Participatory Action Research: Inclusion of Elementary Students With Disabilities

Abstract

Inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) is essential to improving their educational, social, and behavioral outcomes. However, the execution and maintenance of these practices relies on contextual variables at the local level. This study presents the results of a participatory action research project conducted in collaboration with a public elementary school investigating inclusive practices. The resulting case study included surveys of school staff and caregivers as well as interviews with special education teachers, related service providers, and administrators. Quantitative analyses identified significant philosophical discrepancies between participants, especially around inclusion of SWDs who exhibit challenging behavior. Qualitative data revealed strengths in special education team collaboration. The local organizational barriers identified are consistent with barriers found in the literature. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

inclusion low-incidence disabilities exceptionalities instruction to promote elementary special education

Despite widespread social pressure and legal policy changes (Agran et al., 2020), effective implementation of inclusion of students with disabilities (SWDs) remains a documented problem in schools (Baustien Siuty, 2019; Kurth et al., 2014). Inclusion is typically measured by the percentage of the school day a student receives instruction in the general education setting (Woodcock & Hardy, 2020). Academic inclusion aims to ensure students have equitable access to the general curricula (Kausik & Hussain, 2023) and social inclusion aims to provide opportunities for all students to interact with their peers (Baustien Siuty, 2019). For this study, inclusion is defined as the application of specially designed instruction (SDI) in the least restrictive environment which includes access to general education curriculum, accommodations and modifications, and can be applied across a variety of domains (e.g., academic, social, behavioral) by a special educator (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). When implemented appropriately, a large body of research reports the positive effects of inclusion on SWDs (Cosier et al., 2013; Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). However, achieving meaningful inclusion is not always straightforward, as school improvements are complex processes that require formulating new values, setting goals, evaluating current system-wide practices and resources, and long-term planning for reallocation and training of staff (Theoharis & Causton, 2014). Large-scale reform requires assessing the culture and climate for successful change (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). Sustainable school improvement requires meaningful participation from stakeholders at every stage of the process—from planning and implementation to reflection—to ensure changes are effective and supported (Billingsley et al., 2018; Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011).

School reform processes that work toward increasing inclusion for SWDs align with federal policies. Increased access to the general education curriculum for SWDs has been emphasized in the United States over the last 20 years and is often the measure of the application of inclusion (IDEA, 2004). According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2024), the number of SWDs spending 80% or more of their day in general education increased from 61% in 2012 to 67% in 2022. To educate the additional number of SWDs in general education settings, various support models have been used in schools, including co-teaching, additional staff (e.g., paraprofessionals), and inclusive pedagogy (e.g., universal design for learning). Schools have changed how they assign teacher roles and provide staff training to implement more inclusion based on their locally defined model of inclusion. However, there is no definitive guidance provided by legal mandates for inclusion implementation (IDEA, 2004).

There is a wealth of evidence that academic instruction in general education results in positive outcomes for SWDs compared with more restrictive environments. A meta-analysis by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) provides substantial evidence suggesting settings outside of general education are not as academically or socially beneficial for SWDs. For example, SWDs who spend at least 80% of the school day in the general education setting score significantly higher on reading and math assessments compared with SWDs in more restrictive environments (Cole et al., 2021). In addition, Cosier et al. (2013) found that the reading and math scores of SWDs increased with each additional hour spent in a general education classroom.

Despite academic and social benefits of inclusive practices, implementation may be inhibited by attitudinal barriers or a lack of knowledge of the benefits of inclusion (Fuchs, 2010). A survey of one school district reported that most general education teachers were willing to educate SWDs, but over 75% did not believe the general education classroom was the proper environment (Santoli et al., 2008). General education teachers report being significantly less prepared than special education teachers to educate students with high-intensity needs (Ruppar et al., 2016) and report fewer positive attitudes than special education teachers toward inclusion of SWDs with behavioral needs, regardless of a student’s identified disability (Jury et al., 2021). This may stem from a lack of coursework on supporting SWDs in general education in teacher education (Fuchs, 2010). Exclusionary practices seem to disproportionately affect students with high-intensity needs (Kurth et al., 2014), and students with intellectual disabilities are less likely to be placed in inclusive settings (Segall & Campbell, 2014).

There may be a top-down effect in some schools, as principals often do not have a strong understanding of inclusion, SDI, and best practices in special education and, therefore, may not advocate for inclusion in their schools (DeMatthews et al., 2020; Sun & Xin, 2020). To promote an inclusive environment, school leaders must go beyond support for inclusion in principle by actively engaging in change; assessing the needs of teachers and stakeholders, developing organizational frameworks for inclusion, providing ongoing opportunities for professional development, and addressing barriers and failures that arise during implementation (Billingsley et al., 2018; Coviello & DeMatthews, 2020; Theoharis & Causton, 2014). However, even with strong leadership, contextual factors within a school and district can significantly affect the inclusion of SWDs (Roach & Salisbury, 2010; Sindelar et al., 2006). For example, collaboration between general education and special education teachers is essential for effective inclusion (Cook et al., 2017). However, many general education teachers report that limited collaboration and planning time with special education teachers can make it difficult to address the individual needs of students (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Fuchs, 2010). Without consistent, protected meeting times, the opportunity to collaborate is insufficient for meeting the needs of SWDs (Santoli et al., 2008). Furthermore, special education teachers with large caseloads face greater challenges in meeting with general education teachers, which is exacerbated in schools with large student populations and high student-to-teacher ratios (Giangreco et al., 2011).

School leaders are uniquely positioned to address this barrier by collaborating with teachers and other stakeholders to improve scheduling, personnel delegation, and role refinement (Billingsley & Banks, 2019). To effectively address challenges in implementing inclusive practices, school leaders must adopt a democratic and distributed leadership approach, where responsibilities are shared and collaboration is encouraged (Coviello & DeMatthews, 2020; Theoharis & Causton, 2014). When developing a sustainable implementation plan, it is essential that stakeholders evaluate current systems and practices, and their desires are considered at the onset of a reform effort. One collaborative approach to change is through Participatory Action Research (PAR), which is a research method that involves stakeholders in the development, data collection, analysis, and action to address local needs (Baum et al., 2006).

Theoretical Framework: Participatory Action Research

The goal of PAR is to improve a program, process, or practice or to solve a real-world problem in a specific context (Baldwin, 2012). PAR aims to bring about meaningful change by centering on the perspectives and desires of those directly affected by a social issue through their active involvement and participation across the research process (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2015). In educational research, PAR is a promising approach for addressing the research-to-practice gap, as it links research to effective practices along with support for implementation (Selener, 1997). PAR is an effective practice found to successfully address school improvements and changes (Anderson, 2020; Anyon et al., 2018; Morales, 2016).

