Considerations Administrators Forget Facilitating Inclusive Practices

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL
VOLUME 27, NUMBERS 1 & 2, 2014

Is There An Elephant in the Room? Considerations that
Administrators Tend to Forget when Facilitating Inclusive Practices
among General and Special Education Teachers
Sandra Cooley Nichols, PhD
Associate Professor and Department Head
The University of Alabama

Adriane N. Sheffield
Post Graduate Student
The University of Alabama

Abstract
More than six million students are being served nationwide under the Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004). As a result of NCLB mandates and IDEIA,
inclusive practices have become standard in addressing the needs of all learners. Co-teaching is
one inclusive practice that is now being used at all levels of schooling. The purpose of this
reflective analysis is to inform administrator preparation and professional development research
related to special education. Themes addressed by study participants included: need for cultural
sensitivity training, time and techniques for building co-teaching relationships, and
administrative support.
Keywords: collaboration, inclusion, instructional practice, administration

According to recent reports, more than six million students nationwide are being served
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (U.S. Department
of Education, 2012). These students comprise more than ten percent of the overall school
population and can be found in urban, rural, and suburban school districts, regardless of their
size. School accountability was raised for all students with the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) (2001), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)
(2004) mandated that a free and appropriate education be provided to all students with
disabilities. As a result of NLCB mandates and IDEIA, inclusive practices have become standard
in addressing the needs of all learners regardless of gender, race, class, nationality, or
exceptionality (Riehl, 2008). In addition, an increasing number of scholars and policy makers
agree that provisions must be made to ensure that all students are successful in school settings,
regardless of ability.

31

SANDRA COOLEY NICHOLS and ADRIANE N. SHEFFIELD
Literature Review
The Meaning of Inclusion
In order to understand the move to inclusive practices, first the meaning and purpose of
inclusion, must be understood, and practices that encourage inclusion identified and studied for
implementation processes. A clear definition of inclusion has been somewhat problematic.
However, there are several underlying principles.
First, inclusion is based on the premise that all humans have the right to participation,
access, and achievement (Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Rice, 2006; Ryan, 2010). Those who
support inclusion strive to “minimize the exclusion” (Harpell & Andrews, 2010, p. 191) by
creating a welcoming and supportive environment for those who may be disenfranchised.
(Obiakor, 2011; Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012; Rice, 2006). This
supports the social justice concept that promotes inclusion in opposition to exclusion and
encourages recognition, care, respect, and empathy towards others (Theoharris, 2007).
Second, inclusion is a process that emphasizes meaningful participation by all members
of a school community (Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Rice, 2006; Ryan, 2010). This process must
involve a change in school culture in order to be sustainable. Last, inclusion is a practice that
requires all learners to be supported in academic settings by merging regular and special
education services (Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Ryan, 2010). The successful use of inclusive
practices requires collaboration, acceptance and support from parents, teachers, and, most
importantly, administrators (Obiakor, 2011; Ryan, 2010).
Co-Teaching
One inclusive practice that has increased in interest is that of co-teaching. Co-teaching
can be defined as the pairing and partnering of a general education teacher and a special
education teacher, or other specialist, who jointly deliver instruction to a group of students,
including those with disabilities or other special learning needs (Friend, Cook, HurleyChamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010). Co-teaching should include at least three components: coplanning, co-instruction, and co-assessment (Murawski & Lochner, 2011). Co-planning allows
the special education teacher to proactively participate in the planning of instruction. There are a
variety of instructional variations encompassed by co-teaching. These include station teaching,
parallel teaching, alternative teaching, teaming, one teach, one observe and one teach, and one
assist (Scruggs, Mastopieri, & McDuffe, 2007; Friend et al., 2010). A combination of these
variations should be used as deemed appropriate for each co-teaching situation.
The literature has identified many benefits to co-teaching as an inclusive practice. For
students who are co-taught, the potential benefits included increased individual attention
(Scruggs et al., 2007; Harpell & Andrews, 2010), reduced negative behaviors, improved social
skills and self-esteem, and increased academic achievement (Rea, McLaughlin, & WalterThomas, 2002). This increase in academic achievement was not readily transferred to high-stakes
testing situations. Idol (2006) found that scores on high-stakes tests were only slightly affected
by co-teaching for either general education or special education students. Likewise, Rea et al.
(2002) found that while students with learning disabilities in co-taught classrooms performed
better on report card grades, their performance on high-stakes tests was comparable across
classroom types. This brings into question the measures currently being used to determine the

