Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) data are a measure of the percent of a school day a student with a disability spends in general education settings. While there are multiple measures included in LRE calculation, for the purposes of the Inclusive Practices PD Project, data analysis focused on:

• LRE 1: Placed in general education for 80-100% of the school day
• LRE 2: Placed in general education for 40-79% of the school day
• LRE 3: Placed in general education for 0-39% of the school day

The most current statewide placement data show that LRE 1 is 56%; LRE 2 is 29%; and LRE 3 is 13%.

To assist with identification of potential pilot sites, the logic rule applied for the initial data analysis focused on the following data logic:

LRE 2 data > LRE 1 data OR LRE 1 < 50% AND LRE 2 > 40%

Over 150 buildings have been identified as potential pilot sites, encompassing a student population of 97,000, of which over 12,000 are students with disabilities. The LRE data for the entire group of pilot schools is as follows: LRE 1 is 33%; LRE 2 is 54%; and LRE 3 is 13%. OSPI has also disaggregated three years of LRE data, by grade level and district trends.

The data analysis process identified several cohort groups, based on 2018 building-level LRE data. 

• Cohort A: 130 schools that met the data logic and their feeder schools
• Cohort B: 23 alternative schools that met the data logic
• Cohort C: 8 small n-size schools (n<20) that met the data logic
• Cohort D: 19 schools with higher rates of LRE 3 (potential partnerships with TIES Center)

Inclusion is realized when all students, regardless of their designation to receive special education services, are provided with targeted interventions and accommodations; allowing them to learn in the general education classroom and engage the core curriculum. Inclusion is the belief that all students have a right to meaningfully participate in the general education setting, both academically and socially. Inclusive instruction rebukes the problematic perspective that students receiving special education services need to ‘fit in’ or ‘earn their way’ into general education classes. The belief that general education instruction is not malleable and that students should be making adaptations to be included in the general education setting has contributed to the continuation of two parallel systems of education in which students receiving special education services are marginalized and devalued as a result of their environmental segregation. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires students with disabilities be educated in the LRE. For nearly all students the LRE mandate means that students receiving special education services be educated in the general education classroom to the maximum extent possible. Regarding LRE, IDEA states, “The placement of children in special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily–34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2).”   

Extensive research on the efficacy of inclusion shows that inclusive instruction yields significant improvements in the academic performance of students receiving special education services–in all subjects–and improvements in social and emotional outcomes as compared to teaching in separate settings. Students who received special education services, who spend 80-100% of their time in the regular classroom, develop better working habits, improved self-esteem, are more attentive, have improved social competencies, and have more diverse friendship networks. Students who do not have an identified disability or an individual education program (IEP) also see improved academic outcomes as the high-leverage teaching techniques used in inclusive classrooms [e.g., multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS), universal design for learning (UDL), specially designed instruction (SDI), and culturally responsive teaching (CRT)] help all students learn in ways that work best for their individual styles and needs. These students also see improved social outcomes as they learn to see beyond people’s disabilities and develop a greater appreciation for diversity. 

The Washington State Standards for Mentoring “are designed to help both new and veteran mentors in various job settings to assess their current level of understanding and abilities, and to create actionable steps to improve.” The Standards for Mentoring include Learning-Focused Relationships; Reflective Practices; Adult Learning; Equitable Practices; Curriculum; and Connection to Systems and Learning Communities. Lipton and Wellman (2009) considered coaching along a continuum of interactive supports or stances, including coaching, collaborating, consulting, and calibrating. 

Research on how schools can successfully implement inclusionary practices continually cite professional development for educators as an essential component. Providing an inclusive environment for students means that educators collaborate frequently and have a strong grasp on how to differentiate general education lessons to accommodate all students learning styles and needs. This means that inclusionary professional development must focus on building collaboration skills and how to utilize high-leverage practices [i.e., MTSS, UDL/SDI, CRT]. When professional development is done correctly and administrative leadership is dedicated to a culture of inclusion, educators are shown to have positive feelings about inclusion and feel confident in their ability to teach all students.

