Inclusive Schools

In Lake Washington School District, we have a long-standing model of regional self-contained programs for students with significant disabilities. At the elementary level, each region typically had 2-5 schools supporting learning center and/or intervention center programs. In contrast, within our secondary schools, every child (apart from those accessing intervention centers) can attend their neighborhood school. 
 
In 2019-20, Lake Washington had more students in contained programs than Bellevue, Highline or Seattle School Districts. In 2020, 30% of students with complex disabilities spent the majority of of their day in self-contained classrooms. In comparison, districts such as Mercer Island and Tahoma had only 6% of their students placed in such restrictive settings. Most of our students with significant disabilities were placed in learning center programs within regional schools. In total, we had 12 elementary schools with regional learning or intervention centers and 20 schools without any program other than a resource room. Schools with learning center programs typically had anywhere from 12-21 students with significant needs. With such large numbers of students with significant disabilities, these regional schools found it difficult to support inclusive practices or integrate such large numbers of students into general education. Additionally, our students in special education were demonstrating significantly different learning outcomes from their general education peers. There were gaps in performance on state assessments, graduation rates and more.
 
In 2019, we began our district journey towards inclusion. Since that time, we have implemented a fully inclusive preschool program, piloted inclusive practices at three of our schools as part of a national inclusion project with the TIES Center, increased co-teaching at the secondary level, piloted inclusive elementary schools within the Lake Washington region and looked for opportunities to return all students to their neighborhood schools.  

Benefits for all students:

• Greater gains in math and reading
• Greater empathy
• Increased social cognition
• Reduced fear of differences
• Improved self-concept
• Better ethical principles

Benefits for students with disabilities

• Higher rates of academic performance
• More satisfying and diverse friendships
• Less disruptive behaviors
• High student engagement
• Improved communication
• Better post school outcomes

Benefits for staff

• Strengthens collaboration skills.
• Develops growth mindset.
• Increases adaptability and flexibility.
• Deepens understanding of standards.
• Leads to instruction that meets the wide variability existing in all classrooms.

Benefits for families and community

• Increases acceptance of all types of differences
• Widens perspectives.
• Strengthens a sense of community. 
• Encourages appreciation for diversity.
• Builds neighborhood relationships and a sense of belonging outside of school.
   

• Numerous studies since the 1970s have concluded that separate education in a separate setting for students with disabilities has not only led to minimal academic gains, but also negative effects on social and academic outcomes. 
• Students without disabilities generally experience no negative effects when there is a student with extensive and pervasive support needs in their class (Idol, 2006). 
• On the contrary, students in general education often experience positive outcomes, such as increased understanding of human diversity, increased social skills, and increased empathy for others (Carter & Hughes, 2006). 
• Although classrooms can be easily disrupted by students who demonstrate ongoing patterns of challenging behavior (Gilmour, 2018), these disruptions are not always created by students with special educational needs. 
• In addition, along with special education teachers, general education teachers need expertise to address the behavioral challenges of all students, those with and without special educational needs (Beam & Mueller, 2017). This expertise can be developed through collaborative team efforts to address behaviors, leading to the professional growth of general education teachers.
• All the relevant research indicates that students with extensive and pervasive support needs, their general education peers, and both general and special education teachers benefit from inclusive education. For instance, students with extensive and pervasive support needs make academic, social, and behavioral gains when they are educated in general education classes (Agran, et al., 2018). In fact, these students make more progress in inclusive contexts than in substantially separate contexts (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2010). Although it may seem counter-intuitive, students with extensive and pervasive support needs who are educated in inclusive general education classes generally receive more instructional time and more individualized attention than those who spend their days in self-contained classrooms (Kurth & Mastergeorge, 2012). 
• General education teachers report that by working together to educate students with extensive and pervasive support needs in general education classes, they become more effective teachers (Kent-Walsh & Light, 2003). 
• Source: OSPI