32

effectiveness of co-teaching. In addition to benefits for students, there are benefits for the
professionals as well.
First, both general education and special education teachers report professional growth
as a result of co-teaching arrangements (Murawski & Lochner, 2011; Scruggs et al., 2007). In
addition, teachers report shared accountability and responsibility for students; improved morale
and reduced burnout, and the use of increased instructional strategies (Friend et al., 2010). Kloo
and Zigmond (2008) question whether there is actual evidence to support that co-teaching is
effective in its present form. While there are benefits to co-teaching for educators, numerous
concerns still exist regarding co-teaching situations. Teacher concerns included a need for
common planning time; assignments to co-teaching classes; the need for additional professional
development, and administrative support (Friend et al., 2010; Hines, 2008; Kloo & Zigmond,
2008; Hines, 2008; Rice, 2006; Rice, 2008; Ryan, 2010; Rytivaara & Kershner, 2012; Scruggs et
al., 2007).
The Role of Administrators
Research has found that administrators are critical of the implementation of inclusive
practices. An administrator has significant power and influence over establishing and
maintaining inclusive settings, and this happens on multiple levels. First and foremost, a
principal’s beliefs, attitudes, and values about inclusion (Rice, 2006; Ryan, 2010; Schmidt &
Venet, 2012) set the tone and help to create a vision of inclusive schools. In order to influence
teachers, principals must also increase their own knowledge and understanding of special
education (Lynch, 2012). They must then model a positive attitude toward inclusive practices
(Harpell & Andrews, 2010; Rice, 2006; Ryan, 2010) for their faculty and community.
Second, it is crucial that principals serve as instructional leaders in their schools (Fullan,
2009; Lynch, 2012; Waldron, McCleskey & Redd, 2011). Educators need principals to be highly
visible as instructional leaders. They need to create and encourage open dialogue and
communication among all staff (Hines, 2008; Rice, 2006; Riehl, 2008). Hines (2012) lists six
activities that encourage openness and collaboration. These include: (1) providing positive
opportunities for sharing; (2) scheduling time for planning; (3) having teachers document their
collaborative activities; (4) visiting other inclusive settings; (5) providing resources, and (6)
celebrating successes. In addition, administrators must encourage and support parents, students,
educators, and community members to take an active role in building an inclusive climate
(Waldron et al., 2011). According to Lynch (2012), an inclusive learning environment is
“concerned with the schools’ emotional atmosphere, culture, values, and high expectations of all
students, especially those with disabilities” (p. 42).
In order to develop more inclusive learning environments, administrators will need to
influence and support teachers. One major teacher concern when initiating inclusive practices,
particularly co-teaching, is planning time. This may require administrators restructuring the
school day to provide adequate planning time for teachers to collaborate (Hines, 2008; Rice,
2006; Ryan, 2010) and modify curricula (Rice, 2006). In addition, administrators must provide
ongoing professional development opportunities that facilitate and support inclusive practices
(Hines, 2008; Rice, 2008; Ryan 2010). Principals can also demonstrate instructional leadership
by addressing and mediating conflicts that may arise between constituents (Hines, 2008; Lynch,
2012; Rice, 2006).
One important factor for administrators is the development and utilization of effective