The purpose of this PAR case study was to conduct a collaborative investigation of the first components of the PAR framework (i.e., while suggestions were provided to assist with further components of the framework, the design and implementation of interventions based upon this framework were not a part of this study) on the inclusive practices at an elementary school (K–5) to describe stakeholder perceptions of current inclusive practices and how practices might be improved. Researchers and a school administrator collaboratively developed the following research questions: (1) What are the current placements and practices for SWDs in the elementary school? (2) What are the perceived strengths and barriers of academic and social inclusion of SWDs at the elementary school? (3) What changes to inclusive practices for SWDs are desired by school personnel?

Research Methods

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to the beginning of this study. This study was initiated by the principal of a large suburban public elementary school in the Midwest, Jones Elementary School (JES; pseudonym) along with partner university researchers from a special education program. JES serves kindergarten through fifth-grade students and is one of 11 elementary schools in the district. JES had an enrollment of 1,025 students in the 2019–2020 school year. That enrollment dropped to 973 in the 2020–2021 school year, a decrease that was likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of this study (Fall 2020-Spring 2021), approximately 25% of students attended school virtually. Forty-one percent of JES students qualified for free or reduced meals through the National School Lunch Program, and 14% of students received special education services. The student population was 64.3% White, 14.9% Latinx, 8.4% Asian, 7.8% Black, 4.3% multiracial, 0.2% Native American, and 0.1% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Sixty teachers were employed at the school, five of which were special education teachers. The special education teachers were described as self-contained emotional disabilities (n = 1) and resource teachers (n = 4). Due to years of population growth that caused insufficient physical space, the school’s principal, Mr. Smith (pseudonym), wanted to assess the current structure of special education programming and community readiness for adding an early intervention preschool and/or programming serving students with high-intensity needs. The principal and research team met to identify key stakeholders and determined it was necessary to include the perspectives of (a) special education teachers; (b) related service providers, such as occupational therapists and speech-language pathologists; (c) general education teachers; (d) administrators; and (e) caregivers of students with and without disabilities. Collaboratively, the research team and Mr. Smith discussed which participants would be included for each part of the study. Mr. Smith indicated that interviews could be conducted with special education teachers, related service providers, and administrators, and surveys could be sent out to all teachers, related service providers, and caregivers of students at the school. While considered for participation, Mr. Smith preferred that students were not included due to their age and paraprofessionals were not included due to a lack of time and understaffing. The research team repeatedly suggested expanding the scope of the interviews to include the perspectives of general education teachers, paraprofessionals, caregivers, and students, but Mr. Smith did not feel that was necessary to achieve the goals of the study.

This case study employed a convergent parallel design (Creswell, 2021; see Figure 1). Two quantitative surveys were administered to teachers and caregivers via Qualtrics to gather data from various perspectives. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with special education personnel to explore participants’ experiences and perceptions. Data collected across instruments were analyzed separately and then combined for interpretation. Survey and interview data supported overall recommendations to the school.

Surveys

A 13-item Likert-type scale survey was developed to collect data from teachers and caregivers on their attitudes toward inclusion, current inclusive practices at JES, and perceptions about future special education programming (see Tables 2 and 3 for questions). The survey statements were adapted from Harkins and Fletcher (2015), who investigated the perspectives of school-based professionals on the implementation of inclusive practices in U.S. classrooms. Questions were worded for the intended participants. The teacher survey included five additional questions about current practices. Three questions asked if SWDs were included in general education academics, in specials classes (e.g., music, art), or in social settings (e.g., recess, lunch). The other two questions asked teachers if SWDs experience positive interactions with students with and without disabilities. Because this was a pilot investigation with the survey questions, content validity of the survey was established by obtaining expert feedback on the survey. A sample of the teacher survey was sent to an expert in the field of educational psychology who has extensive experience developing and administering surveys. The survey wording and order of questions was refined to reflect the expert’s recommendations. One professor of special education and five doctoral students in special education with expertise in special education reviewed the content of the survey. Adjustments were made to the wording of the questions so that responses would most accurately assess participants’ perspectives on inclusive practices. The principal reviewed the questions and offered input on the design of the survey and approved the final version before it was administered. Statements on the survey were written to elicit an agreement or disagreement (Ary et al., 2019). For each question, respondents chose one of five responses: strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, or strongly agree.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with special education personnel via the video-conferencing platform, Zoom. Open-ended questions were designed to gather perceptions about JES special education programing including current strengths and barriers, practices, and the expected outcomes for special education in a new building. The questioning protocol was piloted with two practicing special education teachers before interviews were conducted with participants. The questioning protocol was organized to inform the research questions (see Figure 1 for examples). To avoid leading questions and interviewer bias, questions were developed in a manner void of assumptions regarding the JES employee’s role. Researchers who conducted the interviews employed an interview protocol to ensure consistency of procedures across participants (Ary et al., 2019; Jacobs & Furgerson, 2012).

Two researchers were present during the interviews: one to conduct the interview and the other to take notes. The second author conducted all interviews, asking initial questions uniformly across participants, with flexibility to ask follow-up or clarifying questions as needed. Interviews were recorded and later transcribed. This procedure increased the validity and trustworthiness of the interview procedure because results were based on what participants said and not on what researchers were able to note and recall from the interviews.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM-SPSS statistical software, version 26. Descriptive analyses using frequencies, means, and standard deviations were used to summarize participant demographic information from both caregiver and teacher surveys. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA; Warne, 2014) was conducted to analyze participant responses (group × responses), where participant responses were the dependent variables, and the participant groups were the independent variables.

