75% said “yes” that inclusionary practices were implemented consistently in their classroom. In contrast, when specifically asked, “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across content areas?” only 12. 5 %, 1 respondent (Figure 3), indicated “yes”. Based on the responses from three “yes” or “no” questions, it is evident that special educators have a perception that inclusionary practices are not implemented consistently. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Figure 1 Special Educator Across Grade Levels Figure 2 Special Educator Across Own Classes Figure 3 Special Educator Across Content Areas 62 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 63 The questionnaire completed by special educators provided insight on the definition of inclusionary practices. Based on the review of the definitions provided and the consideration of the literature review in Chapter II, 75% of the respondents provided definitions that were in alignment with definitions included in Chapter II. Jamie Pearson, Ph.D, stated that inclusive education means that students with and without disabilities learn alongside one another, in the same classroom setting, with lessons that are accessible for all (Bowen, 2020). Three out of eight (38% of respondents) specifically mentioned co-teaching or references to classroom support as part of their definition. When further analyzing the special educator questionnaire, it appears that questions 6 and 7 on the survey yielded similar responses even though the questions were clearly looking to identify two separate pieces of information. Question 6 asked participants, “If you have identified that inconsistencies are observed/do exist, identify the inconsistencies that students experience.” Whereas, question 7 asked participants, “What would you identify as reasons to why inclusionary practices are implemented consistently or inconsistently for the students on your special education caseload?” However, it could be inferred that the participants also identify that the inconsistencies are also the reasons for the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices. For example, the mindset of the general education/co- teacher was an identified theme across both questions. In response to question 6, one of the major themes identified for inconsistencies was how the special educator is utilized in the general education classroom. Five out of eight, 63% of the respondents indicated that how teacher support is utilized contributes to the inconsistencies that students experience. Participant 6 stated, “I think we still INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 64 struggle with co-teaching models. I can identify various models in our building that demonstrate true co-teaching and models that still function with the co-teacher acting as a support professional, and that is not what best practices look like.” Another identified inconsistency was the teacher not following specific accommodations. This will be further discussed when reviewing the analysis of the IEP checklists. The reasons for inconsistencies had three common themes: planning (time and common planning time), mindset of some general education teachers, and staffing (consistent co-teaching staff and staffing to support consistent practices). Additional comments for inconsistencies included individuals needing to know how to co-teach, the lack of special education teacher content knowledge, and the emphasis put on educator effectiveness through The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) and Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS) scores. Special Education Teacher Interview Analysis The special education teacher semi-structured interview provided further information to answer the research questions, “What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” and “What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?”. The majority of the questions provided the interview participants with opportunities to give open-ended responses based on their experiences. However, two questions were developed to require the participant rate their comfort and effectiveness related to the implementation of inclusionary practices on a scale of 1-5. Overall, the interviews with special educators provided the researcher with considerable insight to the practices happening within INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 65 grades 7-9 and strong recommendations for continued growth within this area to enhance consistent and programmatic experiences for students. Special education teachers were asked to discuss their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of inclusionary practices. Once all interviews were conducted, responses were divided into positive and negative perceptions. In addition, the responses were also broken out by grade level due to student schedule differences in the middle school and high school. Table 3 provides the overall themes connected to the positive and negative perceptions on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices. Table 3 Special Education Teacher Perceptions Negative Perceptions Positive Perceptions Grades 7 and 8 Grade 9 When not done well, leads to lack of understanding and lack of respect in adult relationships Comments about parent complaints and behaviors of students Need planning time to implement effectively Preferential seating is overused Effective when teacher is in all one content area Availability of audio materials for all students When it is done right, kids benefit District has many resources to implement practices Co-teaching Reading in the content area is difficult for students in upper grade levels Need common planning time to implement effectively Inclusion support in English and science for small group, attention, student/staff ratio Three areas related to the implementation of inclusionary practices were teacher comfort, teacher effectiveness, and professional development. When special educators INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 66 were asked to rate their comfort level on a scale of 1 to 5, the average response for comfort was 4.625; whereas, effectiveness had an average rating of 3.875. Concerns related to effectiveness included the amount of available planning time and the need to know the content when working in a new co-taught content area classroom. Fifty percent of the special educators interviewed indicated that they have had some form of professional development, but all indicated that they have not had recent professional development particularly in the area of co-teaching. During the interview process, the researcher asked questions with a focus on stakeholder feedback, parents and students, related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. An analysis of responses yielded a continuum of responses related to parental attitudes, but nothing specific to inclusionary practices. However, a theme was identified in parental feedback consistent to transition years between buildings. When a student transitions to a different level within the district some parents express concern and lack clarity on services. Parents question the difference in how a student is scheduled or where a student should seek support. Student feedback did not yield responses related to inclusionary practices, but it does appear that students focus more on specific teacher feedback than the actual focus on supports and services that they receive through his/her IEPs. General Education Teacher Questionnaire Analysis The general education teacher questionnaire (Appendix B) was completed by general educators randomly selected across content areas. When analyzing the questionnaire, the majority of the questions were open-ended to receive an in-depth understanding of the implementation of inclusionary practices. Three specific questions INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 67 allowed the respondents to provide a “yes” or “no” response. The questions were specific to the implementation of inclusionary practices across grade levels, classrooms, and content areas. When asked “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across grade levels?”, the majority of respondents (56.3%) indicated that inclusionary practices were implemented consistently across grade levels (Figure 4). Similar to special educators, general educators were also asked to reflect on the consistent implementation of inclusionary practices in their own classes (Figure 5). The majority of respondents, 68.8% said “Yes” that inclusionary practices were implemented consistently in their classroom. Finally, when asked, “Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across content areas?” 62.5% (Figure 6) indicated “Yes”. Based on the responses from three “yes” or “no” questions, it appears that general educators have a perception that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across their own classes, grade levels, and content areas on average 62.5% of the time. This would be in contrast to how special educators are viewing the implementation of inclusionary practices. As a result, this difference in perception between the two groups could be another variable contributing to the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Figure 4 General Educator Across Grade Level Figure 5 General Educator Across Own Classes 68 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 69 Figure 6 General Educator Across Content Areas The questionnaire completed by general educators also provided insight on the definition of inclusionary practices. A range of definitions was provided by the general educators on Question 1 within the survey. However, based on the review of the definitions provided and the consideration of the literature review in Chapter II, 75% of the respondents provided definitions that were in alignment with definitions included in Chapter II. The responses analyzed with the 75% alignment included statements of inclusion (regular education and special education), full access to learning, and coteaching. Separately, three teachers (18.75% of respondents) identified specific accommodations provided as the definition for inclusionary practices. One definition would be considered a mindset response, “Allowing special education students to participate as much as they’re able.” However, though the researcher has analyzed this as a mindset based on the word “allowing”; it is possible that the respondent used the word “allowing” in a way that was not meant to be a mindset approach. This response will be further discussed in Chapter V. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 70 Similar to the special education teacher interview, general educators were asked to identify the inconsistencies that are observed and reasons why the inclusionary practices are implemented consistently or inconsistently. When further analyzing the general educator questionnaire, respondents provided overlapping responses to both questions. However, it could be inferred that the participants also identify that the inconsistencies are also the reasons for the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices. For example, mindset of educators, special education teacher follow-up and support, student perceptions, and adequate staffing were included in statements across both questions. When general educators were asked to identify the inconsistencies, 31% responded that this question was not applicable to them. The open-ended responses did not yield any thematic patterns related to the inconsistencies. Thorough responses were provided for further consideration by the researcher. One particular response would be necessary to further consider when exploring the data summary of the IEP checklists. Respondent 14 stated, “Students in my academic level class often do not use all of the accommodations that they have available to them. In the academic setting accommodations are often unwelcome to the student because they may draw unwanted attention to themselves. For example, testing in an alternative setting requires them to not be in with their peers when a test is given.” Additional responses for consideration included staffing (amount of and qualifications), remembering the amount and type of accommodations for students, and the varied opinions of educators. The reasons for inconsistencies included teacher mindset, staffing, and relationships. Mindset rationale included statements related to how parents leverage an INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 71 IEP. It was also clear that general education teachers have varied experiences with special education staffing to include aides and/or teachers. Statements related to inadequate staffing amounts were reflected more as an inconsistency versus a reason as identified in this question. Regarding relationships, respondents identified five statements that provided insight on the importance of relationships with students and the special education teacher. Additional comments for inconsistencies included the role of the high school student schedule and time within a student’s schedule to provide support. Finally, 94% (15/16) of the respondents felt that they contributed to a student’s IEP and recommendations for support in a meaningful way. General Educator Teacher Interview Analysis The general educator teacher semi-structured interview provided further information to answer the research questions, “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” and “What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?”. The instrument tool for this data collection was identical to the semi-structured interview protocol used to gather information from special education teachers. The interviews with general educators provided a different perspective than special educators, but one consistent area was related to teacher mindset. As an overview, the perspectives on some of the accommodations varied as well as what is needed for professional development. However, general educator interviews, though limited, provided the researcher with considerable insight to the practices happening within grades 7-9 and strong recommendations for continued growth within this area to enhance consistent and programmatic experiences for students. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 72 General education teachers were asked to discuss their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of inclusionary practices. Once all the interviews were conducted, responses were divided into positive and negative perceptions (Table 4). Due to the limited participation rate of the general educators in the interview, the responses will not be divided by levels, but will be presented as an overall summary of negative and positive perceptions. Table 4 General Education Teacher Perceptions Negative Perceptions Not enough resources to adequately meet the needs of students Inconsistent perspectives between special education and general education Testing accommodations due to preparing students for the Keystones, because Keystone accommodations are restricted Positive Perceptions Preferential seating is effective if used appropriately Students have a huge line of support through the ALS (applied learning strategies) teacher Co-teaching goes fairly well when a relationship exists between the special education and general education teacher Remediation support is a positive Three areas related to the implementation of inclusionary practices were teacher comfort, teacher effectiveness, and professional development. When general educators were asked to rate their comfort level, the average response for comfort was 4.625; whereas, effectiveness had an average of rating 4.375. Concerns related to effectiveness included the level of need within a classroom and being able to meet the needs of every INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 73 student. One out of four teachers indicated that they have received some professional development in this area, but it was more specific to student support services than inclusionary practices. Seventy-five percent (3 out of 4) indicated that the student needs sessions provided at the beginning of the school year are beneficial, but often overwhelming. All general educators indicated a desire to have further professional development related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and special education. More specifically, two indicated that training on the special education process and understanding the legality of the document is needed. During the interview process, a focus was also placed on stakeholder feedback, parents and students, related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. One out of four teachers (25%) indicated that they have received positive feedback related to inclusion and appreciation for the student experience. However, the majority indicated that parents typically go to the special education teacher for questions or feedback. Student feedback did not yield any specific responses related to inclusionary practices. Implementing Consistent Inclusionary Practices During the semi-structured interview process, special educators and general educators were both asked “In order for you to more effectively implement consistent inclusion practices, what do you need? What recommendations or suggestions would assist you?” Table 5 identifies themes in response to the questions. The information for this question set was analyzed separately, but in order to support further recommendations, it is important to report the information in a manner that demonstrates the similar needs between the two groups of educators. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 74 Table 5 Themes of Recommendations or Suggestions Special Education General Education Time and planning with co-teacher Time and Space Review SDI checklists more throughout the year Professional development on inclusion (general education teachers have misconceptions-understand the special education process and legality of the document Allow a special education teacher to become a content expert for inclusion Provide customized feedback on student placement, scheduling Student scheduling (spread students across sections) Professional Development on co-teaching Professional development on co-teaching Based on the identified themes across the two groups, special educator and general educator, it is evident that the recommendations and suggestions are similar in nature, but perhaps based on different experiences. General educators wish to have professional development in order to understand the process of special education and coteaching. Special educators see the need for ongoing professional development related to co-teaching in order to continue to further enhance the experiences for teachers and students. Overall, the common similarity in themes is the need for time to plan. IEP Checklist Analysis The researcher developed an IEP Checklist (Appendix D) in order to collect information to answer the research question, “What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” Overall, 45 IEPs across the three grade levels were analyzed. Data collected in this area also provided further INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 75 insight to draw connections between what is written in a legal document and the input gathered from the teacher participants. Results from the analysis will include the following information: level/type of special education supports, percentage included within the general education setting, and frequently identified inclusionary practices (specially designed