33

evaluation methods of inclusive practices within their school. Murawski and Lochner (2011)
propose a framework for evaluating co-teaching that includes collection of documentation to
encompass collaborative planning, reflective sharing and problem-solving, and examples of
accommodated assignments. It provides administrators with a clear picture of what to ask for
before observing and what to look for while observing.
Questions remain about how administrators collaborate with community partners to
initiate a cultural change in their schools around inclusion and how they evaluate the
effectiveness of co-teaching situations within their school. Administrators must be proactive in
the structuring of co-teaching relationships and diligent in providing support and feedback to
teachers who are willing to take on the challenge of co-teaching. Their level of involvement and
participation in professional development aimed at supporting inclusive learning environments
could offer additional insight into how administrators implement and sustain cultural change
within their schools. Additional information related to sharing responsibility and feedback
provided to co-teachers could also be beneficial.
The following reflective analysis begins to answer these questions. This analysis is
associated with a larger study, which focused on the evaluation of a co-teaching professional
development model.
Purpose
Special education service delivery has been transformed over the past decade and is
continually changing. Mainly, separate special education programs within schools have become
integrated in theory [Response to Intervention and Positive Behavior Support] and policy [No
Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act] with general education.
Inclusion is the result of this integration. The effectiveness of implementing inclusive principles
ranges from stellar to non-existent. Although the ideals of inclusion have been documented for
more than 20 years, some professionals still refer to it as a new trend, and, unfortunately, many
remain opposed to it. The opposition can be credited to a multitude of reasons. However, some
are fear of the unknown, awareness of failed attempts, lack of support and enforcement by
administrators, and reluctance to leave the comfort zone. Consequently, there are major
challenges that must be addressed simultaneously in order for inclusion to have maximum effect.
The cultural biases of teachers working collaboratively with multicultural colleagues and
students, along with the shift from individual power to shared authority, must be readdressed.
Research that gives attention to these areas in administrator and teacher preparation programs is
needed. Thus, the purpose of this reflective analysis is to inform administrator preparation and
professional development research related to special education.
Methodology
Participants
Participants represented 18% (N = 49) of the total number of teachers employed with the
district. Participants represented 25% (N = 49) of the total number of teachers employed with
schools that participated in this study. All study participants were teaching in K-8th grade

34

inclusive settings and/or co-teaching. Special educators who did not have co-teaching
assignments but wanted to participate in the study were also included. A total of 37 general
education teachers participated in the study. The 37 participants represented 20% (37 of 186
total) of general education teachers employed by the participating schools. A total of 12 special
education teachers participated in the study; 11 had inclusive/co-teaching assignments, and 1
volunteered to participate. The participant who volunteered was assigned to teach in a segregated
classroom setting. The 12 participants represented 80% (12 of 15 total) of special education
teachers employed by the participating schools.
The 49 participants represented two racial/ethnic groups: African-Americans (43.3% or N
= 21) and Caucasians (56.7% or N = 28). The gender representation was 97.7% (N = 48) female
and 2.3% (N = 1) male. Participants resided in rural, suburban, and urban geographical areas.
Setting
A public school district in rural southwest Tennessee was the setting of this study. The
district consisted of 11 schools – seven elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school,
and one alternative school. A total of eight schools, six elementary and two middle, participated
as the focus of this reflection. Total student enrollment was 3,562, and the total number of
students receiving special education services was five-hundred seven (507) or 14.2% of the total
population. Table 1 provides a description of the district student body demographics.
Table 1
School District Demographics
Characteristics

