The 5 Ps of Inclusive Education

Shelley Moore: There is an expectation that all provincial and territorial ministries provide inclusive education. Okay. And so like I would say across the board, more students are included in Canada, it’s not perfect by any means, but like for example, like even just in Ontario, they’re starting to pass policy around de-streaming or de-tracking.

And so, there’s this whole other big conversation around, people think they’re being inclusive because they’re being inclusive to the kids who are there, but they’re not asking the questions about who’s missing and who’s getting sent away. Right. The other thing about Canada is that we’re not like a federal education system.

So every province is gonna be a little bit different. So in British Columbia, where I’m from, I would say we’re probably like at New Brunswick. Comparing New Brunswick and BC is very fascinating because New Brunswick has the policy and the laws BC doesn’t. And so it’s kind of just looking at like, how does that actually enact in practice?

I know in British Columbia specifically, that’s what I, I’m the most familiar with. There is a fundamental culture that inclusion is important, probably more than anywhere I’ve ever been. Like people know that we need to do it and it’s important. It doesn’t mean there isn’t pushback.

It doesn’t mean that like kids are not included. Of course there’s still programs but like from the perspective of teachers and families especially, and administrators, I think we’re on the same page in terms of we need to move in this direction. Are there enough resources to do it?

No. Does everyone know how to do it? No. But I think like that that underlying belief is there, right? And so. On that hand, we don’t need the policy, but what we do need is the infrastructural conditions and resources to make it happen. In other places there’s policy and there’s laws and there’s like, you have to do this, but there’s no policy that can force someone to believe that it’s the right thing to do.

There’s no law about moral imperative and so, you know what I mean? And so it’s this balance between. How do you shift mindsets, but also how do you provide resources for people who are actually making it happen? Because also the people who push back are also often the loudest, you know, whether it comes to parents or teachers or administrators.

And so I. It is really, and so that’s why I think like a continuum of services actually I think makes sense from a student point of view because it’s also not about forcing people together for the sake of policy, but allowing students and families to say like, you will be and receive equal access and support in any of these settings, which one would be good for you?

So the opportunity makes it equal. The choice makes it equitable, but that’s not how continuum of services are used at all. And so you know, there’s so many moving parts. But then on the other hand, it’s clear as mud, right? Because the beliefs are so strong in some places, a lot of people think that they are being inclusive.

And then you go, right? Yes. And the kids are on the side with a para, right? Because they have this understanding, well, they’re here, they’re enrolled, and we believe in it. But like, there’s no shared experience at all. But then I work with another group where kids are still totally in self-contained classrooms, but this school is like, we are ready to blow this up. Let’s do it. I would almost rather work with the school who has the huge potential for growth, but actually knows they have growth to do versus a school where the kids are there, but they think they’re doing it and they have nothing else to learn.

Shelley Moore: one of my favorite parts of my dissertation was when I had to do a lit review and I had to look for other studies that were including students with intellectual disabilities in secondary academic classrooms.

And I’ve always had this hunch, Tim.

As soon as I started working in the world of intellectual developmental disability, I was like, these kids hold the answers to education. What they need is what everybody needs. And so I’ve always kind of thought that, but then when I did my literature review and I looked for what do all of these studies have in common?

Basically five big ideas came out. And I looked at these big ideas and I’m like every kid needs these. It’s the secret to education. So I’m gonna tell you what these five big ideas are and you’re not gonna be shocked.

Tim Villegas: Okay, I’m ready. I’m ready.

Shelley Moore: I think it’s a really good, almost like a reflective activity, especially as a leader to say.

Which of these five pillars are our strengths and which of these five pillars we didn’t know existed? And which of these five pillars do we need to work on? Right. And they’re very, they’re very integrated and I argue that they build on each other. I’ll tell you and then we can talk about it.

You ready?

Tim Villegas: Okay. I’m ready. Okay.

Shelley Moore: Number one. Now, keep in mind that this is specific to secondary contexts. You’ll see how applicable this is to every single kid in the system. You ready? Okay. Number one, research says that one of the most impactful factors to the success of inclusion is positive attitude.