IRIS Center–Creating an Inclusive School Environment: A Model for School Leaders

NCD– The Segregation of Students with Disabilities

CEEDAR Center–School Leadership for Students With Disabilities

CEEDAR Center–Principal Leadership: Moving Toward Inclusive and High-Achieving Schools for Students With Disabilities

CCSSO–PSEL 2015 and Promoting Principal Leadership for the Success of Students with Disabilities

NIUSI–Principals of Inclusive Schools

CCSSO–Promises to Keep: Transforming Educator Preparation to Better Serve a Diverse Range of Learners

CCSSO–Leadership Competencies for Learner-Centered, Personalized Education

NCLD–Roadmap for School and District Leaders

LRE Self-Assessment (adapted from WestEd)

National Institute for Urban School Improvement (NIUSI) Inclusive School Improvement Survey

Department of Education, Massachusetts–Inclusive Practice Tool: Self-Assessment Form

ECTA Center–Local District Preschool Inclusion Self-Assessment

Great Lakes Equity Center–Creating Safe and Inclusive Schools: A Framework for Self-Assessment

Stetson and Associates, INC.–Quality Standards for Inclusive Schools Self-Assessment Instrument

University of Vermont Guidelines for Selecting Alternatives to Overreliance on Paraprofessionals

CAST–The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines

CEEDAR Center–High-Leverage Practices in Special Education

Inclusion, Exclusion, and Ideology: Special Education Students’ Changing Sense of Self 

Segregated Programs Versus Integrated Comprehensive Service Delivery for All Learners Assessing the Differences 

Outcomes for Students With Learning Disabilities in Inclusive and Pullout Programs 

Inclusion as Social Justice: Critical Notes on Discourses, Assumptions, and the Road Ahead 

Making Inclusion Work in General Education Classrooms 

Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching 

People with Intellectual Disabilities-Critical Supports that Promote Independence, Full and Lifelong Community Inclusion 

The conflict within: resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education 

A Longitudinal Study to Determine the Impact of Inclusion on Student Academic Outcomes 

• Analysis of statewide placement data and draft list of potential demonstration and pilot sites. 
• Recruitment of Project Lead and team members; project work plan drafted for 2019-20 and 2020-21. 
• Ongoing development of internal and external stakeholder directory. 
• Resource mapping of agency & partner initiatives in support of inclusionary practices. 
• Review of the research on inclusionary practices, evidence-based interventions & outcomes. 
• Initial reviews of statewide placement data for students with disabilities. 

• Request for Proposals (RFP) for statewide coaching/professional development support, closes 9/27/19. 
• Develop project press release and pilot invitation materials (including notice of potential impact to MOE) 
• Launch project funding application form package for selected pilots. 
• Schedule webinars and/or in-person opportunities for input statewide. 
• Selection/adaptation of inclusionary practices local self-assessments. 
• Submission of TIES Center (University of Minnesota) application for intensive support for inclusive policies and practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities. 

• Official launch of inclusionary demonstration sites, including visitation schedules. 
• Schedule webinars and/or in-person opportunities for updates and input statewide. 
• Series of regional pilot site check-ins, including fiscal and program updates. 
• Release of any additional form package funds for voluntary project sites. 

Arc of Washington and King County
Association of ESDs (AESD)
Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP)
Autistic Self-Advocates Network (ASAN)
Black Education Strategy Roundtable (BESR)
Center for Change in Transition Services (CCTS)
Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)
Data Improvement Network (DIN)
Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF)
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS)
Developmental Disabilities Administration (DDA)
Developmental Disabilities Council (DDC) 
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR)
Educational Opportunity Gap and Oversight Committee (EOGOAC)
Educational Service Districts (ESDs)
Inclusion for ALL
Institutes of Higher Education (IHE) Educator and Leader Preparation Programs
State Legislature: Education and Budget Committee leadership, committee staff, and partisan staff
National Center for Pyramid Innovations (NCPMI)
National Center for Systemic Improvement (NCSI)
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)
Office of the Education Ombuds (OEO)
Open Doors for Multicultural Families
Partnerships for Action, Voices for Empowerment (PAVE)
Roots of Inclusion
Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE)
Self-Advocates in Leadership (SAIL)
Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC)
State Board of Education
State Ethnic Commissions
State Needs Projects (funded by OSPI with special education funds)
State Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) Inclusion Committee
TASH Disability Advocacy (TASH)
Washington Assistive Technology Act Program (WATAP)
Washington Association of School Administrators (WASA)
Washington Education Association (WEA)
Washington Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
Washington School Counselor Association (WSCA)
Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA)
Washington State Special Education Technology Center (SETC)
Washington State Teacher Leader Fellows

We envision this section of our webpage will reflect information, input, and feedback from our valued stakeholder partners. With permission, we will include letters of support, items of concern, and suggestions for next steps and future initiatives. 

• State application for intensive technical assistance from the TIES Center (University of Minnesota) in support of inclusive policies and practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities. 
• Joint statement from the Investing in Student Potential Steering Committee regarding the use of funds to promote inclusionary practices 
• Washington State Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Resolution 18.30, Access to General Education for Students with Disabilities