Building Authentic Inclusive Education with Carol Quirk ~ 707

Tim Villegas: Hey y’all. Welcome to the Think Inclusive Podcast. I’m your host, Tim Villegas. If you aren’t familiar with who we are, our main goal is to build a bridge between parents, educators, and disability rights advocates to promote inclusive education. We do this by publishing articles by disabled writers, parents of children with disabilities, and educators who are all in for inclusion.

We are a big group, and we are only getting bigger, and this podcast is an extension of what we try to do every day on the website. Typically, I have a short story or anecdote to share with you to set up the interview, but like many of us these days, I am just worn out. I started the seventh season of this podcast strong about a year ago thinking that I would be able to finish by the end of 2019 and here we are in the middle of 2020 and I have at least six more interviews already recorded but not produced, slated to wrap up the rest of the season.

So most likely from here on out, I’m going to try to keep my comments brief so that we can get to the interviews. I’ve had the privilege of speaking with some fantastic educators and advocates over the years, and we have really just scratched the surface of the information that is available to equip you to advocate for your child or student.

So, with that being said, after a short break, my interview with Carol Quirk, CEO of the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education.

Carol Quirk: Hi, this is Carol Quirk, and you are listening to the Think Inclusive Podcast.

Tim Villegas: Thank you for your time and I’m looking forward to our conversation today.

Carol Quirk: Well, me too.

Tim Villegas: Many might not know who you are. I know who you are, and I know your work with TASH and the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Ed. But why don’t you tell us a little bit about your connection with the disability rights movement?

Carol Quirk: Sure. I’ve been working in the field of disabilities and in particular education for quite a while now and have worked with and been on the board of TASH, which is an organization devoted specifically to the interest of people with the most significant disabilities.

I’ve also been associated with other organizations nationally that have an interest in disability rights and inclusive education or inclusion in general. For example, the National Council on Disability, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, and some universities like the University of Kansas and the University of New Hampshire—organizations that have a particular interest in more progressive disability policies and practices.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with them on some national projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education, which may not be necessarily disability rights oriented, but definitely focused on issues related to including children with disabilities in public education.

Tim Villegas: Now, weren’t you a part of a group that put together a publication just recently?

Carol Quirk: Yes. The one that I was primary author on was entitled something like Segregation of Children with Disabilities. The focus was on what is the current state of the nation in terms of practices related to inclusion versus exclusion and how students with disabilities are educated.

Tim Villegas: I saw a very interesting statistic put out by Education Week. I just saw an infographic about different states and their inclusion rate. I was surprised to see that Alabama was high on the list. And Hawaii is the lowest. Is that correct?

Carol Quirk: Right. That’s correct. If you look historically, Alabama has been at or near the top. I don’t know as much about Alabama as I do about some of the other southern states, but in some of the rural areas where they did not have programs for children with disabilities, and they definitely did not have schools devoted to children with disabilities, when the law was passed, they had to provide services for those children, but there weren’t many of them in the demographic.

Often they were in regular schools, whereas in places like the East Coast—New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia—being closer to Washington DC and closer to funding streams, there were separate schools for children with disabilities before there was a law. So in one way you say, well, they were more progressive because they were providing at least an education, but when the law passed, they did not take those buildings down because they were already serving them.

So actually, in those states, while they were more progressive before the law, after, they were actually restrictive because they were serving fewer children proportionately in regular classes. New Jersey and Hawaii remain and have been historically among the most restrictive states.

Tim Villegas: Do you find any correlation between the amount spent per pupil and the rate of inclusion?

Carol Quirk: I haven’t actually looked at that data to give you a definitive answer, and I certainly haven’t done any research per se on it. However, I’ve worked with many school districts—districts in Maryland, for example, that are among the highest in wealth nationally, and districts in and outside of Maryland that are in high poverty, either urban or rural areas. And I don’t find any relationship between wealth and inclusion based on my experience.

I also don’t find a relationship between moving toward more inclusive services and the cost of education in general. In other words, districts that are moving to be more inclusive are not necessarily spending more money at the beginning and the end of their effort. They may have more costs related to professional development and supports as they transition from one kind of a system that is more exclusive to a system that’s more inclusive. But on the other side of it, there does not seem to be added costs.

Tim Villegas: That’s very interesting because the conventional wisdom is that it does cost more.

Carol Quirk: Well, it’s really hard to factor in costs when you think about transportation. For example, if a school district is transitioning to a more inclusive model over time, they will have reduced transportation costs because they’re not sending kids all over the district. They would be transporting students to their home school, and the need for an adaptive bus is probably lower because every student doesn’t need to be in an adapted bus.