Qualitative data collected from interviews were subjected to two layers of systematic analysis that involved the iterative comparison of codes to identify themes. A systematic coding process and intercoder reliability were conducted to enhance credibility (McAlister et al., 2017). Data saturation and triangulation were achieved by collecting interview data from special education personnel holding various positions at JES including four of the five special educators, one of the three related service providers, and two of the three administrators and comparing findings from the survey. The first author reviewed transcripts and videos to develop an initial codebook. All coders (n = 4) were trained on the codebook and at least two coders independently coded every transcript by adding comments in Microsoft Word indicating the corresponding code. Coding was done by graduate students and faculty in special education with differing perspectives and experiences working in schools. Regular research meetings included researchers’ reflection on the use of language, assumptions, and bias in data analysis and interpretation. Data summaries and emerging themes were shared with participants as a member check, to ensure data resonated with experience. The initial reliability for each coder was calculated based on their first coded transcript by dividing the total number of agreements for all codes by the total number of agreements plus disagreements (Huberman & Miles, 1994). Initial intercoder reliability for each of the five coders ranged from 24% to 49% agreement. The team utilized a negotiated agreement method to create a final decision for each code after discussion (Campbell et al., 2013). Coders met to discuss disagreements until 100% intercoder agreement was achieved across all coders and transcripts. Ongoing analysis of the data allowed for the testing of emerging themes. A case summary was written for each interview. Secondary cross-case analysis examined themes, similarities, and differences across participants.

Results

Thirty-four educators (56%) from the school responded to the teacher survey. Respondents included general education teachers (n = 23), special education teachers (n = 4), high ability teachers (n = 3), related service providers (n = 3), and one respondent preferred not to identify their position. A total of 69 caregivers responded to the caregiver survey, and the response rate was calculated by dividing the number of responses by emails (7% response). Approximately 28% of caregiver respondents had a child with a disability who received services under an IEP or 504 plan. See Table 1 for additional demographic data. Interviews were conducted with seven school staff members, including special education teachers (n = 4), related service providers (n = 1), and administrators (n = 2) that oversaw aspects of special education.

Table 1.

Survey Respondent Demographics.

Demographics	Teachers(n = 34)	Caregivers(n = 69)
Job Title	n	N
General education teacher	23	-
Special education teacher	4	-
High ability teacher	3	-
Related service provider	3	-
Preferred not to answer	1	-
Years of experience
1–5 years	7	-
6–10 years	9	-
11–15 years	4	-
16–20 years	3	-
21+ years	9	-
Preferred not to report	2	-
Gender
Cisgender man	0	8
Cisgender women	29	58
Self-described, not cisgender	0	1
Preferred not to state their gender	5	2
Highest Education
High school	-	5
2-year college degree	-	8
Bachelor’s degree	16	25
Master’s degree	17	19
Terminal degree (PhD, MD, JD, or equivalent)	0	11
Preferred not to report education level	1	1
Race
Asian	0	3
Black or African American	0	5
Native American or American Indian	0	1
White	30	55
Preferred not to report	4	5
Number of children attending JES
At least one child attending JES	-	42
Two or more children attending JES	-	27
Disability
Child(ren) with an IEP or 504 plan at JES	-	19
Child(ren) without an IEP or 504 plan at JES	-	50

Teacher Survey

Teacher responses were compared by group for data analysis (see Table 2); one group included general education teachers (n = 23) and the other included educators, referred to throughout this article as special education personnel, who provide instruction to students with exceptional needs (i.e., special education teachers, related service providers, and high ability teachers; n = 10). There was a substantial difference in sample sizes for the two groups, as general education responses (n = 23) were more than twice that of special education personnel (n = 10). Therefore, to compare groups without selection bias, a random sample of general education teacher responses to match the number of special education personnel responses were selected using an online random number generator. The equal sample sizes of teacher responses were compared on the 18 questions using a two-group × response MANOVA.

Table 2.

Comparison of General Education and Special Education Personnel Ratings.

	df (2, 31)		Teachers(mean/SE)
Survey Items	F	p	General education (n = 10)	Special education(n = 10)
1. SWDs should be meaningfully included in academic and social settings with their peers without disabilities	3.39	.04	2.50 (0.61)	<3.50 (0.61)
2. SWDs are welcomed	2.98	.06	2.50 (0.12)	<3.30 (0.57)
3. SWDs are included in general education academics.	2.97	.06	2.70 (0.53)	<3.30 (0.47)
4. SWDs are included in specials (PE, music, art, etc.).	2.92	.06	2.50 (0.61)	<3.30 (0.51)
5. SWDs are included in social settings (recess, lunch, field trips, assemblies).	4.30	.02	2.60 (0.60	<3.40 (0.52)
6. SWDs have positive interactions with the non-disabled peers.	2.87	.07	2.60 (0.52)	<3.30 (0.42)
7. SWDs have positive interactions with other students with disabilities.	2.98	.06	2.60 (0.54)	<3.40 (0.47)
8. It is socially beneficial for students with disabilities to interact with their peers without disabilities	2.99	.06	2.33 (0.66)	<3.40 (0.65)
9. It is socially beneficial for peers without disabilities to interact with SWDs	2.97	.06	2.60 (0.65)	<3.40 (0.65)
10. It is academically beneficial for SWDs to interact with their peers without disabilities.	2.29	.11	2.90 (0.58)	<3.20 (0.57)
11. It is academically beneficial for peers without disabilities to interact with SWDs	1.90	.16	2.60 (0.56)	<3.30 (0.53)
12. I would welcome the addition of a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities)	2.76	.07	3.20 (0.53)	3.20 (0.62)
13. Adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities) would be beneficial to the JES community.	3.24	.05	3.10 (0.58)	<3.30 (0.63)
14. Adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities) would negatively affect students without disabilities	2.49	.09	3.80 (0.44)	>3.00 (0.57)
15. I would welcome the addition of a preschool special education program for young SWDs	2.05	.14	2.30 (0.39)	<3.20 (0.62)
16. Adding a preschool special education program would be beneficial for young SWDs in the community	3.89	.03	2.20 (0.49)	<3.30 (0.63)
17. JES should make adaptations to keep a student with significant needs at JES	6.73	.00	3.00 (0.29)	<3.50 (0.40)
18. A student with significant needs that lives within the JES boundary should travel to a school in another area that can better serve his/her needs.	2.13	.13	2.70 (0.39)	<3.50 (0.34)

Note. M = mean; SE = standard error; SWD = Student(s) with disability(ies); JES =School where data was collected, bold = p ≤ .05; responses include strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither disagree nor agree (3), agree (4), or strongly agree (5).