Of course, right? Do you believe it’s possible? And do you believe that all kid can learn in any context? And you know, to be honest, I’ve never actually met someone who said to my face, they can’t be here because they can’t learn. But what happens is every decision that people make, including the people who are determining LRE, they make those decisions based on some very hidden biases about presuming competence towards students. And you can be as well-meaning as you want, but if you don’t think it’s possible, you’re not going to enroll the student. And that’s exactly what the research showed was in the high schools I was working with.

Students were enrolled in academics up to grade eight, and then it dropped right off. And like these people were incredible. You know what I mean? It’s not that they were ill intended at all. Like they just, they had never like, they just were like, no, no, it’s not meaningful for them.

And I’m like, but that’s the point. We make it meaningful, you know? And so, um, and so that’s why like that one really connects to the other ones because if you don’t have that positive attitude and the possibility thinking kids aren’t even going to get, they’re not even going to get in the class.

Tim Villegas: Yeah.

Right. Yeah. And

Shelley Moore: we see this a lot, like there’s kids who are in electives, but that’s it.

And the older kids get the variability increases. People are like, oh, we can’t close that gap. We had a meeting this morning about a teacher. Lovely. And she’s just like, I teach a grade seven math or grade seven science class, and I have a student with Down Syndrome in here, and I love that she’s there, but I have no idea how to bridge that gap.

Mm-hmm. You know, and I said, thank you for allowing her to come there because that alone tells me that you think it’s possible, right? I can work with, I don’t know what to do. I can’t work with, it’s not possible.

Tim Villegas: Right?

Shelley Moore: It’s way safer for teachers to push back and have challenging behavior than it is to admit that they don’t know what to do, especially in secondary, right?

Tim Villegas: Mm-hmm.

Shelley Moore: So that positive attitude is I call it the easiest and the hardest barrier. It’s the easiest ’cause it’s free. It costs no money to. Have a positive attitude, but it’s the hardest because like there’s no law you can pass to make people see it.

Right. You know? And so I just find like the more people can see it, the more they believe it.

Like it’s like if you build it, they will come. Like, this is the field of dreams Tim.

Shelley Moore: So number one, positive attitude. Number two, students actually have to be placed in an inclusive classroom or program.

Tim Villegas: Oh, so they, they have to be there. They be included. They have to

Shelley Moore: be there, they have to be enrolled, they have to have a spot.

And I mean, this one seems really obvious, but who,

Tim Villegas: there’s a

Shelley Moore: lot of kids who are not enrolled. Mm-hmm. They don’t, they’re not even at the school. They’re sent away. So this really gets to that question is who are we planning for? And also who’s missing? It’s really around that equity conversation who’s not there?

And, and do. All students have the opportunities to learn both electives and academics with their peers and have, have high access to grade level curriculum, la, la, la, la, all those things. Okay. Okay. So you believe they’re there. And honestly, this is often where it stops. They’re there. We believe it’s possible.

Let’s go. But the other three are is what moves it from just existing to actually like being meaningful. So the third one is that students have that all students have shared community and learning experiences with each other. So that kids are surrounded by peers, not adults. And this was probably the biggest challenge in our school is that kids were there, the attitude was there, but students with disabilities were working with adults.

They weren’t working with other peers. And so that’s a lot of the research around the effects of proximity between students and how that affects participation between students. Because a lot of this is, if we create shared experiences with students, they are going to interact and participate together.

But it can’t always just be a helping role. Like it can’t just always be a peer helping a student with a disability. ’cause that’s not an equal relationship and that’s not gonna lead to friendship. But if we can create shared learning experiences or shared supports, experiences or shared social experiences, that’s where that, that shared and mutual relationship comes in. But it also brings up a big question around what’s the role of adults, whether it’s a para or a teacher.

Tim Villegas: Mm.

Shelley Moore: When to come in and when to come out and, you know, moving away from that one-to-one. ’cause it’s, it’s actually getting in the way.

One of the biggest barriers, which we know. So we believe they’re placed, they’re participating with peers. My second favorite. And this one is about purposeful goals. And it talks about ’cause if you, if you know, if you know Tim, I’m trying to blow up IEPs because, oh, we’re not designed to be inclusive or be implemented in inclusive classrooms.

