Organizing for Meaningful Inclusion: Exploring the Routines That Shape Student Supports in Secondary Schools

Abstract

School organization is a key driver for meaningful inclusion for students with disabilities. While there are promising examples of how schools organize for inclusion with intensive technical assistance, little is known about how high schools organize without such supports. In a case study of two high schools, we compare school organization by looking at their formal design and teachers’ daily routines. While both schools incorporated models for supporting students into their formal design, their daily routines revealed practices that were at odds with the spirit of inclusion. Routines involved special educators helping students pass their classes, though often not through meaningful learning opportunities. We offer insight into the affordances and constraints of school organization, revealing implications for meaningful inclusion.

The Status of Inclusive Education in Baluchistan: A Qualitative Investigation

“…The absence of any proper school committee to support inclusion of students with disabilities has been observed in these schools. The findings are in line with a research study conducted recently by Stelitano, and Bray (2020).The study also highlighted enrolment of only students with mild disabilities in all schools. It is assumed that teachers are not trained or schools are not ready to include students with moderate and severe disabilities (Gallagher, Floyd, Stafford, Taber, Brozovic, & Alberto, 2000).…”

Academic Tracking of English Learners With Disabilities in Middle School

“…1). With this interpretation, we argue that ELs with disabilities did not have equivalent access to the general education curriculum: Unlike their peers with disabilities, they were segregated in inclusionary classrooms that were default lower track classes, just as other students with disabilities have experienced (Stelitano et al, 2020). Challenging such segregationist placements, the National Council on Disability (2018) advocates that meaningful inclusion is a practice, not a location.…”

“…One school in their study, for example, clustered students with disabilities together into specific classes in an effort to maximize the amount of instructional support they received. In the eyes of the educators, these were “lower level” (Stelitano et al, 2020, p. 554) classes wherein curricular demands were less rigorous. At this same school, supporting students with disabilities in the general education classroom narrowly focused on the implementation of assessment accommodations, as opposed to differentiated instruction.…”

Instruction in secondary cotaught classrooms: Three elements, two teachers, one unique approach

“…In a recent study, Stelitano et al (2019) examined the organizational routines of secondary schools as they implemented inclusion. These authors, and others, have called for “meaningful inclusion” for students with disabilities, which “shifts the standard for special education from mere exposure to general education settings to ensuring that students can access the learning opportunities specified by the general education curriculum” (p. 3).…”

“…Again, as described by Stelitano et al (2019), schools use organizational routines to achieve their objectives. They define organizational routines as “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent action stretched across multiple people” (p. 5), and these routines create consistency in action and compliance with policy.…”