Special education personnel had significantly more agreeable (p ≤ .05) ratings on five of the 18 questions (questions 1, 5, 13, 16, and 17), and had significantly more agreeable ratings than the general education teachers when asked if SWDs should be included in academic and social settings with their peers without disabilities (Q1. SWDs should be meaningfully included in academic and social settings with their peers without disabilities) and if SWDs are currently included in social settings (Q5. SWDs are included in social settings [recess, lunch, field trips, assemblies]). Special education personnel also had significantly more agreeable ratings than the general education teachers when asked about future programing at JES for SWDs, specifically adding a life skills program (Q13. adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities [e.g., intellectual disabilities, physical, or health disabilities] would be beneficial to the JES community), adding a preschool special education program at JES (Q16. adding a preschool special education program would be beneficial for young SWDs in the community) and making efforts to educate students with high-intensity needs at JES (Q17. JES should make adaptations to keep a student with significant needs at JES).

Caregiver and Teacher Response Comparison

Caregiver and teacher responses were initially analyzed separately. Caregiver survey responses were grouped for analysis, those with a child(ren) with a disability and those whose child(ren) attending JES did not have a disability. There were no significant differences between the responses of caregivers in these groups.

The teacher and caregiver surveys had 13 common questions and responses to these questions were compared. There was a substantial difference in sample sizes for the two groups, as caregiver responses (n = 69) were almost twice that of the teachers (n = 34). Therefore, we chose a random sample of caregiver responses to match the number of teacher responses, using an online random number generator. This was done to compare the groups without selection bias. The equal sample sizes were compared on the 13 common questions using a 2-group × response MANOVA. Caregiver ratings were significantly more agreeable (higher) compared with those of teachers for 11 of the 13 questions (see Table 3) indicating a greater desire to educate young SWDs and students requiring life skills programming. Teachers had a significantly more agreeable rating on question 9 (adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities [such as intellectual disabilities, physical, or health disabilities] would negatively affect students without disabilities at JES.) This question had reverse wording, with a high rating indicating a negative view toward including students requiring high-intensity supports in the local school.

Table 3.

Comparison of Caregiver and Teacher Responses to the Survey Questions.

	df (1, 65)		Caregivers vs. teachersM (SE)
Survey Items	F	p	Caregivers(n = 34)	Teachers/educators(n = 34)
1. SWDs should be meaningfully included with their peers without disabilities	23.00	.00	4.23 (0.27)	>2.36 (0.27)
2. SWDs are welcomed	28.00	.00	4.26 (0.26)	>2.30 (0.26)
3. It is socially beneficial for SWDs to interact with their peers without disabilities	29.54	.00	4.44 (0.27)	>2.33 (0.27)
4. It is socially beneficial for peers without disabilities to interact with SWDs	28.06	.00	4.41 (0.27)	>2.33 (0.28)
5. It is academically beneficial for SWDs interact with their peers without disabilities	23.04	.00	4.17 (0.25)	>2.48 (0.25)
6. It is academically beneficial for peers without disabilities to interact with SWDs.	18.07	.00	4.00 (0.25)	>2.48 (0.25)
7. I would welcome the addition of a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (such as intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities)	26.57	.00	4.38 (0.25)	>2.54 (0.25)
8. Adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (such as intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities) would be beneficial to the JES community	27.84	.00	4.38 (0.24)	>2.51 (0.25)
9. Adding a life skills program for students with severe disabilities (such as intellectual disabilities, physical or health disabilities) would negatively affect students without disabilities at JES.	20.14	.00	2.20 (0.25)	<3.85 (0.25)
10. I would welcome the addition of a preschool special education program for SWDs	26.46	.00	4.03 (0.23)	>2.33 (0.23)
11. Adding a preschool special education program would be beneficial for young SWDs in the community	37.10	.00	4.21 (0.23)	>2.15 (0.24)
12. JES should make adaptations to keep a student with significant needs at JES	11.07	.00	3.65 (0.20)	>2.69 (0.20)
13. A student with significant needs that lives within the JES boundary should travel to a school in another area that can better serve his/her needs.	3.01	.08	3.38 (0.19)	>2.91 (0.19)

Note. M = Mean; SE = Standard Error; SWDs = Student(s) with disabilities; JES =School where data was collected, bold = p ≤ .05; responses include strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither disagree nor agree (3), agree (4), or strongly agree (5).

Interviews

Interviews were conducted over Zoom between November 2020 and January 2021. Seven school staff members were interviewed: special education teachers Sara, Sloane, Stacy, and Susan, related service provider Rachel, and administrators, Amy and Adam, that oversee aspects of special education. The average duration of interviews was 63 min. Participants were assigned pseudonyms. Thematic analysis identified five interrelated themes.

Theme 1: Current Practices

Participants reported that current inclusive practices at JES vary by grade level, individual teacher, and the level of support students require. They described few opportunities for academic inclusion, which was similarly identified as a need on the caregiver survey. For example, students with IEPs in kindergarten through third grade were secluded in the special education classroom, regardless of disability, rather than included in general education classrooms with support. Some fourth and fifth graders received special education services for math or reading in a general education setting, but not necessarily in their homeroom general education class. Instead, SWDs left their homeroom classes to join a single class referred to as inclusion math or inclusion reading. In these classrooms, students with IEPs typically received instructional supports from special education personnel in small group in the back of the classroom or in the hallway separate from the instruction of the general education teacher. The general education and special education teachers in these classes rarely work from a mutually developed or executed lesson plan. Sloane said, “If I ask the gen ed teachers for (curriculum maps), they kind of say, ‘I plan on my own’ while other grade levels plan all together and are very systematic in the way they do things.” Participants described opportunities for SWDs to experience social inclusion in specials (e.g., music, art, P.E.), lunch, recess, and other activities (e.g., parties, field trips) which was consistent with responses on the teacher survey.

SWDs identified with emotional behavioral disorders (EBD) were described as systematically excluded from their peers without disabilities during academic and social activities. At JES, students with EBD are routinely placed in a self-contained setting referred to as the emotional disorders (ED) classroom. Sara said, “It’s more on an individual basis of what they can handle. Some of them are in that classroom the entire day and are not able to attend specials.” The ED classroom uses the Crane-Reynolds behavior management point system, in which students earn their way back into general education settings over time by consistently displaying appropriate behaviors which can take weeks to demonstrate (Crane et al., 2009).

Theme 2: Strengths of the School Environment

In their interviews, participants identified the school’s welcoming environment, cohesion among special educators, and access to monetary and tangible resources as strengths. Participants felt that general education teachers welcomed and supported SWDs—particularly those that did not engage in disruptive or aggressive behaviors. Although barriers such as large student-to-teacher ratios for caseloads routinely made it difficult for inclusion to be implemented properly, the special education teachers felt their shared desire for inclusion increased the likelihood that students were properly supported.