And so, classrooms have evolved to become more inclusive, or at least they’re trying, but IEPs aren’t, have not changed at all. And so part of this is if students are going to be. Included in the general education classroom, a general education classroom with their peers. Their goals have to align, not be disconnected, and sometimes contradictory.

And so this one is lining up. We want IEPs to be aligned to community. We want IEPs to be aligned to curriculum. We want IEPs to be aligned to assessment. We want IEPs to be aligned to accommodations and supports. And so it acts almost as a blueprint for teachers instead of a separate plan they have to follow.

That’s completely disconnected. And so that, that, that fourth pillar is how do we make this placement purposeful for an individual, but in a way that’s also connected to the community, not disconnected.

Tim Villegas: Interesting. Next book,

Shelley Moore: Tim?

Tim Villegas: Yeah. Next book or Yeah. You dropping this knowledge on, on the on ti You look.

It’s

Shelley Moore: very late because I tried to do a book and a dissertation at the same time, so I know there’s many people who are waiting. But that’s the next book is like, you know, how are we evolving IEPs to align with the communities that students are placed in, in purposeful ways.

Tim Villegas: Yeah. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Uh, aren’t there, there are tools right now though, that have like planning matrices and, and like Yeah.

Have educators can align IEP goals with an inclusive placement.

Shelley Moore: It’s true. Except, here’s the other thing, Tim,

Tim Villegas: okay. Mm-hmm.

Shelley Moore: That those matrices are very often. Based in deficit skill areas.

Or they’re over focusing on social, behavioral, and communication

Tim Villegas: outcomes.

Shelley Moore: They’re not actually, like in my research, there wasn’t one IEP that had a curricular goal derived from grade level curriculum.

Tim Villegas: Hmm. They

Shelley Moore: were all. Individualized personal social communication, behavioral goals, and I’m like, everyone else is learning curriculum. They have to, which breaks me to my fifth P. You ready?

Tim Villegas: Okay.

Shelley Moore: The fifth P is, How are all students planned for from the start? And this really is pushing back against what we all were taught to do, which is we have to modify for individuals.

That makes the workload of inclusion so high, and that’s why people push back against inclusion because retrofitting will always require more resources than designing something accessible from the start. Like that’s like the essence of UDL and architecture and universality. And so the fifth P is how are we supporting teachers to be able to say, here’s my grade level outcome.

How am I making that accessible for everyone and challenging for everyone at the same time so that you don’t need to adapt and modify. And that’s probably the biggest question I get is how do I make this meaningful? I don’t have time to adapt and modify and it’s not the role of the para to adapt and modify.

So there’s just a lot of waiting around for kids.

Tim Villegas: Mm-hmm.

Shelley Moore: Goals that are social and behavioral while everyone else is learning curriculum and what happens when kids don’t feel purpose and they’re waiting a lot. Challenging behavior, anxiety, disengagement, non-attendance, and then we say, “Oh, this placement isn’t successful.”

Well, of course it’s not, they weren’t designed for, but like that’s a question for all kids. I mean, we’re coming out of a pandemic where nobody is where they should be. We can’t just like, say, planning for where kids should be and then adapt and modify where they’re not, or we’re going to have to do that for every single kid, right?

Mm-hmm. So this is where’s, what’s my curriculum? Who are the kids who are in front of me right now, not 10 years ago? Who are the kids that are from me now, whether they have disabilities or not, and how do we support teachers to design for them all? From the start. I wasn’t taught how to do that. I was taught how to adapt and modify, and so like once I started to realize this, I’m like, no wonder people push back against inclusion.

No wonder people are streaming and tracking because it makes sense if we are expected to adapt and modify for every kid that doesn’t fit. So that piece is the most important and my most favorite, which is how do we support teachers to collaborate, to work together, to say, how do I take, not abandon, how do I take my grade level standard and make it into a plan that is responsive to the variability of my class before my class even walks in?

Tim Villegas: It was lost on me until you said that they were all “Ps.” That they were all “Ps.”

Shelley Moore: Ah, the five Ps.

Tim Villegas: The five Ps.

Shelley Moore: Positive attitude placement, peers, purpose, planing

Tim Villegas: Nice

Shelley Moore: There it is. There it is. There it is.