instruction, SDI). The study was limited to students identified as learning support or speech and language support. IEPs that were specific to special education programs in the district such as life skills support and emotional support were not included in the study. In addition to the identified inclusionary practices, a summary will be developed based on the determination of the ability to implement an SDI consistently. Prior to providing the information from the IEP checklists, it is necessary to provide further background information on the content being reported. A student’s IEP must indicate the type of special education support and include the amount and type of support. For the purpose of this study, the randomly selected IEPs included students with an amount of special education support, which was itinerant or supplemental. The amount is known as “face-time” with special education personnel. Itinerant support occurs when special education supports and services are provided by special education personnel for 20% or less of the school day. Supplemental support occurs when services provided by special education personnel is more than 20% but less than 80%. Type was either speech and language support or learning support. The final aspect is the “space time”, so the percentage of time a student is included in the regular classroom. An analysis of the 15 randomly selected IEPs in 7th grade yielded the following information. In 7th grade, 80% (Figure 7) of students were receiving a supplemental level INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 76 of support. Twelve out of the 15 IEPs have students participating in the general education setting for 80% or more of a scheduled school day. Figure 7 7th Grade Type of Special Education Support 13% 7% 80% Supplemental LS Itinerant LS Speech/Language Based on the information in Table 6, seven SDI were identified more frequently out of the 15 IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. SDI that included clear frequencies, examples, and frequency were determined to be written specific for implementation. For example, many of the extended time accommodations had a percentage provided. The researcher is aware that this is necessary for future College Board accommodation requests. Preferential seating was considered to be written specific if a location or rationale was provided such as “away from distractions or near the point of instruction”. Additional SDI were written in some student IEPs that were specifically written based on the individual needs of a student. One example that provided specificity included, “Check-ins during individual work to monitor completion and behaviors”. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 77 Table 6 7th Grade Frequently Identified SDI Specially Designed Instruction Number of Students Specific to Provide Consistent Implementation (Percentage) Extended Time 11 82% Small Group Testing 13 77% Preferential Seating 8 88% Scheduled Support 10 100% Organizational Support 7 71% Executive Functioning (Chunking assignments) 9 56% 1:1 Editing 6 50% The analysis of the 15 randomly selected IEPs in 8h grade provided further insight related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. In 8th grade, 87% (Figure 8) of students were receiving a supplemental level of support. Similar to 7th grade, a majority of students, 10 out of the 15 IEPs in 8th grade, identified that students are participating in the general education setting for 80% or more of a scheduled school day. No students receiving speech and language support were randomly selected. Based on this information, the level of special education support provided in 7th and 8th fluctuates slightly while the time spent in the general education setting is consistent. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 78 Figure 8 8th Grade Type of Special Education Support 13% 87% Supplemental LS Itinerant LS Based on the information in Table 7, seven SDI were identified more frequently out of the 15 eighth grade IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. SDI that included clear frequencies, examples, and specificity were determined to be written for consistent implementation. Again, many of the extended time accommodations had a percentage provided. Small group testing was extremely specific to identify at either the end of a unit of study/topic. Preferential seating was considered to be written specific if a location or rationale was provided such as “near positive peers”. When considering the specificity of 1:1 editing, two IEPs specified for “lengthier assignments” which provided guidance on when to implement; whereas one IEP identified frequency as daily. This will be further discussed in Chapter V, however, the ability to implement 1:1 editing on a consistent and daily basis could present challenges for implementation. The researcher noticed that additional SDI were included in several students’ IEPs related to writing supports. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 79 Table 7 8th Grade Frequently Identified SDI Specially Designed Instruction Number of Students Specific to Provide Consistent Implementation (Percentage) Extended Time 10 77% Small Group Testing 14 100% Preferential Seating 5 80% Scheduled Support 7 86% Graphic Organizers 5 40% Executive Functioning (Chunking assignments) 8 88% 1:1 Editing 7 23% The final set of data reviewed was the completed checklists of the 15 randomly selected IEPs in 9th grade. As identified in Figure 9, 60% of students were receiving a supplemental level of support. Scheduled support was not referenced in the analyzed IEPs, but more specifically course selection such as “Inclusion English 9” was included. Out of the 15 IEPs, nine students were participating in the general education setting for 80% or more of a scheduled school day. It is also not common to have a student receiving speech and language services in the 9th grade. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 80 Figure 9 9th Grade Type of Special Education Support 7% 33% 60% Supplemental LS Itinerant LS Speech/Language Based on the information in Table 8, six SDI were identified more frequently out of the 15 ninth grade IEP’s reviewed with the data collection tool. Again, many of the extended time accommodations had a percentage provided. Small group testing was extremely specific to identify at either the end of a unit of study/topic. Preferential seating was considered to be written specific if a location or rationale was provided. The amount of SDI written into IEPs appeared to decrease in IEPs that had required annual meetings during the school year prior to the data collection window. However, some SDI were still more specific to the middle school needs of the student. Table 8 9th Grade Frequently Identified SDI Specially Designed Instruction Number of Students Specific to Provide Consistent Implementation (Percentage) Extended Time 11 82% Small Group Testing 14 100% Preferential Seating 5 100% Graphic Organizers 5 100% INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 81 Executive Functioning (Chunking assignments) 12 67% 1:1 Editing 3 67% Discussion The purpose of this action research study was to collect data from educators who are working with students receiving special education services in order to further understand the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices and identify findings to aid in the development of a framework for professional development that would increase the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. Once the data was collected and analyzed through the developed tools, the identified themes and patterns were able to provide the researcher with the ability to provide insight to the four research questions: • What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? • What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices? • What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans? • What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9? The collected and analyzed data will provide additional conclusions and recommendations. Based on the information that was collected, it is clear that teachers, special education and general education, have varied definitions of inclusionary practices, observe inconsistencies within the implementation of the practices, and have identified INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 82 reasons for the inconsistencies related to time, staff, teacher mindset, and a need for professional development. However, those interviewed did identify a level of comfort with implementing inclusionary practices, but due to the identified reasons for inconsistencies varied ratings connected to effectiveness were evident. Overall, the 45 IEPs that were analyzed could provide a broad summary of information regarding the district and future needs. The literature review provided data specific to the Upper St. Clair School District. The district’s special education data report identified that 68.2% of special education students received instruction in the regular education classroom for 80% or more of the school day (Pennsylvania State Data Center, 2022). When condensing the data from the random selection, 68.9% of the students are included in regular education classes for 80% or more of the school day. Finally, when combining the percentages of the most common SDI in IEPs, 75.55% of the SDI are written specific enough for consistent implementation. Data was triangulated through the use of four various types of data collection tools and methods: the special education teacher questionnaire, the general education teacher questionnaire, semi-structured interview guides with identical questions for the special education and general education teachers, and the IEP checklist. Summary The data presented above answers the proposed research questions. Results included primarily qualitative data gathered through questionnaires and participation in semi-structured interviews. Minimal quantitative data was collected during the interview process. Data specific to student IEPs in grades 7-9 also provided an essential piece of INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 83 information related to the overall problem of the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. In the following chapter, the researcher will provide conclusions to the research questions based on the data presented in this chapter. Given the focus on investigating the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary special education practices in grades 7-9, the concrete data reviewed will provide tangible and manageable recommendations. Recommendations will be provided based on the conclusions from the data analysis as well as areas to be considered for potential further examination. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 84 Chapter V Conclusions and Recommendations The implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices creates varied educational experiences for special education students and teachers. It is natural that perceived experiences will vary; however, how when an inclusionary practice is implemented for a student, the implementation should not vary by classroom, content areas, or grade levels. Inconsistencies that lead to varied experiences can create unnecessary requests for different teachers, potential legal concerns, and concerns about program effectiveness. A student’s IEP should provide information to guide the implementation of an SDI and provide essential information to support a more consistent implementation. Special education practices have evolved throughout the history of education to require inclusionary practices to be delivered in the least restrictive environment. Inclusionary practices implemented in the LRE can vary by student, but the essence of the special education law is the same regardless of the inclusionary practices. Students need to be included to the fullest extent possible with continual evaluation of considerations to determine if additional, or fewer, SDI are necessary for students to be successful in the least restrictive environment. This study investigated the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary special education practices in grades 7-9. Based on the data, it is clear that a large percentage of special education students participate in the general education setting for 80% or more of the school day. However, concerns were raised regarding how consistently inclusionary practices are implemented across grade levels, content areas, and individual teacher’s INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 85 classrooms. Concerns were also expressed related to the implementation of special education services when a student transitions from one building to the next within the district. The research process conducted throughout this study provided the researcher with baseline information to make recommendations to the district to work towards implementing inclusionary practices more consistently in order to increase programmatic fidelity, create a stronger culture of learning and collaboration, and provide opportunities that are consistent with expectations under the law. By analyzing the perspectives of teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices, the observable inclusionary practices, and identified inclusionary practices within IEPs, the necessary data was gained to provide findings and recommendations. It is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the necessary professional development provided to teachers over the last two years. In addition, it is also perceived that students’ needs have also changed over the last two years. Research participants are eager to have access to professional development in this area in order to grow as educators and provide consistent opportunities to students. Conclusions After analyzing the data collected during this action research study, it can be affirmed that the implementation of inclusionary practices is inconsistent due to a variety of factors. The factors include lack of professional development on related topics to inclusionary practices, time and common planning, and the vast needs of students within a classroom setting. Based on questionnaire analysis, a difference between general educators and special educators does exist on the degree in which the practices are implemented consistently. The mindset and understanding of teachers also impact INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 86 perspectives related to special education or the special education support provided. As a result, unintentional inconsistencies are created. Despite the inconsistencies, teachers are looking for additional opportunities, in and out of the classroom, to be able to meet student’s needs and provide more consistency. Research Question 1 The first research question of this study was “What are the perceptions of special education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” Based on the responses to three questions on the questionnaire about inclusionary practices across grade levels, own classes, and content areas, it is evident that special educators have a perception that inclusionary practices are not implemented consistently, but are effective for students when they are implemented. Special educators in grades 7-9 have the unique opportunity to work with many general educators and see the implementation of inclusionary practices from a specialized perspective. Special educators believe that one of the reasons for inconsistencies is how the special educator is utilized in the general education classroom. Special educators are comfortable with implementing inclusionary practices, but indicated that they felt less effective in the actual implementation. Overall, planning (time and common planning time), mindset of general educators, and staffing (consistent co-teaching staff and staffing to support consistent practices) were common perceptions for reasons why inconsistent implementation was occurring and was impacting the effectiveness of the inclusionary practices. In addition, all special educators indicated that they have not had recent professional development particularly in the area of co-teaching. A practice that is helpful to special educators and INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 87 general educators is the student needs day built into professional development at the beginning of the school year. Research Question 2 Similar to the first research questions, the second research question of this study was “What are the perceptions of general education teachers on the effectiveness of inclusionary practices?” When combining the three areas, general educators rated the consistent implementation of inclusionary practices across grade level, own class, and content areas slightly higher than special educators. Based on information gathered during the semi-structured interview, though limited from general educators due to participation, the researcher felt that this was due to the content specific nature and training of the general educator. Unlike special educators who are working with many staff members, a general educator would have more generalized experience in their own classroom or have informal conversations with colleagues to gain insight on what is happening outside of his/her classroom. Another component of data analyzed for this question was how general educators define inclusionary practices. Though 75% of the participants provided definitions in alignment with the research in Chapter II, how others defined inclusionary practices could impact how consistently inclusionary practices are implemented. “Allowing special education students to participate as much as they are able” demonstrates also the need for professional development in this area and may not necessarily be a negative perception, but a lack of information to support the general educator. However, another general educator defined inclusionary practices as “In class, we have a full range of students. The job of inclusion is to meet students at their own level and help them INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 88 participate fully in class.” Based on the information from the data collection tools, it was also affirmed that general educators perceive that inclusionary practices are not implemented consistently. General educators interviewed felt comfortable and effective in implementing inclusionary practices. Concerns related to effectiveness included the level of need within a classroom and being able to meet the needs of every student. Additional perceptions related to the effectiveness included inconsistent perspectives between special education and general education teachers and the difference between testing accommodations on a daily basis versus what is permitted on state level standardized testing. Research Question 3 “What are the identified inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 within individualized education plans?” Across all three grade levels and 45 IEPs, IEPs consistently included five inclusionary practices more than other SDI: extended time, small group testing, preferential seating, executive functioning (chunking), and 1:1 editing. Scheduled support was written as a support in grades 7 and 8, but not in grade 9. Though on average, 76% of student selected IEPs are receiving a supplemental level of special education support (more than 20% but less than 80% of the school day), 68.9% students are being successful in the general education setting with the identified inclusionary practices being implemented. The identified inclusionary practices were written specific enough for consistent implementation approximately 76% of the time. By analyzing the SDI in IEPs, teacher perceptions on effectiveness, professional development, and student supports can be addressed through professional development. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 89 Research Question 4 The final research question, “What are the observable inclusionary practices being implemented in grades 7-9?”, was answered by an analysis of all three data collection measures. Emerging themes on the observable inclusionary practices primarily included co-teaching and preferential seating. However, comments related to providing accommodations would indicate that a correlation can be made connecting accommodations with inclusionary practices. General educators indicated that it was at times difficult to implement an SDI, such as preferential seating, because when more than a few students in a class have this as an accommodation, the seating options are limited. In addition, without specificity, the general educator “guesses” where to seat a student. In addition, special educators indicated that preferential seating was overused. Application and Implications Based on the themes of recommendations and suggestions by the special education and general education study participants, two primary areas will be identified for application of the study. The identified areas for planning will include professional development and administrative support of common planning time for co-teachers. Additionally, a final area for future discussion and planning focuses on the district. Professional development will need to occur for both general and special educators. First, professional development should be provided to both sets of educators to focus on the goals and best practices of co-teaching. It will be important for the administration to find effective professional development experiences for teachers and then provide the necessary time to discuss and implement any new learning. Also, effective professional development could address the concern of meeting students’ needs INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 90 in the classroom and/or the perception that it is impossible to meet all of the needs of students in a classroom. Next, for general educators, professional development in the area of special education processes and legal mandates should be provided. General educators indicated a need to have ongoing reviews of special education law and procedures. The process for an evaluation, disability awareness, and the legalities surrounding special education would provide more knowledge and hopefully understanding to shift some of the mindsets around special education. Also, respondents’ input indicated that additional informal professional development related to specific students and a review of supports and services would be beneficial. Finally, special educators would benefit from additional professional development related to the written aspect of IEPs. The SDI sections of the IEPs could be written more specifically to provide further guidance to general education staff for implementation. The researcher identifies this recommendation based on the IEP checklist analysis and the SDI that were not written specifically to provide consistent implementation, or frankly, almost impossible to implement on a daily basis. Though an SDI is critical to a special education student to access the general education environment or curriculum, consideration should be given to the implementation of an SDI for an area that does not include a goal within the IEP. For example, if a student does not have a writing goal, providing context for 1:1 editing as an SDI can provide more specificity to the implementation. An additional component is determining the frequency of an SDI. The discussion on this may be more philosophical, but a clear understanding of frequency would be essential to consistent implementation. The frequency of “daily” or “per the INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 91 curriculum” would be difficult to interpret if daily means the SDI is available daily or occurs daily, and a frequency of “per the curriculum” is vague. If an IEP is indeed individualized, the curriculum should not dictate the frequency of an SDI. Given the two cited examples, further discussion must occur. Also connected to the written development of IEPs, special education teachers should review when an update or annual IEP should occur. The researcher noticed that IEPs in 7th or 9th grade may have been more reflective of necessary SDI in the previous building. Therefore, the specificity of an SDI was related to a specific need at that time for a student and/or did not match a student’s current schedule. This consideration would have the implication of time due to having more meetings between transition years. However, this could address several concerns that were expressed throughout the process related to the transition years from one building to the next within the district. One of the final anticipated products of the study was to create a training framework to guide professional development for staff working with students receiving special education supports and services. Based on the research process implemented and information collected, it is clear that teachers can self-assess their professional needs related to the implementation of inclusionary practices. The goal of the framework would lead to more meaningful and concrete professional development. Based on the information collected throughout the study, required professional development components would include the beginning of year student needs informational sessions and involvement in more specific professional learning communities regarding ongoing review of specific student inclusionary practices. Options would then be provided to INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 92 include co-teaching, special education law, and disability awareness as examples for more individualized training. Some participants commented that prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, opportunities were provided for common planning time. One way this would occur was for both teachers to secure a substitute in order for a full-day to be taken to plan key units or further discuss student needs. Though this recommendation has some cost associated with it for substitute teachers, this is a very effective way to support the consistent implementation of inclusionary practices. It would also be beneficial to expand this common planning time approach to include other co-teachers or content areas of the same grade level for students. When teachers identified this as a recommendation, no concerns were raised about the need to pre-plan to be out of the classroom. The sense was that this approach had more pros than cons to take the necessary steps for effective co-teaching and inclusionary practice implementation. Given the concerns related to mindset and/or inconsistencies between special education and general education teachers, providing time to have alignment and build relationships would be critical to continue to have growth in this area. The Upper St. Clair School District has a strong history of educating special education students in the general education classroom for a majority of the school day. Historical special education data and the ongoing development of special education programs provides evidence of this statement. However, it is important for the district to continue to evaluate programming and continue to support teachers, students, and parents throughout the evolution of students’ needs. An important area for district administrators to consider is overall communication to teachers. After reviewing the master schedule INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 93 for 9th grade, it does appear that common planning time can be available to some of the teachers. It is uncertain whether or not teachers were aware of this available common plan time or felt that they needed “permission” to plan together. Therefore, district administrators could begin to address concerns just through communication. It is important for administrators and teachers to know the students. One special educator identified “Kids are changing so we have to change to match the needs”. This particular quote is essential to continue to grow as a district that has modeled what inclusion should look like for students. This does not necessarily mean that more staff or services are needed, but how the district is continuing to define inclusionary practices and expectations for consistency is essential. Collaboration with special education leaders, support of building level leadership, and reviewing student IEPs for consistency, fidelity of implementation, and matching of student needs would be key components for program evaluation. Fiscal Implications The fiscal implications related to this research study are minimal and will be rooted in costs connected to professional development, potential substitute coverage costs, and time. In addition, the costs will be minimal in comparison to the overall district budget and may potentially be built into various budget areas, such as professional development, as part of the district’s budget process. The district’s special education budget is already evidence of the required financial contribution and district investment to implement a continuum of supports and services for special education students. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 94 Ultimately, the use of district funds to implement programming that is consistent and provides staff with a clear understanding of inclusionary practices may have unintended positive outcomes. Legal fees related to special education matters can become very costly. By investing funds preemptively in programs and in training, legal fees related to the expensive costs of legal involvement and special education due process could be minimal. Also, as an outcome of this study, additional staff is not being recommended to address concerns. Though concerns were presented by study participants related to resources and staffing, recommendations at this time will not be to increase staffing, but to provide an intense focus on refining practices and maximizing current resources. Prior to recommending increasing staffing that would have a longterm fiscal implication for the district, the goal would be to utilize current resources to have the unintentional positive fiscal implications for the district. Limitations As identified in Chapter III Methodology, several challenges or limitations of this study need to be considered in the interpretation of findings and generalization, and or application, of this study across the district or in similar studies. The challenges included sample size, timeframe of study, knowledge of the researcher, and potential presumed researcher bias. While the data collection and data analysis phase were occurring, another potential limitation, the IEP checklist, was identified. It is important to be aware of the potential limitations for future studies in this area. First, the sample size was limited to special educators and general educators in grades 7-9. However, the smaller sample size was necessary in order to have a more focused study within the identified time parameters. The sample size was more of a INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 95 limitation in collecting data from the general educators. All special educators working within learning support programs were selected, but a process for random selection of general educators was necessary. In addition, the participation of general educators was limited in comparison to special education participation. Out of the 21 general educators selected for the questionnaire, 67% completed the question, and 4 out 6 general educators responded to participate in the semi-structured interview process. Participation by special educators was 100% in both the questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The data collection timeframe was limited to January 2023 thru March of 2023. However, the timeframe could also be reduced slightly due to the sample size of participants. Approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was received midOctober 2022. Due to the focus on the literature review and then various breaks in the school calendar, the data collection timeframe developed was appropriate given external parameters. A longer timeframe may have allowed the researcher to identify a larger sample size for general educator participation selection in order to increase the data collected for analysis and then recommendations. Two natural limitations in this type of action research study would include knowledge of the researcher and the presumed bias of the researcher. Given the nature of action research occurring within the researcher’s district of employment, research participants would be familiar with the researcher’s invested interest in the topic due to being a former special educator in the district. Also, due to the researcher’s employment history in the district, the researcher could be unaware of personal and professional biases within the study. The hope would be throughout the research process of random INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 96 selection and various data collection methods that the concern related to the areas of knowledge of the researcher and presumed bias were minimal. The data collection tools that were developed by the researcher were directly connected to the four research questions. An additional limitation was presented throughout the data collection process. The IEP checklist was challenging to complete given the various ways an IEP would be written by a teacher. Some of the checklist areas, when developed, had content that the researcher identified as essential to the study. However, as the completion of the checklists was occurring, some areas seemed redundant or non-essential to the goal of the study. Given the need to develop the tool as part of the IRB approval process, this did not become apparent until the data collection phase of the study. For example, if an IEP update occurred during the IEP year was essential information only if it was a transition year between buildings to reflect an update to support consistent implementation of an SDI. However, if an update did occur, it was most likely in response to a non-essential component of the study. Future Areas of Examination Given the research that has been conducted, the following topics are recommended for closer examination and potential additional research: conduct the same study within the same scope, conduct a similar study with a different grade level, include principals as a participant group, and determine the role of students in the study. It is important to review the identified limitations of the study prior to potentially conducting the same study or adjusting aspects of the study. Also, given that this action research study already provides a framework to conduct a study related to inclusionary practices, INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 97 consideration should be given to having another lead researcher conduct the study or utilize other members to conduct interviews, etc. The first would be to do a follow up study utilizing the same research tools to answer the same questions once the identified recommendations have been implemented for a period of time. In addition, it would also be beneficial to expand the study to grades 4-7 to review key transition times for special education students between elementary and middle school and middle to middle school. Another important group of stakeholders in the implementation of special education supports and services are building principals. In many cases, principals are the identified local education agency (LEA) representative in IEP meetings. Ultimately, they are responsible for the implementation of services in the building. Gathering information from building level leadership on the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices would assist in district program evaluation, needs of staff and students from a different perspective, and suggestions from an LEA lens for support. The third area for future examination would be students. When students graduate, survey data is collected in response to transition service requirements. Collecting data from students in grades 7-9 would be another area for future examination. Student voice is a critical component to developing programs. However, this recommendation would require a more in-depth process for IRB approval if done as a formal research study. Therefore, consideration could be given to collecting informal feedback during an IEP meeting with parents present. Pros and cons would exist to this recommendation for feedback, but it could provide another key component on student experience and necessary supports and services. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 98 Summary The study’s conclusions were based on the collected information from credible and reliable research participants based on actual classroom experiences. The data was analyzed to answer the research questions. Conclusions then led to providing further information for application and implications for district special education inclusionary practices. The conclusions drawn from this study have meaningful and practical applications to reduce the inconsistencies that are experienced by teachers and students. Ultimately, the district is already fortunate to have a strong history and foundation in implementing inclusive practices. Based on the conclusions of this study, it is also clear that the participants of the study have a desire to continue to be invested in growing as professionals in order to support special education students in the general education setting. The areas for focus include professional development for special and general educators and the support of administration to provide more common planning time. Educators within the district provided reflective and practical information to enhance the opportunity for educators to participate in new practices to increase the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. Given this study and conclusions, the district will have pertinent information necessary to continue to address concerns and to grow programmatic experiences that include the implementation of consistent inclusionary practices. Philosophical differences exist in research related to the implementation of inclusionary practices and overall expectations for a student receiving special education services. Information collected in this study would support this research. By studying this topic, considerable INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 99 insights have been gained on teacher perspectives, comfort and effectiveness, observable inclusionary practices and needs related to the implementation of inclusionary special education practices. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 100 References Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 1201 et. seq. (1990). https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/ada/ Arundel, K. (2022, September 23). Study: Students with disabilities in inclusive classes achieved at higher levels. K-12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/studyshows-benefits-of-inclusive-classes-for-students-with-disabilities/632530/ Austin, V. L. (2001). Teacher’s beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255. Bell, L. (2011, Spring). Carol Tomlinson on differentiation. Curry Magazine, 1-3. Bowen, J. (2020, March 11). Ask the expert. College of Education News. https://ced.ncsu.edu/news/2020/03/11/ask-the-expert-what-is-inclusive-educationa-beneficial-way-to-teach-students-of-all-abilities-side-by-side-says-assistantprofessor-jamiepearson/#:~:text=Pearson%20says%20that%20inclusive%20education,that%20ar e%20acc Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, l. (1998). Competing visions for educating students with disabilities: Inclusion versus full inclusion. Childhood Education, 74(5), 309-316. Gaskin v. Pennsylvania, 389 F. Supp. 2d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2005). https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/gaskin-vcommonwealth/#:~:text=We%20filed%20the%20lawsuit%20Gaskin,as%20requir ed%20by%20the%20IDEA Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (1978). Exceptional children: Introduction to special education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 101 Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice approach. Pearson. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, § 300.39 (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2009), 535-542. Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). Core principles: Full inclusion of all students with learning disabilities. https://ldaamerica.org/core-principles-fullinclusion-of-all-students-with-learning-disabilities/ Lengyel, L. S., & Vanbergeijk, E. (2021, June). A brief history of special education milestones in the first 50 years. EP Magazine, 25-29. Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. (2005). Coteaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes? Learning Disability Research & Practice, 20(2), 79-85. Nagro, S., Markelz, A., Davis, R., Macdeonia, A., & Monnin, K. (2022). The evolution of access to education through landmark legislation, court cases, and policy initiatives setting precent for the Gary B. court decision. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(4), 289-300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073221094806 National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study on inclusion: Overview and summary report. NCERI Bulletin, 2(2). Pennsylvania Chapter 14: Special education services and programs, 22 Pa Code § 14.1 et INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 102 seq. (2008). https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/022 /chapter14/chap14toc.html Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Special education plan information. https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Special%20Education/Planning/Pages/default.aspx Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2017, October). Basic education circular: Placement options for special education. https://www.education.pa.gov/PolicyFunding/BECS/PACode/Pages/PlacementSpEd.aspx Pennsylvania State Data Center. (2022, June). Special education data report school year 2021-2022: Upper St. Clair SD. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/PublicReporting/Data-at-a-Glance Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a, October). Formative assessment: Monitoring the progress of students who have IEPs. https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Formative-Assessment-Monitoring-theProgress-of-St Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018b, October). Supplementary aids and services. https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Supplementary-Aids-and-Services Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2019, November). Preparing for an IEP team meeting. https://www.pattan.net/Publications/Teachers-DeskReference-Preparing-for-an-IEP-Team Rodriguez, J. A,. & Murawski, W. (2020). Special education law and practice: From INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 103 foundation to application. Plural Publishing, Inc. The Understood Team. (n.d.). The difference between accommodations and modifications. https://www.understood.org/en/articles/the-difference-betweenaccommodations-and-modifications United States Department of Education. (2022, November 7). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History United States Department of Education. (2017, December 7). Questions and answers (Q&A) on U.S. Supreme Court case decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/questions-and-answers-qa-on-u-ssupreme-court-case-decision-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district-re1/#:~:text=The%20Court%20overturned%20the%20Tenth,than%20de%20minimi s%E2%80%9D%20educational%20benefit Upper St. Clair School District. (2022). Special education plan. https://www.uscsd.k12.pa.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=19 Vandercook, T., Bowman, J., Ghere, G., Martin, C., Leon-Guerrero, R., & Sommerness, J. (2021). Comprehensive inclusive education: General education &the inclusive IEP. University of Minnesota, TIES Center. Western Governors University. (2020, January 9). Special education: History, resources, advice. https://www.wgu.edu/blog/special-education-history-resourcesadvice2001.html#close Young, N. D., Bonnano-Sotriopoulos, K., & Smolinkski, J.A. (2018). Making the grade: Promoting positive outcomes for students with learning disabilities. Rowman & INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 104 Littlefield Publishers. Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services?: Is one place better than another. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193-199. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., &Volonino, V. (2009) What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189-204. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 105 Appendix A Semi-Structured Interview Guide Please note: This semi-structured interview guide may be further developed based on a need for additional questions to solicit more information dependent upon a participant’s response. The clarifying questions or requests will be within the scope of the action research study. Therefore, this guide also has the potential to be further developed based upon questionnaire, document analysis, and participant response. Additional questions for fact finding or clarification will be noted by the interviewer. Opening: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview and to take time to provide me with information related to the implementation of inconsistent inclusionary practices. My goal is to provide both general and special educators with recommendations to enhance the overall experience for students and teachers related to the implementation of inclusionary practices. Your willingness to participate and provide me with your insight are greatly appreciated. Your participation remains voluntary and at any time during this interview, you may elect to withdraw your participation. Your information will be destroyed immediately and another individual may be asked to participate. This interview will take approximately 45 minutes to complete. 1. What do you teach? (Content area, grade level, etc.) 2. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 3. Discuss your perception on the effectiveness on the inclusionary practices that were identified in the questionnaires that were presented and from the IEP analysis. (Question #1 ex. Discuss the effectiveness of co-teaching. Discuss the effectiveness of aide support in the classroom.) 4. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most comfortable, how would you rate your comfort level in implementing inclusionary practices? Explain. 5. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most effective, how would you rate your effectiveness in implementing inclusionary practices? Explain. 6. Have you received professional development on the implementation of inclusionary practices within a general education classroom? If yes, what type of professional development have you received? 7. What parental feedback have you received related to the consistencies or inconsistencies of the implementation of inclusionary practices for their child? 8. Have you received any student feedback related to the consistencies or inconsistencies of the implementation of inclusionary practices? If so, what feedback have you received? INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 106 9. What role does the student play in the implementation of inclusionary practices? Does developmental readiness, grade level, etc., play a role in the implementation? 10. In order for you to more effectively implement consistent inclusion practices, what do you need? What recommendations or suggestions would assist you? INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Appendix B General Education Teacher Questionnaire Question 1. How would you define inclusionary practices for special education students in your classroom? 2. How many students with IEPs do you currently have in your class(es)? How many periods/blocks a day do you have with students receiving special education supports and services through an IEP? 3. Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across your own classes? (Y/N) Grade levels? Content areas? 4. If you have identified that inconsistences are observed/do exist, identify the inconsistences that students experience. 5. What would you identify as reasons to why inclusionary practices are implemented consistently or inconsistently for the students on your special education caseload? 6. Do you feel that you contribute to a student’s IEP and recommendations for supports in a meaningful manner? Response 107 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Appendix C Special Education Teacher Questionnaire Question 1. How would you define inclusionary practices for special education students in your classroom/on your roster? 