Number of Students

Percent of Students

African-American

2,330

60.9

Asian Pacific Islander

14

.4

Hispanic

131

3.4

Native American/ Alaskan

7

.2

White

1,341

35.1

Limited English Proficient

113

14.2

Economically Disadvantage

3,045

82.1

Title I

3,557

93.0

Female

1,852

48.4

Male

1,971

51.6

Procedure

35

The building level principals and the Director of Special Services identified the special
education and general education teachers who were included in the professional development
project. Prior to initiation, these individuals were told that their participation in the study was
voluntary; identifying information would not be attached to the data, and participation in the
study could be terminated at any time. The potential participants were given a letter describing
the study and a consent form which was read aloud and the meaning was discussed. The signed
consent forms were collected from the individuals who chose to participate.
General education and special education teachers assigned to co-teach formed school
teams. These individuals jointly completed the professional development series, inclusive of
planning, implementation, evaluation, and reflective activities.
Participants engaged in an inclusion-focused professional development series that
consisted of a summer, two and one half day retreat, bi-monthly professional development
workshops, and an end of year celebration which focused on implementation of inclusive
principles. In addition to the special and general education teacher participants, attendees of the
summer retreat and bi-monthly professional development sessions included district
administrators and principals from the 8 representative schools.
Bi-Monthly Professional Development
Bi-monthly professional development sessions were conducted throughout the school
year. Participants attended two four-hour professional development sessions per month. The bimonthly professional development sessions were held on the 2 nd and 4th Thursdays of each month
(September – April) from 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. There was a total of 14 sessions.
Professional development activity. A basic format was followed during each
professional development session; the objectives of each session were connected to a co-teaching
strategy. Knowledge introduction sessions began with a welcome, followed by a team-building
activity. The team building activities were infused with probes that required participants to
express their views related to specific topics. The instructional portion of the sessions included a
review of previously covered information. The conceptual foundation of co-teaching models and
strategies was reviewed and/or presented. A visual depiction, an illustration, and a description of
the strategy were disseminated. The professional development leaders modeled the strategy. The
teams created lesson plans based on the strategies. Participants had to ensure that they addressed
multicultural considerations in their plans. The professional development leaders and participants
involved provided feedback and engaged in topic discussions. The teams implemented the plans
before the next professional development session.
Implementation follow-up sessions began with the welcome and a team-building activity.
However, the instructional portion of the session began with a discussion of implementation and
was focused on reflection and adjustment. The leaders shared examples of ways to adapt
instruction and helped participants process interpersonal conflicts. Instructional concerns were
addressed, such as limited content knowledge and differing ways to problem solve, as well as
using assistive technology and alternative strategies. Relational barriers were also processed,
such as sharing authority, parity, balancing responsibility, and communication.
Data Collection

36

Personal documents. Each session included a brief period for reflection during which
participants were encouraged to journal about experiences related to their practice and to the
study. The journaling assignment [15 minutes of free writing] was connected with a break [15
minutes], so participants had up to 30 minutes to privately reflect. Participants’ responses to the
activities that were integrated into the bi-monthly professional development sessions were used
as personal documents. Personal documents are first person narratives of an individual’s actions,
experiences, and beliefs (Plummer, 1983; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).
Reflection Analysis
Qualitative descriptive measures were used to review the reflections. The overarching
family of codes that shaped the coding process was the participants’ ways of thinking about
people and objects. The subjects’ understanding of each other, of outsiders, and of the objects
that make up their world is the underpinning of this family of codes. The reflections consisted of
personal documents that were first-person narratives of the participants’ actions, experiences,
and beliefs. The personal documents contained a total of 1,138 statements. Generally accepted
procedures for coding/identifying themes (e.g., Bogdan & Bilken, 1992) were used.
The researcher conducted two training sessions for the three research assistants who were
responsible for coding the data. The participants’ ways of thinking about people and objects
family code description, and relevance to the study were reviewed. Techniques of coding and
identifying themes were presented. The researcher and the three research assistants [coders]
coded simulated data sets until inter-rater reliability was established. The data were reviewed for
similarities and patterns, as well as reoccurring topics; representative words and phrases were
listed. The coders met to condense the representative words and phrases into coding categories
by combining repetitive and like words/phrases, as well as eliminating outliers/items that did not
address the study topic. By following these procedures, 10 categories/reoccurring themes were
identified from the data; only major code categories were utilized in this study. See Table 3 for a
list of the coding categories [major themes]. After the major codes/themes were finalized, the
coders analyzed the data by marking each unit with the appropriate coding category. Coders
were paired to conduct inter-rater reliability checks on the data. Finally, each response was
correlated with the 10 codes/themes. Refer to Table 2.

