Schools of Promise: A School District—University Partnership Centered on Inclusive School Reform

Abstract

A university-school district partnership, Schools of Promise (SOP), was formed to improve elementary schools for all children through whole-school reform. This effort focused on the concepts of belonging and inclusion, positioning the needs of marginalized students at the center of the reform through a university-facilitated restructuring of service delivery and university-led professional development. This article reports on the findings from a mixed-methods study of this partnership, addressing two research questions focused on the experiences of the participants and major stakeholders involved in this reform effort. The questions include (a) What have been the major accomplishments of SOP? and (b) What barriers have been encountered? The findings suggest there are both significant accomplishments as well as ongoing barriers to these efforts. These themes are discussed, and implications for future research and future directions for this partnership are presented.

Leadership for Effective Inclusive Schools: Considerations for Preparation and Reform

“…[and] the principals in these schools were the reason (p. 79). Principals often shared leadership with teachers as they served on planning teams and supported their peers in the change process (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, 2014; Sindelar et al, 2006; Waldron et al, 2011). Principals empowered teachers, allowing them to make classroom decisions, and these teachers often welcomed opportunities for shared leadership (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Fisher et al, 2000; McLeskey et al, 2014; Shogren et al, 2015).…”

“…Principals formed school teams with representation from varied constituencies, such as teachers, parents, school psychologists, and critical friends. These school teams had multiple roles in some schools, helping others learn about, and understand the rationale and benefits of, inclusion, planning the program, identifying and addressing problems, assessing how inclusion was progressing, and encouraging others (e.g., Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004; Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999; Shogren et al, 2015). In successful efforts, a vision for inclusion became embedded in the school, with all students with disabilities being part of classrooms and with all school initiatives applying to ‘all kids’ (Salisbury & McGregor, 2002, p. 266).…”

“…In case studies of school change, some principals made it clear that inclusion was not negotiable; however, they sought buy-in for inclusion by being flexible in how inclusion was implemented (e.g., Shogren et al, 2015; Waldron et al, 2011). Throughout the change process principals also expressed appreciation for teachers’ efforts, recognising their accomplishments (Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999).…”

ALL Kids Can Be Readers: The Marriage of Reading First and Inclusive Education

“…Some scholars call for a radical reconceptualization of school reform that eliminates the separate systems for regular and special education and moves toward global reform efforts aimed at all students (Connor & Ferri, 2007;Iano, 2004;McLeskey & Waldron, 2006;Skrtic, 2004). Reform efforts are more successful when they are built upon a solid philosophical foundation and are coherent, cohesive, and comprehensive (Causton-Theoharis et al, 2011;Lashaway, 2003;McKleskey & Waldron, 2006). Sandy Creek is one district that has attempted to locate reading reform within a larger context of inclusive educational reform.…”

An exploration of parental decisions to transfer children from regular to special schools

“…For example, children who don't have a disability also benefit from inclusive education in a number of ways (Causton- Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier, & Dempf-Aldrich, 2011). These ways include flexible and individualised teaching and learning strategies that can assist all students (Forlin et al, 2013), for example, Universal Design for Learning (van Kraayenoord, 2007) and differentiated instruction (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014).…”