Michael McSheehan on Building Inclusive Schools with MTSS and UDL ~ 905

Tim Villegas:
There are times when an interview is just so good that it’s almost impossible to find what to edit out or leave in. And this is one of those times. Earlier this year in March, we published the unedited version of our interview with Alfie Kohn, author of Punished by Rewards. It’s been the most listened-to episode of the year. I think there’s a reason for that—a lot of you like longer podcast episodes. So for today’s podcast with Michael McSheehan, we’re going to do something a little different.

This podcast exists to build bridges between families, educators, and disability rights advocates to create a shared understanding of inclusive education and what inclusion looks like in the real world. To find out more about who we are and what we do, check us out at thinkinclusive.us, or on Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter.

Also, take our podcast listener survey. Your responses will help us develop a better podcast experience. Go to bit.ly/TIPodcastSurvey to submit your responses. We would really appreciate it.

Today on the podcast, we interview systems change expert Michael McSheehan. We talked about what started him on his journey for advocating for inclusive education, his work with SWIFT schools, the connections between multi-tiered systems of support and universal design for learning, and if he agrees with the statement “inclusion done badly is still better than segregation.” His answers might surprise you. We’re so glad you’re listening. And now our interview with Michael McSheehan.

Tim Villegas:
Okay, so I’m going to go ahead and just do an intro and then we’ll get right in. So today on the podcast we have Michael McSheehan, who is the owner and lead technical assistance provider at Evolve and Effect LLC, assisting education agencies to evolve their systems with focus and utilize teaching and learning practices that result in a positive effect for students. Michael currently works around the country, assisting schools, districts, and state departments of education to improve education for all students and implement MTSS and UDL. Michael’s interest in school and district improvement began with learners with significant disability labels and has evolved through his collaboration with other leaders. Welcome to the Think Inclusive Podcast, Michael.

Michael McSheehan:
Thanks for having me, Tim. I’m very excited to be here.

Tim Villegas:
Likewise, we are. We’re excited to have you on. So there’s so many things I want to ask you, Michael.

Michael McSheehan:
Just jump right in, Tim.

Tim Villegas:
But I think the first thing I want to know is, you’ve been advocating for inclusive education for a long time. What has your journey been like as an educator and an inclusive education advocate? Have you always had this vision for inclusive education like you do now? Tell us a little bit about your journey.

Michael McSheehan:
It all started in one class in undergraduate. I was taking my first intro to exceptionality class at the University of New Hampshire, now 35-plus years ago. That was my first introduction to people with disabilities. The professor was great at bringing in guest speakers. We had been reading about people with significant disabilities, but I had never met anyone with a significant disability. So I had no preconceived idea of what things were going to be like.

One day, the professor had a guest come in. I saw him waiting to come into class—he had a wheelchair, a support person, and a guide dog. Physically, he looked different, and I thought, “Aha, this is a person with a significant disability.” I assumed the professor would give the lecture about him. Not for one second did I think he was about to give the lecture himself. But he rolled in, pulled out a big green plastic letter and word board, and proceeded to give the lecture. I was blown away. I was beside myself. I didn’t know what to do. All I knew was that whatever was happening in front of me was something I had to get my head around. I was upset. How had I never met anyone with a disability before?

That was the beginning of my journey. As I continued my coursework, I came across a legal case called the Timmy W case from the late ’80s. It was based in Rochester, New Hampshire—my hometown. Rochester had gone to court to say that Timmy W was too severely disabled to benefit from public education. That helped me understand why I’d never met anyone with a disability. My school system had invested in excluding Timmy W. That felt wrong—wrong for Timmy, wrong for me, just all kinds of wrong.

From that point forward, all of my work has focused on the question: Are we including more and more kids in our neighborhood schools?

Michael McSheehan:
I studied speech-language pathology. I wanted to be a speech pathologist when I grew up. After my experience in that classroom, I was most interested in augmentative and alternative communication and people who were non-speaking.

In my graduate studies, I developed a focus on augmentative communication. When I got out of grad school, I worked with individuals who are non-speaking—getting communication systems in place for them, helping them get included in their neighborhood schools. The more I did one-kid-at-a-time work, the more I saw there was a systemic problem happening in schools. They weren’t ready and didn’t know what to do.

I saw great, good-hearted educators, administrators, and family members who wanted good things for their kids but didn’t know how to make that happen. That became my focus: how do we help educators, administrators, and family members make this happen in their local schools?

I’ve approached it from different vantage points—alternate assessment, student-specific planning models, and then systems change projects. One of my most recent partnerships was with the SWIFT Education Center.

Tim Villegas:
I’m glad you brought up SWIFT. I remember being a special education teacher and learning about SWIFT. I couldn’t quite wrap my head around what was happening, but I knew something exciting was going on. I remember telling people, “You have to look at SWIFT!”

Michael McSheehan:
Let’s roll with it.

Tim Villegas:
As you were implementing in all these different schools, how different was it to implement? Traditionally, we’ve done IEP placement—80% in general ed, right? When you were implementing SWIFT, did you have to work within the constraints of IDEA, or was it something else? Did you transcend that?

Michael McSheehan:
I think I understand your question. Let me know if I’m giving you what you’re asking. IDEA stands as it is. We didn’t have permission to rewrite federal law while doing this project.

Tim Villegas:
Oh darn.

Michael McSheehan:
That unfortunately was not within our abilities. But we did push to say that braiding funding sources and policy, and centering on good general education, is important. We were in constant conversation with policy folks about that.