Results
Table 2
Coded Data by Percentages and Numbers of Items Representing Major Themes
Major Themes

%

Participants referred to the lack of a clear understanding of the meaning of culture.

37

9.1

#
103

Participants appreciated the opportunity to learn about multicultural considerations in
educational settings.

3.7

42

Participants discussed respecting cultural differences.

8.9

101

Participants discussed the frustrations that they experience when working with
students that they do not understand.

7.4

84

12.
6

143

Participants noted an increase in their comfort level related to working with their coteaching team.

8.7

99

Participants indicated that administrators have to require integration of cultural
consideration in lesson planning and delivery for it to be sustained.

8.2

93

Participants explained how they use multicultural considerations to work more
effectively with their co-teachers.

11

125

Participants stated that they were able to measure the changes in their students’
productivity based on multicultural considerations they applied in lesson planning and
delivery.

4.5
1

51

Participants discussed the frustrations that they experience when working with coteachers that they do not understand.

Participants addressed the impact that having a better understanding of their coteachers’ culture(s) and behavior patterns had on their ability to collaborate.

Participants made statements about co-teaching that were not specifically related to
multicultural education.

140
12.
3
9.6

109

3.9
9

45

Other response
Participants made unrelated statements

Total responses 1,138

~
100

38

Participants Referred to the Lack of a Clear Understanding of the Meaning of Culture
Participants’ responses indicated that prior to participation in the professional
development series many did not know the correct definition of culture. Likewise, they reported
that their views and opinions of cultural differences were distorted; thus, few cultural
considerations were incorporated into their lesson plans or delivery. Some of the participants said
that they were saddened by the self-discovery of their limited knowledge about culture and
diversity. Others were agitated by the idea of having to incorporate more into instruction.
Participants Appreciated the Opportunity to Learn about Multicultural Considerations in
Educational Settings
Participants stated that the information that they learned about cultural considerations
was beneficial and that they were interested in learning more. They discussed benefits such as
having a context for certain behaviors and/or customs. Interest in learning more about culture’s
effect on learning and parental involvement was mentioned numerous times. Additionally,
participants provided examples of ways they were referring to cultural considerations during
lesson planning and delivering instruction via the six co-teaching models.
Participants Discussed Respecting Cultural Differences
Participants discussed the value of understanding students’ cultures related to lesson
planning, delivery, and language. Reference was made to the possibility of offending students
when presenting content. Specifically noted was the need for techniques that support introducing
and examining sensitive issues. Also of concern was the fear of integrating inappropriate
examples (e.g., objects, animals, and people) or manipulatives into instruction.
Participants Discussed the Frustrations That They Experienced When Working with
Students They Did Not Understand
Participants began describing their feelings and beliefs about working with some of their
culturally diverse students with disabilities and those who are typically developing. They
frequently mentioned being disheartened about not being able to reach some of their students.
They described their frustrations and ideas about students’ inability/lack of interest. However,
participants also stated that they were better able to reach their students after developing an
understanding of culture and diversity.
Participants Discussed the Frustrations That They Experienced When Working with CoTeachers That They Did Not Understand
Participants (special education teachers) said that they were tired of being treated as if
they were not professionals. Participants (general education teachers) stated they were
uncomfortable releasing authority in their classes to someone who is not held accountable for
[standardized] scores. Many participants (special education and general education teachers) were
open to learning to work together and believed that understanding their co-teachers’ culture(s)
and reasons for behaviors would help them build mutual trust and respect.