Also, if you look at the numbers, I’m sure you, as many educators have seen classrooms where there’s a self-contained class of students who all have physical needs and you have at least a one-to-one. Sometimes if you have six students who use wheelchairs, you may have two educators and four or five assistants, depending on the needs of the students. So everybody needs to be wheeled. Well, if you disperse those students into classrooms where there were regular educators and regular kids, you may have an aide or you may have a teacher who’s in that room episodically, or even as a co-teacher, but kids learn how to be supportive as well. So you don’t always need another adult full time to do some of those kinds of support tasks.

Tim Villegas: Let’s segue into districts that are moving toward inclusive practices. I know that that’s something that you do—you offer that support to school districts. What’s an example of a school district that has started off with a segregated system for students with disabilities and has successfully moved toward a more inclusive model?

Carol Quirk: We have worked with several districts in different ways to look at becoming more inclusive. We have a process that we use that is based on what we call a three-year building-based change process that is grounded in a district-level partnership.

When we first began, we really believed that the school was the unit of change. That’s where kids are educated and that’s where educators needed to have the capacity to include them. Our three-year approach has held for over 20 years with modifications every year, but the overall approach has turned out to be very viable and effective. However, we learned early on that if we didn’t engage the district—not just in a partnership and approval and agreement, but actually in intensive planning and oversight of the work—the change that happened at the schoolhouse level was entirely dependent on the willingness of that particular administrator.

So if the administrator changed, and the district was not engaged in supporting that inclusive practice, it could fall apart if the next administrator didn’t believe in it, wasn’t experienced, or didn’t agree with it. Or if the key special educators changed and new special educators came in, it was really a challenge because the district was not engaged in messaging, professional development, and curriculum supports that would maintain that messaging and support for inclusive practice.

Tim Villegas: So the example that you’re giving right now is an example of a local school, or is it an example of a district? Because what it sounds to me like is you have professional development with a local school administration, and then you have key people in that school who are facilitating this change. But if one or more of those pieces are removed for whatever reason, that is a big barrier to the success of this approach. Is that what I’m hearing?

Carol Quirk: You’re hearing correctly that if the district is not engaged, then it is a barrier to sustaining that work over time. So our process has evolved so that every school that begins—usually we begin with two to four schools in a district with the idea that they will become demonstration sites where they will demonstrate how to include all children: children with significant cognitive disabilities, students with autism, students with emotional disabilities, students living in poverty who are affected by other circumstances.

As we’re working with the district to identify two to four schools to start, each of those schools creates a leadership team for inclusive practice—whatever they want to call the team, it’s their decision. Meanwhile, the district also creates a cross-departmental leadership team, which includes, for example, curriculum people, student support services, and special ed, to oversee what’s going on in the schools. At the same time, my staff partners with a district-level support staff, and they will work with each of the school leadership teams to take them through a very structured process in the first year: to look at their data, to develop a shared understanding of what we mean by inclusion (because everybody has a different opinion), to provide some professional learning related to priorities that the school is already working on, to identify where the students are—do they have a high rate of including students but they’re not feeling terribly successful, or are their students not all in the building? Where are they? They may be in regional programs or a special school.

The district support staff with my staff then goes out, they look at everyone, they understand what the reasons were for those students being placed wherever they’re placed, and around January to March of the year, the schools target grades that will become, generally speaking, fully inclusive (because there’s a lot of controversy around the term full inclusion). The families of those students who are not included will be invited to participate in intensive student planning. We use a very structured student planning process that engages the family and the sending teachers in conversation prior to the IEP decision to change the placement. So the family is on board and the staff are discussing what the supports and services might be, what are the hopes and dreams for the student, what are the fears and nightmares, what does the student bring to the school that will be a contribution to the school community. It helps the team become more comfortable with understanding who that student is so that after the IEP team decision and design of goals, we then plan directly with the receiving teachers to identify what their expectations are for all students in the class, and if those expectations are the same or different for the student who will be included. What are the academic goals for the class? Are they the same or different? Does the student have communication needs? Does the student have other support needs that need to be addressed? We have several tools that we use with the team to make those decisions so that when the student is included, they’re ready. It’s not dumping the students. We really try to reinforce the notion that inclusion is not being in the physical space and breathing the same air. It’s really about the supports and services and engagement of that student as a member and a valued participant in the class.

Tim Villegas: This work that you’re doing right now that you’re describing—is this through the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Ed, or is this something else?

Carol Quirk: That’s right. This was a process that we at the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education started working on in the 1990s, and we have been evolving it over time as we have had districts interested in us. There have been many different projects that have led to the evolution. For example, for a few years, we had funding to work on preschool inclusive practices with a couple of districts, and another year we had funding to work on secondary inclusive practices. We have worked with a district that had 30 schools, and we were funded then to support their district-wide inclusion over time. For 30 schools, it took us the better part of seven years.