Positive Attitudes

Participants described the school culture as being accepting and welcoming of SWDs, with both adults and peers without disabilities displaying positive attitudes toward SWDs. Participants stated that SWDs benefit from the general education teachers’ positive attitudes which they believe increase the likelihood that teachers accept SWDs and use inclusive practices. Participants said that the positive attitudes of administration effects everyone in the building. Susan said, “The positive energy at [the school] is evident the moment you walk in the door. You can tell that there is a culture of respect throughout the building . . .”

Special Education Team Cohesion

The special education teacher respondents indicated a very strong, committed, positive, and supportive relationship with each other. Stacy emphasized how unique it was to have such a cohesive unit, “I’ve never been a special ed teacher with a team. It was always just me and my instructional assistants . . . that support from my teammates has definitely been a big bonus . . .” Participants appreciated the emotional support from their team. Susan stated: “We’re all very committed to the same aspect of making sure that these children belong, and that they are prepared for whatever life is going to give them.”

Resources Available

Participants described feeling emotionally and financially supported by administrators. Participants noted administrators often trust and support teachers’ decisions related to behavioral incidents. Sloane said: “I feel very well supported by admin as a teacher and if I have a behavior or a situation, they are always willing to sit down and brainstorm and talk.” Participants also felt that administrators would help them with purchasing materials to support student learning. Sara gave an example:

Say I have a kiddo who is struggling with some type of sensory thing . . . like, this item would be awesome for them, and I really think that they could use it. If we approach (the principal) with that, he’ll take care of it for us.

In addition, all participants appreciated the school’s sensory room. Although the sensory room was a small physical space, its impact on behavior management was extensive. SWDs use the room as a reward, for sensory breaks, calming activities, or to deescalate after a problem behavior occurs. As Amy said, “The sensory room is a huge space. It’s a very small space (physically), but it’s very impactful. It’s a very positive space.”

Theme 3: Overcrowding

Participants consistently expressed concerns with the overcrowding of their school. In some ways, the physical space is too large, with an expansive campus serving approximately 1,000 students, which can be difficult to move around between classes. Conversely, classroom spaces are too small for current class sizes, particularly as the population of the school continues to increase. Participants expressed there were simply too many students and not enough staff.

Physical Size and Space

Participants described the building as too big, with a long distance between general education classrooms, special education classrooms, and the lone sensory room. Time spent traveling between classrooms impeded on instructional time. Susan said, “Twenty minutes of my day is just walking between classrooms. It’s exhausting.” In addition, supporting the sensory needs of SWDs is difficult because there is only one sensory room. It is impossible to add additional sensory rooms or additional classrooms dedicated to special education programming because all classroom space is already being utilized.

Participants were divided on their opinions about the current arrangement of special education and general education classrooms. Special education classrooms at JES are clustered together so special education teachers and aides can better support each other as challenging behavior occurs. This arrangement is ideal for some teachers and contributes to the cohesive team environment. It also provides support to special education teachers who serve multiple grades. Sara said,

If I only was [teaching one grade level], if that was all I did, then sure, it might make more sense for me to be with my [same grade-level] classrooms. But since, now that’s not the way it is and we’re all taking multiple grade levels, it kind of works.

Conversely, some teachers felt that clustering the special education classrooms decreases opportunities for inclusion, as SWDs were not adjacent to their peers without disabilities when they go to the resource room for special education services. Adam said, “I would love if special ed. teachers were located, or their classrooms were located, closer to the students that they were working with. Not all [special ed. classrooms] in the same hallway.” Even with the vast size of the school, the classrooms are not big enough. Susan stated, “I think if we had more space, within some of the classrooms so that we weren’t sardine cans, that would be nice.” The rate of teacher and staff hiring is not increasing at the same pace as the rapidly swelling student population. Stacy said: “We need more teachers. We have too many kids and not enough [teachers].” Teacher participants also reported that due to the large school population, administrators are not always available for support. The school has the same number of administrators as other schools in the district that have about half the student population.

Large Caseloads and Supporting Students With Behavioral Needs

Special education teachers and related service providers have very large caseloads, which limited the time staff could spend supporting individual students. Susan stated, “In general, the special ed. teachers are carrying caseloads of 28 kids. That’s bigger than a gen. ed. class. That’s not effective.” Teachers who support students with intense behavioral problems had a difficult time providing time and attention to their entire caseload. Sometimes, this led to paraprofessionals providing instruction while teachers manage challenging behavior. Sloane said, “[In] a typical day, I’m often pulled from my classroom for behaviors.” Because the school has fewer special education teachers than grade levels, each teacher serves students in at least two different grades. Sometimes teachers are expected to provide supports in the general education classroom and resource room at the same time for two different grade levels. Sara described difficulty supporting both grades:

So, you have kids in your resource room. And you have inclusion kids, and you’re supposed to service them both . . . One week I would go to inclusion and my aide would stay in my classroom. In the next week, we would flop to where she would do inclusion, and I would service my pull-out kids.

The school rebalances caseloads each year, so the teachers support a similar number of students, but this creates inconsistency in grade levels taught and students supported, requiring potentially increased workload (e.g., learning new grade level content) for teachers. In addition, participants admitted turnover among paraprofessionals is exceptionally high but indicated this is an issue at most schools. Participants said there are numerous unfilled paraprofessional positions and that many who are hired receive few opportunities for professional development. Paraprofessional absences or vacancies often result in students who receive paraprofessional support in the general education classroom being served in more restrictive environments. Sara said: “Sometimes I may ask to have that kid just come to my room because there’s not a para to be with them. You know, out in the building, where they should be.”

Theme 4: Exclusionary Practices

This theme describes barriers at the school related to exclusionary practices of SWDs. Students in third grade or younger routinely receive academic supports in a resource classroom away from their peers in general education and many times have few to no opportunities to interact with peers without disabilities in either academic or social environments. In addition, students included in academics often do not experience an ideal co-teaching model. Participants shared three primary barriers that lead to exclusionary practices: scheduling and collaboration, inconsistencies in supports, and attitudinal barriers of general education teachers.

Scheduling and Collaboration

Participants consistently stated that there is very little collaboration between special education and general education teachers. Time for collaboration is not scheduled and is difficult due to the time commitment of providing services for large caseloads across more than one grade level. Even in classrooms that use a push-in model of two-teachers in one room, regular planning meetings to discuss strategies or individual student needs were not held. Participants said the only times special education and general education teachers collaborate were in passing or outside of regular working hours. Stacy said, “We typically would have to do it before or after school. There was never that time within the school day. Unless it would be my lunch and then I would take my lunch and meet with them.”