39

Participants Noted an Increase in Their Comfort Level When Working with Their CoTeaching Teams
Participants stated that understanding their co-teachers’ culture(s) allowed them to
examine their personal comfort levels and set the stage for working together to overcome and
work around barriers.
Participants Indicated That Administrators Have to Require Integration of Cultural
Considerations in Lesson Planning and Delivery for it to be Sustained
Participants believed efforts to encourage their colleagues who did not participate in the
professional development to utilize cultural considerations were met with opposition. They felt
that little would be done or sustained without administrative support. Participants compared
integration of multicultural considerations to inclusion. They eluded that, similar to inclusion, it
was difficult to fully embrace the integration of multicultural considerations when they are
inconsistently implemented.
Participants Explained How They Use Multicultural Considerations to Work More
Effectively with Their Co-Teachers
Participants mentioned that having insight into their co-teachers’ culture(s) allowed them
to better determine how to assign specific responsibilities for the six co-teaching models.
Participants also indicated that they have better ideas of ways to support each another. They
stated that understanding their co-teachers behavior helped improve working conditions.
Participants Stated That They Were Able to Measure the Changes in Their Students’
Productivity Based on Multicultural Considerations They Applied in Lesson Planning and
Delivery
Participants were able to describe the considerations they made during lesson planning.
They were able to provide concrete examples of changes to instruction. Participants noted
increases in student engagement, on-task behavior, and mastery of content.
Participants Addressed the Impact That Having a Better Understanding of Their CoTeacher’s Culture(s) and Behavior Patterns Had on Their Ability to Collaborate
Participants discussed how understanding culture and human behavior, as well as
professional expectations, assisted them with collaboration. Participants elaborated on the need
to work together to benefit students. Participants stated that they were getting to know their
audiences better and using the information to engage in professional communication and
collaboration more effectively.
Limitations
While careful consideration was given to the multicultural education materials and topics
that were linked to the inclusive principles and co-teaching content, there was not an established
curriculum that was implemented. The researcher designed the curriculum to address the specific
40

needs of the district related to implementation of inclusive practices. Multicultural considerations
were not addressed in the research questions. Thus, the information extract was not deliberately
collected and well defined.
Discussion
The Elephant in the Room is the lack of attention and preparation that is provided to
teachers assigned to teach in inclusive settings, especially those who co-teach. While the
inability to process cultural differences and come to a common understanding of professional
roles, expectations, and implementation principles may not be an issue for all, it is reasonable to
estimate that it is an area of concern for many. The concern intensifies when teachers are located
in areas that have a history of social division or separation among specific groups, whether
ethnic, political, racial, or gender related. What the evidence showed is that perceptions of
groups, stereotypes, fears, etc. impacted interactions with colleagues and students. Merely
requiring adults to work together for the common good of students is not enough. It is imperative
that effective professional development that enhances teachers’ and administrators’ knowledge
of basic multicultural considerations is provided. It is also necessary to ensure that proper
implementation of these considerations, principles, and practices occur consistently over time.
These assumptions are justified by the aforementioned reflections.
The reflections shared in this manuscript supported previous scholarship on inclusive
practices that included basic multicultural considerations (Murtadha-Watts & Stoughton, 2004).
Participants believe that co-teaching enabled teachers to provide explanations from two
perspectives which allowed them to attend to cultural considerations. Participants also stated that
they developed an appreciation for “knowing students”, understood the importance of needing to
be familiar with the students’ culture, and noticed improved attitudes of teachers reluctant to
accept implementation of the co-teaching models. This realization parallels the conclusions
drawn by Trent, Artiles, Fitchett-Bazemore, McDaniel, and Coleman-Sorrell (2002).
Throughout the project, participants’ reflections documented a gradual shift from a
uniform understanding of culture and “knowing students” to a more realistic understanding.
Initially, participants’ definitions of diversity and culture were not based on research or
scholarship. Their ideas were formed from life experiences and were very limited. None of the
participants had an accurate understanding of the definitions of the terms presented (culture and
diversity). Participants associated culture with ethnic background most frequently. Participants
generally associated diversity with individuals who identified themselves as not being White.
Thus, an overwhelming majority of the participants’ understanding of cultural differences and
similarities among and between their students was misinformed.
Implications
The present findings emphasized the need for additional administrator training related to
facilitating inclusive environments in PK-12 schools. Inclusivity is wide in range and requires
that attention is given to sensitive issues. Administrators must be prepared to handle these
situations professionally. Likewise, there is a need for more teacher preparation program
effectiveness research focused on in-service teachers practicing in multicultural inclusive
settings. The barriers that are associated with stereotypes and misconceptions will continue to
plague the effectiveness of inclusive programs, unless practical solutions are identified and