• Students participate in general education to the greatest extent possible for them – accessing core content and receiving Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) either in general education or during intervention blocks with special education staff. Some students may still need to receive SDI in a special education setting for the majority of their day.
• Staff implement Universal Design for Learning and access the common core standards at their own level (Ohio’s leveled core standards for all learners; Washington State Standard Access Points) 
• Buildings create inclusion help desks that allow general education staff the opportunity gain ideas and support and immediate problem solving.
• Classrooms are set up for students with a variety of needs (providing visuals, offering a calming center, adaptive equipment, and seating)
• Classrooms implement positive behavior supports – teaching children about their emotions, behavior, individual differences, and utilizing social-emotional learning curricula.
• Special education teachers are assigned to specific grade levels such as K-2 and 3-5 so they are collaborating with a smaller number of general educations staff.
• Special education staff participate in grade level PLCs to consider how to support all students in their learning.
• Special education staff maintain a classroom space(s) that allow for students with complex needs to have more intensive or personalized learning if needed.
• Students are taught about peer support strategies so that they can engage in small group instruction with a variety of learners with success.
• Paraeducators provide support primarily within general education classrooms and occasionally within special education spaces if needed. Support is allocated in alignment with student needs.
• Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals are based on common core standards and are written to reflect inclusionary practices.
• Elementary schools are assigned instructional expert coaches to learn about UDL, inclusionary practices, and positive behavior support.
• IEPs are implemented with fidelity – meaning that if a child requires a full day of SDI, they can access that support. If they require paraeducator support, it will be available. 
• Students access specialists with their general education peers including recess, PE, and library.
• Teachers utilize evidence-based instructional practices with all students.
• Students participate in regular progress monitoring for both IEP goal progress and progress within general education.
• Buildings offer sensory spaces for any child that may need help with self-regulation.
• Occupational Therapists (OT), Speech-Language Pathologists (SLP) and Physical Therapists (PT) determine how best to support students – with small group support, push-in services…whatever is outlined in the IEP.
• Teachers can modify the general education curriculum for students with special needs and students can access supplementary, specialized curriculum and instruction from special education staff.
• Principals create master schedules that allow for intervention time, provide opportunities for teachers to engage in co-planning, and prioritize access for students in special education.
• Tiered interventions are provided to all students – not just those in general education.
• Paraeducators have time to team and collaborate with teachers.
• At the secondary level, there are co-teaching classes in core content areas. 
• At the secondary level, students with complex disabilities are accessing general education courses, electives and CTE courses as outlined in their IEPs.

No. Inclusion means that your child can access general education to the greatest extent possible as outlined on their IEP. Special education requires a continuum of services and as a result, some students may require 100% of their services within special education while others may require much less. All schools will maintain a learning space that can support students with varied needs.

• Start by contacting your child’s IEP case manager.
• Extend communication to building principal.
• Request a meeting with regional special education director.
• Contact executive director of special services
• Connect with special education PTSA group.

Family Engagement and partnerships 

Families and community members have always been a meaningful part of planning as well as the decision-making processes in LWSD. Families are never solely passive recipients of information or implementation, but important and necessary participants in many ways. These ways in which families have been and are collaborative decision-making partners in the district might include but not be limited to:

• Participating, as mandated by IDEA, as full members of their students IEP teams
• Participating in building equity, inclusion, and MTSS teams
• Family representatives participating in district level collaborative meetings 
• Family and community members participating in more formal family advisories and linkages

In 2016-2017, family representatives met with Paul Vine, then the director of Special Services, to discuss inclusive preschool models. Family representatives also met with their building principals to share information on SWIFT, Julie Causton, UDL, and to begin conversations on moving towards inclusive education for students with extensive support needs. 

During summer 2017, a group of staff and administrators from Twain elementary, Special Services and family representatives went to Auburn to a presentation by Julie Causton.

Beginning in 2017 family representatives partnered with the district on MTSS learning and planning. The MTSS work naturally led to, and encompasses organically, inclusive education planning and implementation. Learn more here.

In 2017-2018, family representatives met with building teams at Twain, Rockwell, and Sandburg, as well as with district administrators to discuss flexible service delivery, UDL, Ableism in behavior expectations, and locating barriers in environments and not students. Some of this work was contained under a MTSS subcommittee on inclusive education. 

In 2018, a team of family representatives, principals, and district administrators began a conversation with West-Linn Wilsonville School District, a fully inclusive district in Oregon, to begin planning system level shifts in order to implement inclusive education in LWSD. 

In 2018-2019, The Inclusion Work Group, originally a subcommittee of the MTSS advisory, welcomed several more family representatives to participate and plan. 

Beginning in 2019 and throughout the work, family representatives participated in meetings with TIES/ UW.      

Family and caregiver involvement in students’ education is a research-based best practice and we welcome families to partner with us on our inclusion journey. From the beginning, families have been powerful drivers of this change and urged us to educate all children, including students with extensive support needs, together in their neighborhood schools, while implementing best practices. Families have guided us, questioned us, provided input and feedback on established and planned practices, and acted as invaluable collaborative partners, helping us center the students and their learning.