We began with four schools. We added on four more the following year. We added on eight more in the third year. Then we did not add any on the year after because we were sort of at capacity with those schools involved in change. Then we added on more the following year. So if you can imagine, over time, they’re kind of rolling into that intensive support. After they’re at three years, it’s not true that they don’t need anything anymore because it could be staff change, or it could be a student with an unusual support need that might come in, or it could be that the principal changed. So in a fourth and fifth year, there’s a need for connection, but perhaps not so much intensive support to that school building. After seven years, we actually got through the three-year process with all 30 of their schools. They started at a little more than 50 percent of their children actually in their home school and included, and the other close to 48 percent were in separate programs in regional placements. By the end of that time, they had 90 percent of their students included in their neighborhood school and have maintained that rate for over 10 years.

Tim Villegas: Wow.

Carol Quirk: Fantastic, yeah.

Tim Villegas: What makes a school district want to work with an organization like yours? What happens in that system that somebody says, “You know what? We’ve been doing this wrong. We need help to figure out how to do it right.” Do you have any specific examples or stories of somebody coming to you and saying, “We’ve been doing this for so long and we need to change”? Or is it legal action that makes them change? Can you speak to that a little bit?

Carol Quirk: Absolutely. I can give you a very specific answer: it is the superintendent or the assistant superintendent for instruction. They are absolutely key. If they don’t have the vision and desire to make this kind of change, it will be a real struggle and may not be sustainable. In any case where we have systemically worked over years with the district, it’s been with that kind of support. The district that I just mentioned that we worked with over seven years with 30 schools—how that happened was I was doing a presentation on making systemic change to become inclusive for schools to Maryland’s assistant superintendents for instruction. There was one of them sitting in the front row and she raised her hand and said, “I have no idea how you can possibly talk about doing this without it costing a ton of money.” Her district had been wanting to be more inclusive because they were among the most restrictive, but they were adding a special educator at each grade level, kind of school by school, with the idea that that person would have to be the grade special educator. Every grade doesn’t need a whole special educator assigned to them, and they just couldn’t figure out organizationally how to do this. I said, “We can talk because you are spending way too much money putting your funding into teachers without building the capacity of your schools to change the way they actually schedule students and assign roles and responsibilities.” That discussion led to this long-term relationship.

A recent request we got was from an assistant superintendent who said, “Can you do some training on behavior supports? We’re sending way too many kids out of the classroom for problem behavior.” So we talked and I got a better understanding of the issues. I said, “You can pay us to do training, but that’s not going to solve your problem. Your schools are not scheduling students and assigning roles and relationships in the way that supports students and looking at your school-wide preventive approach to problem behavior.” The recent conversations I’ve been having with districts out of state is where somebody in that state found out about this work and the superintendent or assistant superintendent approached us and said, “Can you just talk to us about what you do and how you do it?” So we’re now engaged in those conversations for developing a project for supporting them going forward.

Tim Villegas: It’s interesting that I do not hear you say that directors of special education are coming to you. Am I hearing that?

Carol Quirk: In one case, yeah, in one case, it was a special ed director that initiated from one out-of-state district, and another—so no, it’s not to say that they’re not interested, but I think it—no, I don’t have a lot of special ed directors coming to talk about it.

Tim Villegas: Right.

Carol Quirk: And if I could interject, they are not the boss of the principals. So the special ed directors may want change, but they’re coming from a different perspective. They’re really coming from—they have to—they’re guardians over the special ed teachers.

Tim Villegas: Right.

Carol Quirk: And they’re often frustrated because general ed is not putting into play some of those practices like universal design for learning, promoting an understanding and capacity for differentiation in a way that will provide the environments in which their students could be included.

Tim Villegas: How likely would you say that the two worlds of general and special education will become one?

Carol Quirk: I really wish that we, as a nation and a world, were thinking of special education as a service that’s provided to general ed students who need that service. The law describes specially designed instruction as “the content, method, and delivery of instruction.” So even just going strictly by the language in the law, it requires general education more than at the table—it’s the core of how special ed and general ed are supposed to work in concert.

In an ideal world, if we had general ed instruction that was very effective, engaging for students, based on universal design for learning frameworks, or at least differentiated for students based on the different interests and talents and skills that they have—with teachers who understood how to use cooperative learning structures and engage students in activity-based instruction—and then design interventions for students who weren’t being successful, that would be key. I think it’s a little trite to just say MTSS (multi-tiered system of support) school-wide, but really it’s a school building, supported by the district, looking at designing interventions for students who are not being successful. Students who have disabilities are part of that community. They would be getting the reading and math interventions or behavior interventions based on what they need. Then they would only need more very specific special intervention or instruction that’s unique to that particular disability. It would make special education very different. It would make it very disability-focused and not so much whether you’re performing at above or below grade level.

