A systems perspective is apt for describing the complex work of including SWD in high schools. The specialized support that students are provided is largely enabled and constrained by numerous interconnected elements of broader school and district system, and schools are beholden to multiple and sometimes competing pressures. When it comes to improving systems, “leveraging change in one part will lead to the desired outcome only if concurrent shifts happen in the relational and compositional elements of the system” (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007, p. 199). We argue that at RHS, change happened in just the right system elements in order to influence the outcome that was most valued and prioritized by school and district leaders: improved student achievement scores on high stakes tests. While the system was successful in achieving this outcome, other outcomes related to inclusion were more difficult to attain through the system. Namely, teachers were strained in their ability to provide SWD targeted and individualized instruction in their general education classes.
3.5.1 Limitations
While we offer broad theoretical and practical implications from this study, several limitations are important to bear in mind when interpreting our findings. First, this study is a detailed case study of one high school that is in many ways not representative of high schools across the country. RHS serves a relatively wealthy population of students and likely has access to more financial resources than an average school. Additionally, students at RHS have demonstrated markedly higher achievement levels compared to the state average. In spite of these characteristics, RHS provides a compelling case for illustrating the challenges and complexity of
implementing inclusion, which are challenges that schools with far fewer resources will likely have to contend.
Finally, our data collection did not encompass the broad range of outcomes for SWD that we might expect could be influenced by a system of support. Aside from Keystone scores, which were publically available at the school and subgroup level, we have little idea of how SWD or their peers fared in non-tested courses and in broader, non-academic areas (e.g. independent living skills). Comments from teachers and leaders suggested that, overall, SWD fared well in general education classes across the school. Additionally, the school boasted high graduation and post-school enrollment rates for SWD and their general education peers alike. Nonetheless, an objective measure of student achievement in non-tested subjects could provide additional insight into the extent to which the system of support benefitted students broadly or primarily in tested courses.
3.5.2 Implications for special education research and practice
While decades of special education research have acknowledged the school-wide and systemic shifts required to implement inclusion (e.g. (Baker et al., 1995; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Lipsky & Gartner, 1996; McLeskey & Waldron, 2006; McMaster, 2013; Theoharis & Causton, 2014), we argue that this has not necessarily altered the course of research in the field. Employing a systems perspective to study the implementation of special education policies stands to address this gap in a number of ways. We pose questions from systems change framework that, if explored in future special education research, could provide valuable insight for improving the implementation of inclusion.
107 3.5.2.1 Bounding the system
Bounding the system of support for implementing inclusion is not so straightforward. Schools must grapple with complex policy messages regarding what goals to prioritize when supporting SWD. Accountability policies (NCLB, 2001; ESSA, 2015) send the message that the goal of adequately supporting SWD can be measured in terms of student achievement scores on standardized tests. Alternatively, special education federal policy conveys different goals and notions of success for SWD (Russell & Bray, 2013). On a rudimentary level, IDEA requires that educators comply with legal guidelines in crafting and carrying out students’ IEPs. However, the spirit of the law is more complex, calling for all SWD to have opportunities to meet challenging objectives by receiving an education that is tailored to their individual needs (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District).
Exploring how schools and districts conceptualize their systems of support for implementing inclusion, including what goals they prioritize in bounding the system, may provide valuable insight into policy implementation and the unintended consequences of policies. Our findings indicate that when accountability targets are prioritized as the system goal, the elements in the system work together to meet this goal. When elements of the system work toward supporting SWD in tested courses, this could inadvertently detract resources from teachers’ ability to provide individualized support to students as they access the general curriculum more broadly.
3.5.2.2 Enduring system patterns that impede change
Lastly, a systems perspective can provide a fresh lens for exploring persistent and well- documented problems of implementing inclusion. Such persistent challenges to implementing inclusion in high schools that are underscored in our study include teacher relationships, lack of
time for co-planning, and the complexity of school schedules (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Harbort et al., 2007; Simmons & Magiera, 2007; Zigmond, 2006). Exploring these persistent challenges from a systems framework can surface their relationship to other elements in the system and provide insight about their resistance to change and other system elements that could be levers for change (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). For instance, a culture of respecting teacher autonomy contributed, in part, to scheduling challenges at RHS as leaders strove to convey respect for teachers’ professional autonomy but unintentionally perpetuated some teachers refusing to co-teach. This suggests that school culture and teachers’ professional autonomy could be important links to scheduling in the school system and candidates for intervention and improvement.
3.5.2.3 Identifying levers for system change
Elements of the system that are highly interconnected have potential to act as levers to trigger system change and improvement (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). In the case of RHS, the school scheduling process surfaced as one such element; highly connected and constraining to the rest of the system of support. Some have specifically explored the impact of different scheduling options on inclusion, suggesting that block schedules in high schools may facilitate better classroom supports for students in the co-teaching model (Weller & McLeskey, 2000). However, we know of no studies that systematically examine high school scheduling processes more broadly and their relationship to the implementation of inclusion. Future studies could provide valuable lessons related to improving systems of support for inclusion by exploring high school scheduling processes as a potential lever for system change.
109