Inclusion in an Anti-DEIA Time: Lessons Learned from a Partnership Using a Critical Inclusion Framework

• In Event: Thriving in Context: Exploring Dimensions of Variation in Equity-Driven Partnership Research

Abstract

Purpose
We share lessons learned from RISING-TIDE, a partnership between Johns Hopkins University and Montgomery County Public Schools. Funded by the Maryland State Department of Education, the state aimed to address identified disproportionality in the district’s least restrictive environment (LRE) placements, including overrepresentation of Black students in LRE C—the most restrictive designation. Our partnership utilized design-based approaches to foster understanding of dis/ability as a social construct and exclusionary special education placements as forms of marginalization, and address how and where disabled students are educated.

Framework
RISING-TIDE was guided by a critical inclusion framework (Alim et al., 2020; Cruz et al., 2024; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016), rejecting the notion that some students require separate teachers or curricula (Baglieri et al., 2011; Connor et al., 2024), and challenging pervasive beliefs that disabled students are less capable or need “fixing” (Artiles, 2019).
Our partnership was grounded in rightful presence—the idea that all students have a right to meaningful learning alongside one another (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2020; Miller et al., 2025). This extends beyond inclusion, emphasizing participation, voice, and belonging in all aspects of school life. This stance challenges systemic barriers and promotes equity by recognizing and honoring students’ diverse experiences and ensuring schools are safe, affirming spaces for all learners (Mawene et al., 2025).

Methods
RISING-TIDE follows a mixed-methods orientation to support breadth, depth, and corroboration (Johnson et al., 2007). The ongoing project has progressed through three phases: (1) examination of public data to establish partnership goals and inform the initial professional development (PD) series; (2) implementation of the PD series and data collection to understand systemic barriers to inclusion; (3) launch of Learning Labs (LL; Bal, 2018) at two focal schools, with ongoing data collection to inform iterative design. The PD series included eight two-hour sessions. The initial LL cycle included five 1-hour meetings per school.

Data Sources
Data sources included publicly available state and district data; surveys, interviews, and artifacts; LL needs assessments; and transcripts of LL sessions.

Results
Results indicated gains in teachers’ self-efficacy for equity-centered teaching (Author et al., 2025; t = 4.78, p < .001). Teachers reported that the PD built their capacity to enact inclusive practices. However, findings highlighted limitations of agency-focused approaches in the absence of structural change, prompting our current shift toward systems. Four key lessons have shaped the evolution of our partnership: (1) agency without structure constrains meaningful inclusion, (2) structure without agency limits meaningful change, (3) RPPs require adaptability to center equity, and (4) grounding efforts in local needs and language is critical for advancing equity.

Scholarly Significance
This study contributes to scholarship on how RPPs can engage both structural and individual levels to advance equity. Our partnership has built agency through professional learning and begun to address structure by aiming to reduce LRE C placements and increase LRE A placements. Findings offer insights for researchers and practitioners pursuing equity through a dis/ability justice lens, demonstrating how RPPs can serve as vehicles for structural reform and humanizing pedagogical change.

Authors

• Rachel Saperstein McClam, Johns Hopkins University

• Alexandra Shelton, Johns Hopkins University

• Rebecca A. Cruz, Johns Hopkins University

• Lindi Shepard, Johns Hopkins University

• Sarah A Caroleo, Brown University

• Matthew L. Love, San Jose State University

• Christina Davis, Montgomery County Public Schools