Inconsistencies Providing Supports

Participants stated a lack of collaboration also exists among special education teachers and the leaders of school-wide support systems. They said the response to intervention (RTI), positive behavior intervention and supports (PBIS), Title 1, and English learner (EL) teams rarely communicate with special education teachers. As a result, special education teachers choose whether to use school-wide PBIS, and students may have different reinforcement systems in different settings, limiting their effectiveness. Adam said: “If we have a (special education) teacher who has six different behavior charts, six different goals, six different types of ways we’re rewarding students, it can be very difficult to manage effectively.” In addition, participants indicated that some teachers may need more support and training on evidence-based interventions for inclusion to be successful. Amy said, “(We’re) trying to help support our new teachers who struggle with interventions in the classroom . . . I think some of our new teachers, it’s just very overwhelming.”

Attitudinal Barriers

Participants unanimously described the school as welcoming and the teachers as understanding of SWDs. However, most participants also described observing a shift in teacher attitudes after experiencing one episode of challenging behavior. Sloane said, “There are some students where if they engage in aggression or property destruction it is difficult to repair those relationships [with the general education teacher] at times.” Some participants expressed a desire to protect students in general education from SWDs who display challenging behavior. Rachel said, “It’s hard for me sometimes, looking at it from a parent perspective of those typical peers and maybe how disruptive it can be for my children.” Sara was concerned that peers would learn unacceptable behaviors from such students.

There’s not as many benefits to the gen ed kids being exposed to that because it’s very, I mean, it can be scary. I mean, there’s a lot of language, these kids can get very physical . . . if that can’t be controlled then I don’t necessarily think it’s the best idea for them to be in the regular classroom.

Furthermore, some participants felt that students who display intense challenging behavior should be moved into the ED room more quickly.

Theme 5: Future Desires

Participants expressed a myriad of desires related to the school’s functioning. Their desires for inclusion are described below. Participants reported wanting additional supports for SWDs, such as life skills or preschool programs, but admitted that those supports were implausible without hiring more staff, particularly special education teachers. The participants also wanted more opportunities for professional development focusing on supports for SWDs. Participants appeared to be optimistic that additional professional development could be introduced, but skeptical that the district would approve hiring more staff.

Hire More Staff

To reduce caseloads, participants would like the school to hire more special education teachers, but according to the principal that decision is left up to the district. Participants were unsure about how to advocate for hiring more teachers and were unaware of how these decisions are made. Multiple participants indicated that having one special education teacher for each grade level the school serves would be ideal, thus reducing caseloads. Susan said, “If we could get more teachers and more instructional aides, that we could then keep for more than a year, that would be great.”

Professional Development

Special education teachers indicated that general education teachers would benefit from training in inclusive practices. Rachel said, “It’s a matter of staffing and gen ed.’s competence and experience and willingness to really adapt . . . to include these kids with more special needs. That’s a lot of work on their part.” The most cited training need was around behavior management, specifically positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) implementation, de-escalation, and crisis intervention. Participants stated that behavior management trainings would benefit all staff but highlighted the need among paraprofessionals and general education teachers. Sara said,

(Therapeutic Crisis Intervention) changed my view, just the way you approach each situation. I felt like if we had training throughout the building, you would have probably less instances where we’re allowing children to get fully triggered and fully agitated.

Change Delivery of Services

Overall, participants said they want more opportunities for academic inclusion for SWDs, including co-teaching at every grade level. For this change in delivery of services to be successful, participants suggested that hiring more staff alone would not be enough. In addition, they stated that the school would need to change how it viewed inclusion, and teachers would need to be retrained in the determination of the least restrictive environments. The school would also need to prioritize scheduled time for collaboration and planning. Rachel stated, “It would be neat to see some co-teaching with the special education teachers . . . I would be interested in supporting in (general education and resource) classrooms.”

School and district administrators were exploring alternative options for physical space because the student population continues to grow. As part of the solution for stabilizing overcrowding, the district was planning to build a new elementary school in the area. Participants were divided on how they would want the population distributed, but they were excited about the physical possibilities a newly built school could create. Susan presented a creative idea: “I think that would be really cool to have an inclusion classroom with a movable wall so that you could have your resource kids right here.”

Currently, JES does not offer life skills or early intervention preschool programming so students who require those services that live within the school boundaries travel to different schools to be educated. Participants had varying knowledge of what the programs would entail but were generally supportive of adding both if there was available space and staff. Participants indicated that adding classrooms and programs to the current building would not be possible due to overcrowding and large caseload. Stacy wanted more programs but voiced concerns, “The more programming you can have in your building, the better . . . But, you know, we’re just so short on space. I think for us, at the moment, it’s just not a feasible option, as great as it would be.”

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to utilize a PAR framework to guide our investigation of inclusive practices at a public elementary school. The PAR framework was chosen to create meaningful change by including relevant stakeholders in the research and subsequent decision-making processes (Herr & Anderson, 2015). To address the research questions, both qualitative and quantitative measures were utilized. Results indicated that exclusionary practices for SWDs at the school are common but there is a strong desire for improved inclusion. Identified barriers to greater inclusion in this study mirrored the literature: caseload size (Giangreco et al., 2011), time for collaboration (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; Fuchs, 2010), and a lack of a shared vision for inclusive practices (Billingsley et al., 2018; Coviello & DeMatthews, 2020; Theoharis & Causton, 2014). Special education teachers are often viewed as the gatekeepers to special education practices such as inclusion in general education settings (Baustien Siuty, 2019). This viewpoint may hinder the collaborative process due to its perceived hierarchical relationship, with general educators waiting on special educators’ permission to work together to meet the needs of students and create a shared vision of effective inclusion. For students who exhibit challenging behaviors, general educators in this study were also found to be gatekeepers to inclusion by denying access, indicating a need for change at the system level.

Effective inclusion has repeatedly been found through decades of research to improve academic outcomes of SWDs (Cosier et al., 2013; Rea et al., 2002), specifically reading and language skills (Chitiyo, 2017; Murawski & Swanson, 2001) and increased homework completion (Gray, 2009). Fortunately, the number of SWDs spending most of their day in the general education classroom has increased over the past decade (NCES, 2024). However, teacher perceptions from this study echo reports within the literature that general education teachers have fewer positive attitudes than special education teachers toward inclusive practices (Jury et al., 2021). Thus, it is important for administrators to develop and disseminate to stakeholders a shared vision for inclusive practices, something that JES lacked. Furthermore, school contextual factors (e.g., caseloads, general and special education teacher collaboration) can have substantial effects on the appropriate implementation of inclusive practices (Cook et al., 2017; Fuchs, 2010). Participants in the present study reported that there was limited time set aside for collaboration, due in part to large special educator caseloads. A vision for inclusion must be feasible.