41

implemented. Administrators must determine how they will address teachers’ and their own
personal biases that may greatly impact the facilitation of inclusion, as well as other systemic
initiatives.
References
Bogdan, R. C., & Bilken, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20(1), 9-27.
Fullan, M. (2009). Leadership development: The larger context. Educational Leadership, 67(2),
45-49.
Harpell, J. V., & Andrews, J. J. W. (2010). Administrative leadership in the age of inclusion:
Promoting best practices and teacher empowerment. Journal of Educational
Thought, 44(2), 189-210.
Hines, J. T. (2008). Making collaboration work in inclusive high school classrooms:
Recommendations for principals. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(5), 277-282.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: a program
evaluation of eight schools. Remedial & Special Education, 27(2), 77-94.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), P.L. 108-446. (2004).
Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Coteaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52(2), 12-20.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation
programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2),
40-47.
Murawski, W.W., & Lochner, W.W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for,
and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174-183.
Murtadha-Watts, K., & Stoughton, E. (2004). Critical cultural knowledge in special education:
Reshaping the responsiveness of school leaders. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(2), 1.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), P.L. 107-110. (2001). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Obiakor, F.E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477490.
Obiakor, F. E. (2011). Maximizing access, equity, and inclusion in general and special education.
Journal of International Association Special Education, 12(1), 10-16.
Plummer, K. (1983). Documents of life: An introduction to the problems and literature of a
humanistic method. London, England: Goerge Allen & Unwin.
Rea, P.J., McLaughlin, V.L., &Walter-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203-222.
Rice, N. (2006). Opportunities lost, possibilities found: Shared leadership and inclusion in an
urban high school. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(2), 88-100.

42

Riehl, C. L. (2008). The principal's role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Journal of Education, 189(1), 183-197.
Ryan, J. (2010). Establishing inclusion in a new school: The role of principal leadership.
Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 6-24.
Rytivaara, A., & Kershner, R. (2012). Co-teaching as a context for teachers’ professional
learning and joint knowledge construction. Teacher and Teacher Education, 28(7), 9991008.
Salisbury, C. L. (2006). Principals' perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 70-82.
Schmidt, S., & Venet, M. (2012). Principals facing inclusive schooling or integration. Canadian
Journal of Education, 35(1), 217-238.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & McDuffe, K.A. (2007). Co-Teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392416.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. C. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research and methods: The
search for meanings. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Publishing.
Theoharris, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of
social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., Fitchett-Bazemore, K., McDaniel, L., & Coleman-Sorrell, A. (2002).
Addressing theory, ethics power and privilege in inclusion research and practice.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1), 11-22.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012001
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal
in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 24(2), 51-60.
Authors
Sandra Nichols, PhD is an Associate Professor and Department Head at the University of
Alabama. Her scholarly interests focus on teacher preparation and practice with an emphasis on
special education. Her research explores the intersection of teacher knowledge and skills,
practice in authentic educational settings, and the impact of culture and subcultures on student
outcomes. Her work has been published in national and international journals, as well as books
and book chapters.
Adriane Sheffield is a Post Graduate Student in the Educational Studies in Psychology,
Research Methodology, and Counseling Department at the University of Alabama. Her scholarly
interests include disproportionality, encouragement in educational settings, and after school
programs. She has conducted presentations in her areas of interest at national and regional
conferences.

43

Considerations Administrators Forget Facilitating Inclusive Practices

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (17)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Considerations Administrators Forget Facilitating Inclusive Practices

Similaire à Considerations Administrators Forget Facilitating Inclusive Practices (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Considerations Administrators Forget Facilitating Inclusive Practices