Tim Villegas: Do you have any advice for parents or families who may be listening and saying, “I want this for my son or daughter. I want this for my child”? Where would you say for them to go to move inclusion forward?

Carol Quirk: For parents, this is particularly difficult because when a parent wants their child included, they are pretty much at the mercy of the attitude, belief system, and traditions of the district that they’re in and the school that they’re in. Many educators are limited by the experiences they’ve had, which is based on the traditions of the district. Some educators think that their experience is the reality everywhere, and their experience may be very, very limited. So parents are at the mercy of what those traditions and attitudes are. If their child is not being included or the team does not want to include their child, they have to make a decision about whether they move their child to another school or whether they want to fight the district and oftentimes get a lawyer. If they win, will their child still be in a situation where they’re not going to be as wanted? As a parent, I think parents are going to make the decision that is going to work best for their child. I know some parents who have said, “I want my child in a separate setting because what’s going to happen to them in general ed is not good because they’re not wanted.” No parent wants their child to be unwanted. So I feel like it’s our obligation as educators to build our capacity to be inclusive. We don’t need to build our capacity to be segregated—we know how to do that very, very well. We need to build our capacity to be inclusive. Families can join together, seek other families who’ve had good experiences, and seek advocates when needed.

Tim Villegas: Fantastic. Thank you, Carol Quirk, for being on the podcast.

Carol Quirk: So, Tim, there is a question you didn’t ask me.

Tim Villegas: Oh, where did I miss it? Which one?

Carol Quirk: The question that I often get, given the discussion that we’ve had, is: in many schools that have undergone a systemic change process like the one I described, they do and can achieve at least 90 percent of their kids being included. We’ve seen that sustained over years. So who are those other 10 percent? Who are the 10 percent that those schools and districts that are striving to be inclusive are not being successful with?

Tim Villegas: Well?

Carol Quirk: The answer to that is sort of twofold, and this is a little bit oversimplified, but it may be as you would suspect—or your listeners would suspect—students who have behavior that is interfering with their own learning or the learning of others. Those are more often than not students who sometimes have a neurological disability, like autism, where their behavior may be unpredictable and the educators can’t figure out how to provide the supports to minimize the impact of the disability or they don’t understand the behavior. But the majority of kids I’m seeing more, at least this year, are students who are in families that are impoverished, drug-addicted, and living in pretty traumatic situations—where their mom hasn’t come home in four days, where the cops came last night and arrested their dad who left and went to jail, a student who has bipolar disorder and parents are selling their medications, students who are living in situations where they don’t know which of their relatives’ homes they’re sleeping in tonight. These students are experiencing life situations that are truly experiences that the average middle-class American does not experience, certainly not as a child, and that are causing behaviors. Schools are not really prepared to deal with trauma and deal with cultural differences. So that’s one group of students. The other are students who have more significant cognitive and communicative disabilities and intensive support needs whose families are really uncomfortable with whether or not their child will be accepted and learning. The districts have chosen to support those families by providing a self-contained setting while simultaneously working with those families to encourage them to plan with them to have their child included.

Tim Villegas: All right.

Carol Quirk: All right, Tim. Great to talk to you.

Tim Villegas: All right. Have a good evening.

Carol Quirk: Bye-bye.

Tim Villegas: If you would like to hear the entire unedited recording of my interview with Carol Quirk, consider becoming a Patreon subscriber at patreon.com/thinkinclusivepodcast. Follow the Think Inclusive Podcast on the web at thinkinclusive.us. Tell us what you thought of the podcast via Twitter at InclusivePod, or find us on Facebook or Instagram. You can also subscribe to the Think Inclusive Podcast via Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, or on the Anchor app. We love to know that you are listening. Also a reminder that you can support the Think Inclusive Podcast via Patreon or anchor.fm with a monthly contribution, so we can continue to bring you in-depth interviews with thought leaders in inclusive education and community advocacy. On that note, thank you to Patreons Donna L, Gabby M, Tori D, Kathleen T, and Veronica E for the continued support of the podcast, as well as our new $1-a-month Patreons—every little bit helps. Also a special shout out to my producer and love of my life, Brianna. Happy birthday, darling. Sorry it’s the same day as Father’s Day. Thanks to my boys—you know who you are—for all your feedback and suggestions. It is greatly appreciated. We are all trying to become the Mandalorian. Next time on the Think Inclusive Podcast: “LRE is a dirty word. When you ask for it, they tell you no. They have all sorts of reasons why, none of which are legally sustainable. They never first consider an inclusive placement and determine whether or not it might work. They just offer you a segregated classroom.” Thanks for your time and attention. See you next time.