In this study, an elementary school that served approximately 1,000 students was considering a new building as its population increased. Therefore, the mechanisms and supports for teachers to provide inclusive educational opportunities need to be efficient and routine (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2009). Specifically, special education teachers in an inclusive school must have workable caseloads, support a realistic range of general education settings, hold dedicated time for collaboration, and supervise a reasonable number of paraprofessionals (Suter & Giangreco, 2009). All aspects of daily operations need to be designed for greater academic inclusion including space, location, schedule, routine, and school-wide practices and supports. This type of school-wide change must have leaders with a strong understanding of inclusion, SDI, and best practices in special education to advocate for meaningful rather than performative inclusion (DeMatthews et al., 2020; Sun & Xin, 2020).

Study results were aggregated and analyzed. The recommendations were developed by analyzing study data while considering relevant literature. Both the results and recommendations were shared with the school administration team. They disseminated the results to the entire school and used the results and recommendations to advocate for more staff at the district level. While the results of this study were aimed at empowering stakeholders to create meaningful change within their own school, these specific recommendations are supported by the literature but derived from the collaborative research process of PAR and can be thought of as a best practice guide for teams engaged in similar changemaking.

Recommendations for Greater Inclusion at JES

When presented with the results of this study and recommendations for improving the inclusive practices at JES, the school’s principal agreed with the barriers identified and the need for change to improve special education services at the school. First, we recommended that JES determines a shared vision of inclusive practices and co-teaching. This vision should be based upon the best practices of inclusion, which include access to all possible educational settings by introducing instructional and behavioral accommodations and modifications (Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). Students were described as receiving inclusive services at JES, yet many were still segregated and were being pulled out of their own general education class to access services in a different general education classroom with special education support. Participants described this practice as inclusion and the school has labeled these classes as inclusion math, but it subjects SWDs to additional transitions, classroom rules, and social negotiations that their peers without disabilities are not experiencing in general education. A shared vision should align the current practices more closely to the recommendations within the literature and foster an environment of collaboration between special education and general education teachers to best serve SWDs in the least restrictive environment (Alnasser, 2021).

Second, we recommended that JES identifies specific professional development topics to further encourage inclusive practices, which could result in more equitable practices for children with disabilities (Petersson-Bloom & Bölte, 2022). Specifically, when interviewed special education teachers stated that behavior management trainings would benefit all staff at JES and that there is a lack of collaboration among the special education teachers and the leaders of school-wide support systems. Participants and researchers identified potential areas of training, including co-teaching practices, classroom-wide supports, effective PBIS and RTI, collaboration between teachers and systems-wide operations, and behavioral interventions.

Third, JES could attempt to decrease the pupil-to-teacher ratio by increasing the number of special education teachers and staff. Although the decision to hire additional special education teachers must be approved by the district, the research team could help JES justify this by conducting a workload analysis that might more fairly measure and assign a caseload with inclusionary practices such as co-teaching in mind (Bettini et al., 2017). Additional staff would decrease the caseloads of special education teachers, increasing the likelihood that inclusive and collaborative practices occur (Giangreco et al., 2011). Improving pupil-to-teacher ratios could result in protected meeting times between general and special education teachers, which are necessary for effective inclusion of SWDs (Cook et al., 2017; Santoli et al., 2008).

Finally, we suggested that JES develop a plan for the physical arrangement of special education learning environments in the new building. For example, interview participants preferred the placement of special education classrooms near or connected to the general education classrooms within the same grade level. This physical setup would decrease transition time and increase the likelihood that students are included in academic and social contexts when pull-out supports are determined to be the least restrictive environment. A plan for intentional and coordinated inclusion within general education environments may eliminate the need for additional segregated learning environments for SWDs allowing for more specialized spaces (e.g., sensory rooms). Staff members indicated they would like more physical spaces, such as the sensory room, for handling challenging behavior and reinforcing appropriate behavior.

Limitations, Implications for Practice, and Directions for Future Research

This study offers valuable insights into the perceptions and current practices of special education but has limitations. Because a PAR case study approach was used the results are intended for local problem-solving rather than generalization. Interviews produced valuable data, but perspectives of general education teachers, paraprofessionals, caregivers, and students were not included. This study relied upon self-reported data and did not include classroom observations of implementation of inclusive practices. A further exploration of inclusive practices examining both its implementation along with perceptions could glean a deeper understanding. This study was conducted during a pandemic, so it is possible that external variables (e.g., staff absences, personal health concerns, preparing for hybrid teaching) affected perceptions. The PAR model decreases the likelihood of misguided supports that do not reflect the desires and needs of staff are implemented (Lau & Stille, 2014). Like in previous applications of PAR (Morris et al., 2021), a top-down approach was employed, the principal initiated the research partnership. However, unlike previous studies, staff and caregivers were consulted prior to subsequent interventions and trainings beyond the scope of this study.

PAR can help to address the research-to-practice gap bringing academics and practitioners together. There are many benefits to engaging in PAR to drive meaningful change for inclusion such as stakeholder ownership of solutions, including the lived experiences and desires of stakeholders, and support for implementation.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Carly Roberts

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jasmine Begeske

Eric N. Shannon

Amanda M. Borosh

Jennifer Elaine Smith

Jingyuan Zhang

Mehmet Sulu

Suneeta Kercood

Rose A. Osnaya

References

Agran

Jackson

Kurth

J. A.

Ryndak

Burnette

Jameson

Zagona

Fitzpatrick

Wehmeyer

(2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms? Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134

Alnasser

Y. A.

(2021). The perspectives of Colorado general and special education teachers on the barriers to co-teaching in the inclusive elementary school classroom. Education 3-13, 49(6), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1776363

Anderson

A. J.

(2020). A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in US high schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1–2), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12389

Anyon

Bender

Kennedy

Dechants

(2018). A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education & Behavior, 45(6), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118769357

Ary

Cheser Jacobs

Sorensen Irvine

Walker

D. A.

(2019). Introduction to research in education (10th ed.).