2. How many students with IEPs do you currently have on your roster? 3. Do you feel that inclusionary practices are implemented consistently across your own classes? (Y/N) Grade levels? Content areas? 4. If you have identified that inconsistences are observed/do exist, identify the inconsistences that students experience. 5. What would you identify as reasons to why inclusionary practices are implemented consistently or inconsistently for the students on your special education caseload? 6. How do you gather input from general education teachers to develop an IEP with appropriate inclusionary supports and services? Response 108 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 109 Appendix D IEP Checklist 1. Student grade Level: 2. Goal areas (Check all that apply): _____Math _____Reading ___Writing ____Organization ____Behavioral ____Other (________________) 2. In what classes are “scheduled supports” provided? Check all that apply and indicate additional areas: ____Math Arts ___ELA ___Science ____Social Studies ____Electives/Expressive ____Other 3. What percentage of time does the student spend in the general education setting? ____ 4. Type of special education support:_________________ 5. What percentage of time during the school day does the student participate in the general education setting? ________ Receive special education supports and services? _________ 6. Review the student’s IEP and identify if any of the following specially designed instruction and/or supports are included in the IEP: Inclusionary Practice Small Group Instruction Extended Time Small Group Testing Co-Teaching (Scheduled supports) Peer Group/Social Skills Aide Support Frequency Specific to provide consistent implementation? INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES Assistive Technology (Explain) Organization Support Small Group Review Notetaking Support Collaboration with general education staff, related service providers Executive Functioning Support (Explain) Prompt to Stay on Task Other: Other: Other: Has this IEP been updated throughout the duration of the IEP to add any supports/services? ________Yes If yes, rationale for modification: _________No 110 INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 111 Appendix E Semi-Structured Interview Guide Disclosure I am conducting an action research study to investigate the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across grades, classrooms, and content areas. As a part of this study, you will voluntarily participate in a semi-structured interview that asks you questions related to the implementation of inclusionary practices across your grade level, content areas, and your own classroom. You have been selected to participate in this study as either a general educator or special educator in order to gain insight on the implementation of inclusionary practices from a variety of individuals supporting students who receive inclusionary supports through their individualized education plans (IEPs). You will be asked a series of questions in this interview related to the research topic. During the interview, I will be typing detailed notes of your responses to the questions. Your name will be kept confidential; however, due to the purpose of the study, your grade level, content area, and whether you are a general educator or special educator will be documented. Minimal risk has been identified for you as a participant in this research study. Risk would be isolated to you individually based on your perception and comfort around the study. The minimal identified risks are reasonable given that reflecting on teaching and learning is a best practice for professional growth. The anticipated benefits of the study would provide general and special educators with recommendations and conclusions for a more consistent implementation of inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across content areas, grade levels, and classrooms. As a result, the student and teacher experiences are not as varied and will hopefully create an even stronger culture for learning in the classroom setting. All responses will be kept confidential in a secure network and through the research process will be reported in a manner that will not identify you as a participant. I do plan to present the findings and recommendation as a published study. In addition to my access, committee chairs may have access to data as necessary. However, once again, your participation is voluntary. In addition, you may opt out of the study at any time. If you have any questions about this action research study, please contact me, Amy Pfender, researcher, at 724-747-6534 or Pennsylvania Western University Assistant Professor, Dr. Todd Keruskin at tkeruskin@pennwest.edu. Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University California Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective month/date/year and expires month/date/year. By signing below, you agree to participate in this interview for the purpose of this research study. _________________________ _________________________ _______ Signature Printed Name Date INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 112 Appendix F Participation in Questionnaire for General and Special Education Teachers Disclosure I am conducting an action research study to investigate the inconsistent implementation of inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across grades, classrooms, and content areas. As a part of this study, you will voluntarily participate in the completion of a questionnaire that asks you questions related to the implementation of inclusionary practices across your grade level, content areas, and your own classroom. You have been randomly selected to participate in this study as either a general educator or special educator in order to gain insight on the implementation of inclusionary practices from a variety of individuals supporting students who receive inclusionary supports through their individualized education plans (IEPs). You will be asked to complete a questionnaire that should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will be provided to you via Google Forms through your school district email. The questionnaire will include a series of questions related to the research topic. Your name will be kept confidential; however, due to the purpose of the study, your grade level, content area, and whether you are a general educator or special educator will be documented. Minimal risk has been identified for you as a participant in this research study. Risk would be isolated to you individually based on your perception and comfort around the study. The minimal identified risks are reasonable given that reflecting on teaching and learning is a best practice for professional growth. The anticipated benefits of the study would benefit general and special educators by providing recommendations and conclusions for a more consistent implementation of inclusionary practices in grades 7-9 across content areas, grade levels, and classrooms. As a result, the student and teacher experiences is not as varied and could create an even stronger culture for learning in the classroom setting. All responses will be kept confidential in a secure network and through the research process will be reported in a manner that will not identify you as a participant. I do plan to present the findings and recommendation as a published study. In addition to my access, committee chairs may have access to data as necessary. However, once again, your participation is voluntary. In addition, you may opt out of the study at any time. By clicking continue, you are giving your consent to participate in this questionnaire. If you have any questions about this action research study, please contact me, Amy Pfender, researcher, at 724-747-6534 or Pennsylvania Western University Assistant Professor, Dr. Todd Keruskin at tkeruskin@pennwest.edu. Approved by the Pennsylvania Western University California Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective 10/18/2022 and expires 10/17/2023. By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this questionnaire. INCONSISTENT INCLUSIONARY PRACTICES 113 Appendix G Institutional Review Board 250 University Avenue California, PA 15419 instreviewboard@calu.edu Melissa Sovak, Ph.D. Dear Amy, Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled "Investigating the Implementation of Inconsistent Inclusionary Special Education Practices in Grades 7-9” (Proposal #PW22-039) has been approved by the PennWest Institutional Review Board as amended with the following stipulations: Please provide clarification about where the semi-structured interviews will take place and how confidentiality will be ensured. After this information is provided proposal will be approved. Once you have completed the above request you may immediately begin data collection. You do not need to wait for further IRB approval. At your earliest convenience, you must forward a copy of the changes for the Board’s records. The effective date of the approval is 10/18/2022 and the expiration date is 10/17/2023. These dates must appear on the consent form. Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any of the following: (1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented) (2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects (3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any events reported in (2). (4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 10/17/2023 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact instreviewboard@pennwest.edu. Please notify the Board when data collection is complete. Regards, Melissa Sovak, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board