District Structure as Inclusion Gatekeeping: Examining Perceptions and Enactments of Inclusion in One Exclusionary District

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Thursday 2:15 pm - Gold 4
  In Roundtable Session: Mixed Methods Integration: Theory-Driven Joint Displays for Visualizing Equity Policy

Abstract

Purposes
Though the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) guarantees students with disabilities (SWDs) the right to a public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE), it simultaneously undermines this right by requiring a continuum of alternative placements for students deemed unable to achieve satisfactorily in the general education setting. As a result, many SWDs have limited access to meaningful academic and social experiences in inclusive settings, despite LRE being a guiding principle of IDEA.

We partnered with a school district with one of the lowest inclusion rates in the state to support its efforts to improve inclusion for SWDs. In this study, we examined perceptions and enactments of inclusion in relation to school and district contexts to assess the district’s needs.

Conceptual Framework
We adopted the Critical Inclusion framework (Cruz et al., 2024), which recognizes all students’ right to rigorous, relevant, and responsive instruction in inclusive settings (i.e., meaningful inclusion) and problematizes anything less as false conceptualizations of inclusion. Additionally, we adopted strong structuration theory (Stones, 2005), which posits that structural elements can constrain agency. Structuration involves external structures; an individual’s specific knowledge of external structures, general dispositions, and agency; and outcomes ultimately leading to structures changing or being preserved.

Methods
Using a convergent mixed methods design, we conducted interviews to gather insights into educators’ perceptions and enactments of inclusion. We conducted deductive and inductive coding and, subsequently, a thematic analysis. We built upon these findings using epistemic network analysis, which involved modeling the structure of connections in our qualitative data to quantitatively identify patterns in practitioners’ perceptions and enactments, as well as variations by role and instructional setting. We iteratively developed joint displays, facilitating meta-inferences based on findings from both phases, grounded in our conceptual framework.

Data Sources
We conducted 24 interviews with 20 teachers, one school administrator, and three district leaders, as well as six focus groups with practitioners from two target schools.

Results
Our thematic analysis indicated that, within exclusionary district structures (e.g., segregated programs), practitioners often expressed false conceptualizations of inclusion, with little critique, reserving examples of meaningful inclusion for students who “earn” access to the general education setting. By merging our thematic and epistemic network findings, our joint display analysis (Figure 3) revealed the meta-inference that logics of inclusion are informed by contexts in which teachers worked, but the most prevalent discussion around the benefits of inclusion were for social reasons, governed by subtle ableist logics.

Significance
Our study provides evidence that exclusionary district structures often constrain how practitioners conceptualize inclusion, which students are “granted” access to inclusive settings, and whom they relegate to false examples of inclusion. Understanding how district structures have historically gatekept inclusion for many SWDs can be a catalyst to envision a future without these structures, thus reducing reliance on the continuum of alternative placements IDEA allows and transcending superficial opportunities for inclusion. As a result, we can imagine and enact meaningful inclusion for all students, honoring their rightful presence.

Authors

• Alexandra Shelton, Johns Hopkins University

• Katy A Mullins, Johns Hopkins University

• Lindi Shepard, Johns Hopkins University

• Rachel Saperstein McClam, Johns Hopkins University

• Sarah A Caroleo, Brown University

• Rebecca A. Cruz, Johns Hopkins University

• Irene Ramirez, Johns Hopkins University