Baldwin

(2012). Participatory action research. In Grey

Midgley

Webb

S. A.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social work (pp. 467–482). Sage.

Baum

MacDougall

Smith

(2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662

Baustien Siuty

. (2019). Inclusion gatekeepers: The social production of spatial identities in special education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(8), 1032–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1635283

Bettini

Jones

Brownell

Conroy

Park

Leite

Crockett

Benedict

(2017). Workload manageability among novice special and general educators: Relationships with emotional exhaustion and career intentions. Remedial and Special Education, 38(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932517708327

10.

Billingsley

Banks

(2019). Leadership for inclusive schools: 1995-2015. In Crockett

Billingsley

Boscardin

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education (pp. 180–195). Routledge.

11.

Billingsley

DeMatthews

Connally

McLeskey

(2018). Leadership for effective inclusive schools: Considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.6

12.

Campbell

J. L.

Quincy

Osserman

Pedersen

O. K.

(2013). Coding in-depth semi structured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475

13.

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

Bull

Cosier

Dempf-Aldrich

(2011). Schools of promise: A school district—university partnership centered on inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510366163

14.

Chitiyo

(2017). Challenges to the use of coteaching by teachers. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 55–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1163186.pdf

15.

Coghlan

Brannick

(2010). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.

16.

Cole

S. M.

Murphy

H. R.

Frisby

M. B.

Grossi

T. A.

Bolte

H. R.

(2021). The relationship of special education placement and student academic outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 54(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920925033

17.

Cook

S. C.

McDuffie-Landrum

K. A.

Oshita

Cook

B. G.

(2017). Co-teaching for students with disabilities: A critical and updated analysis of the empirical literature. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

Pullen

P. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 233–248). Routledge.

18.

Cosier

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

(2013). Does access matter? Time in general education and achievement for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485448

19.

Coviello

DeMatthews

D. E.

(2020). Failure is not final: Principals’ persepctives on creating inclusive schools for students with disabilities. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(4), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0170

20.

Crane

Reynolds

Cooper

(2009). The source book (3rd ed.). Crane/Reynolds, Inc.

21.

Creswell

J. W.

(2021). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.

22.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Kotok

Serafini

(2020). Leadership preparation for special education and inclusive schools: Beliefs and recommendations from successful principals. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 15(4), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119838308

23.

Fuchs

W. W.

(2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30–35. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ948685

24.

Giangreco

M. F.

Suter

J. C.

Hurley

S. M.

(2011). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419015

25.

Gray

(2009). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: The impact of collaboration on attitudes, efficacy, and student achievement. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

26.

Harkins

Fletcher

(2015). Survey of educator attitude regarding inclusive education within a southern Arizona school district. Journal of Multilingual Education Research, 6(5), 61–93. https://research.library.fordham.edu/jmer/vol6/iss1/5/

27.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty. Sage.

28.

Huberman

A. M.

Miles

M. B.

(1994). Data management and analysis methods. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Sage.

29.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq. (2004).

30.

Jacobs

S. A.

Furgerson

S. P.

(2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(6), 1–10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ990034.pdf

31.

Jury

Perrin

Desombre

Rohmer

(2021). Teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder: Impact of students’ difficulties. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 83, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2021.101746

32.

Kausik

N. H.

Hussain

(2023). The impact of inclusive education on academic motivation, academic self-efficacy, and well-being of students with learning disability. Journal of Education (Boston, Mass.), 203(2), 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211031957

33.

Kurth

J. A.

Mastergeorge

A. M.

(2010). Individual education plan goals and services for adolescents with autism: Impact of age and educational setting. The Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908329825

34.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796914555580

35.

Lau

S. M. C.

Stille

(2014). Participatory research with teachers: Toward a pragmatic and dynamic view of equity and parity in research relationships. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2014.882313

36.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 464–490. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158

37.

McAlister

A. M.

Lee

D. M.

Ehlert

K. M.

Kajfez

R. L.

Faber

C. J.

Kennedy

M. S.

(2017, June). Qualitative coding: An approach to assess inter-rater reliability. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2—28777

38.

McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

(2002). School change and inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208400114

39.

Morales

M. P. E.

(2016). Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(1), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.01395

40.

Morris

J. E.

Lummis

G. W.

Ferguson

Lock

Hill

Nykiel

(2021). Balancing school improvement strategies with workload pressures: A participatory action research case study. Educational Action Research, 31, 633–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.2000878

41.

Murawski

W. W.

Swanson

L. H.

(2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200501

42.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

43.

Oh-Young

Filler

(2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

44.

Petersson-Bloom

Bölte

(2022). “Now we all share the same knowledge base”–evaluating professional development targeting preschool staff’s understanding of autism and inclusion skills. Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.846960

45.

Rea

P. J.

McLaughlin

V. L.

Walther-Thomas

(2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001440290206800204

46.

Roach

Salisbury

(2010). Promoting systemic, statewide inclusion from the bottom up. Theory into Practice, 45(3), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_10

47.

Ruijs

N. M.

Peetsma

T. T.

(2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

48.

Ruppar

A. L.

Neeper

L. S.

Dalsen

(2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916672843

49.

Santoli

S. P.

Sachs

Romey

E. A.

McClurg

(2008). A successful formula for middle-school inclusion: Collaboration, planning time, and administrative support. Research on Middle Level Education Online, 32, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404476.2008.11462055

50.

Segall

M. J.

Campbell

J. M.

(2014). Factors influencing the educational placement of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2013.10.006

51.

Selener

(1997). Participatory action research and social change (2nd ed.). Cornell Participatory Action Research Network.

52.

Sindelar

P. T.

Shearer

D. K.

Yendol-Hoppey

Liebert

T. W.

(2006). The sustainability of inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200304

53.

Sun

A. Q.

Xin

J. F.

(2020). School principals’ opinions about special education services. Preventing School Failure, 64(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1681354

54.

Suter

J. C.

Giangreco

M. F.

(2009). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313353

55.

Theoharis

Causton

(2014). Leading inclusive reform for students with disabilities: A school- and system-wide approach. Theory into Practice, 53(2), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.885808

56.

Waitoller

F. R.

Artiles

A. J.

(2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905

57.

Warne

R. T.

(2014). A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19. https://doi.org/10.7275/sm63-7h70

58.

Woodcock

Hardy

(2020). Beyond the binary: Rethinking teachers’ understandings of and engagement with inclusion. In Fraser

(Ed.), Social justice and education (pp. 71–90). Routledge.