The Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center identified six schools, nominated and screened by leaders in the field of inclusive education and school reform using a systematic process, and conducted in-depth analyses of these schools to build knowledge and inform implementation of inclusive schoolwide reform. The present study synthesizes findings across five lines of inquiry (classroom practices, teacher and administrator perspectives, student perspectives, family and community perspectives, and supports for students with the most significant needs) that were part of the SWIFT Center’s analysis of these schools. The primary themes are organized around (a) how inclusion is defined and practiced, (b) perspectives of inclusion from key stakeholders, and (c) exemplars of inclusive practices. Implications for future research and practice are described.
AmateaE. S. (2012). Building culturally responsive family-school relationships (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
2.
AndersonC.ChildsK.KincaidD.HornerR. H.GeorgeH. P.ToddA. W.. . . SpauldingS. A. (2013). Benchmarks for advanced tiers. Eugene: Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon.
3.
BerkeleyS.BenderW.PeasterL.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85-95.
4.
BurrelloL. C.HoffmanL. P.MurrayL. E. (2005). School leaders building capacity from within. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (2013). Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CookB. G.OdomS. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135-144.
7.
CooperriderD.WhitneyD. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
8.
FixsenD. L.BlaseK. A.NaoomS. F.WallaceF. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 531-540.
9.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication 231). Tampa: The National Implementation Research Network, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
10.
FrancisG. L.Blue-BanningM.TurnbullA. P.HillC.HainesS. J.GrossJ. (2015). School culture in inclusive schools: Parental perspectives on trusting family-professional partnerships. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
GrossJ. M. S.HainesS. J.HillC.FrancisG. L.Blue-BanningM.TurnbullA. P. (in press). Strong school-community partnerships: A collective endeavor. School Community Journal.
12.
HainesS. J.GrossJ. M. S.Blue-BanningM.FrancisG. L.TurnbullA. P. (2015). Fostering family–school and community–school partnerships in inclusive schools: Using practice as a guide. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 227-239.
13.
HehirT.KatzmanL. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
KincaidD.ChildsK.GeorgeH. P. (2010). School-wide benchmarks of quality (Rev. ed.). Tampa: University of South Florida.
17.
KozleskiE. B.YuT.SatterA. L.FrancisG. L.HainesS. J. (2015). A never ending journey: Inclusive education is a principle of practice, not an end game. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 211-226.
18.
LaneK. L.OakesW. P.MenziesH. M. (2014). Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (CI3T) models of prevention: Why does my school–and district–need an integrated approach to meet students’ academic, behavioral, and social needs?Preventing School Failure, 58, 121-128. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2014.893977
19.
McCartA.SailorW.BezdekJ.SatterA. (2014). A framework for inclusive educational delivery systems. Inclusion, 2, 252-264.
20.
McLeskeyJ.WaldronN. L.ReddL. (2014). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 48, 59-70.
21.
MorningstarM. E.ShogrenK. A. (2013). Classroom observation tool. Lawrence, KS: SWIFT Center.
22.
MorningstarM. E.ShogrenK. A.LeeH.BornK. (2015). Preliminary lessons about supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 192-210.
23.
Morsbach SweeneyH.HornerR.AlgozzineB.LaneK. L.RogerB.ChoiH.. . . SailorW. (2013). School-wide integrated framework for transformation: Fidelity of implementation tool. Lawrence: SWIFT Center, University of Kansas.
24.
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2011). RTI essential components integrity worksheet. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
O’DayJ. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
26.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
RichardsH. V.ArtilesH. A.KlingnerJ.BrownA. (2005). Equity in special education placement: A school self-assessment guide for culturally responsive practice. Tempe, AZ: National Center for Culturally Responsive Education Systems.
28.
SailorW. (2009). Making RTI work: How smart schools are reforming education through schoolwide response-to-intervention models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
SailorW.BurrelloL. C. (2013). Shifting perspective to frame disability policy. In BurrelloL. C.SailorW.Kleinhammer-TramillJ. (Eds.), Unifying educational systems: Leadership and policy perspectives (pp. 21-40). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
SailorW.DoolittleJ.BradleyR.DanielsonL. (2009). Response to intervention and positive behavior support. In SailorW.DunlapG.SugaiG.HornerR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 729-753). New York, NY: Springer.
31.
SailorW.DunlapG.SugaiG.HornerR. H. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of positive behavior support. New York, NY: Springer.
32.
SailorW.McCartA.ChoiH. (2012). A comparison of academic outcomes and implementation of the schoolwide applications model in Washington DC. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
SailorW.ZunaN.ChoiJ.H.ThomasJ.McCartA.RogerB. (2006). Anchoring schoolwide positive behavior support in structural school reform. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 18-30.
35.
ShogrenK. A.GrossJ. M. S.Forber-PrattA. J.FrancisG. L.SatterA. L.Blue-BanningM.HillC. (2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1540796915583493
36.
SnellM. E.BrownF. (2010). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
37.
SoukupJ. H.WehmeyerM. L.BashinskiS. M.BovairdJ. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
VillaR. A.ThousandJ. S.NevinA. I. (2013). A guide to co-teaching: New lessons and strategies to facilitate student learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
40.
VogelL. R. (2010). Leading standards-based education reform: Improving implementation of standards to increase student achievement. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.
41.
WehmeyerM. L. (2009). Autodeterminacion y la tercera generacion de la practices de inclusion [Self-determination and the third generation of inclusive practices]. Revista de Educacion/Journal of Education, Spain, 349, 45-67.
42.
WengerE. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225-246.