Implementing SWIFT helped me understand the importance of coordinating across state, district, and school arenas. It’s difficult for an individual school to transform if other schools in the district aren’t also open to change. And it’s challenging for a district to do something different in a state without support.

One of my big takeaways was the importance of coordination across all those arenas. It didn’t move me away from the importance of kids with disabilities being in general education settings.

The SWIFT framework, at the time I worked with them, had MTSS—multi-tiered systems of support—as the instructional anchor. Other domains like administrative leadership, district policies, staffing arrangements supported MTSS.

I continue to see that if students spend a lot of time outside general ed settings and away from high-quality instruction, they don’t make the same progress. It reinforced for me that all kids need to be engaged in that first-best instruction. Learning isn’t just about content standards—it’s about being part of a community of learners.

Michael McSheehan:
That sense of belonging has to be preserved. When I arrive in the morning, I shouldn’t first go to some other classroom and then drop in and out of the general ed classroom. I’m a core member of that general classroom.

Tim Villegas:
Yeah, I think you answered it more eloquently than I asked the question. My other question—because you kind of talked about MTSS—well, let me ask that at the end. What I want to do now is ask how MTSS and UDL fit together. Some people may not know that they do. They may have heard of MTSS and heard of UDL, but what’s the connection?

Michael McSheehan:
It’s a great question. We have three hours for this podcast, right?

Tim Villegas:
Yeah, right. Three minutes.

Michael McSheehan:
I’ll try to do the short version. My understanding of UDL has dramatically changed over the past few years under the mentorship of Loui Lord Nelson, who is a universal design for learning guru. She and I have been working together on how these two frameworks truly braid together.

MTSS and UDL are both frameworks for teaching and learning. They provide structure, guiding beliefs, principles, and tools for learner and teacher success. UDL centers on variability—the acceptance that the notion of “average” is a myth. It centers on student voice and removing barriers. If I expect all kids to learn something in a lesson, and some don’t, I ask: what were the barriers? Then I remove those barriers to make it easier for all students to engage and learn.

MTSS centers on preventing failure and having a rapid response if students are at risk of struggling. It organizes from the beginning to measure how all learners are doing in academics, behavior, and social-emotional learning, and puts supports in place quickly.

When you braid MTSS and UDL well, you get a proactive and responsive system that addresses the true variability of learners. You’re not differentiating after the fact—you’re always asking the design question upfront: how can I design my school, my environment, my lesson, my curriculum, goals, methods, and materials so that all students can engage?

Michael McSheehan:
That means creating multiple ways for students to engage in learning, receive information, and demonstrate their understanding. Then you continue to expand options based on who your learners are.

In short, UDL and MTSS both bring frameworks and tools. I think of UDL as the foundation of the house—built on understanding learner variability and centering student voice. MTSS is like the walls, rooms, and elevator—it’s the structure for decision-making to carry out that vision.

Tim Villegas:
I like that. Kayla, can you make that into an infographic?

Michael McSheehan:
I’ve seen places fully implementing MTSS—with screening, collaborative teams, data-based decision-making, monitoring—and students are still excluded. I don’t see that as much with schools fully implementing UDL, probably because of the focus on student voice and inclusion. But I still see kids excluded in MTSS schools.

Tim Villegas:
Yes, absolutely. Do you have a sense of how many schools are implementing MTSS? Not necessarily with fidelity, but just generally?

Michael McSheehan:
That’s hard to answer. MTSS has been described in many ways across the country, and we’re not all using the same measures. I see some practices very widespread—like early screening and data use for decision-making. That’s exciting. But I don’t see the level of collaboration required for full MTSS implementation. Not in leadership teams, not in teacher teams, even in schools that say they’re “doing MTSS.”

Tim Villegas:
Screening seems easier than figuring out how teachers collaborate. There are tools schools use…

Michael McSheehan:
There are technical things you can put in place that make it look like you’re screening. You have a reading measure, a math measure—so you must be doing screening, right? Same with team meeting times—it doesn’t mean those teams are truly collaborating.

Administering a screening tool is great, but what do you do with that? And for kids who couldn’t access the tool, how do you get a picture of where they’re at?

We need to protect, support, and love educators and their collaboration time. The first place we draw from when we need time in schools is teachers’ planning time. But if you give good teachers time and space for thinking, they’ll come up with great stuff.

Tim Villegas:
Right. Teachers are amazing people.

Michael McSheehan:
Teachers rock.

Tim Villegas:
When I first got my first teaching job, I didn’t know what to expect. Being in a room with educators—some veterans—everywhere I’ve ever been, teachers are collaborative. And teachers get a bad rap because of summers off, unions, and all that. But the vast majority of teachers are in it because they love kids. So why can’t we support them to do the thing they love?

Michael McSheehan:
Yeah. I’ll wait for the question before I go into that spiel. Go ahead.

Tim Villegas:
Let’s talk about barriers. What do you think is the biggest barrier to systems change in schools?

Michael McSheehan:
Us.

Tim Villegas:
Us as in humans?

Michael McSheehan:
The adults leading the change process right now. I’ll include myself. How we’re going about it is part of the problem. If we approach this like we’re asking a favor—“Will you please include this kid?”—we’re missing it. We need to warmly demand, but ultimately expect the change.

We’ve accepted incrementalism and this idea of “we’re not quite ready to change yet.” That means people haven’t had the experience of what it feels like to include a kid with a disability in their classroom. All the general educators I’ve worked with, once they have that first moment of connection—“I can reach Jack”—they’re on fire for the rest of the year. They need that moment.

But if we’re always getting ready for change and never put the kids physically in the room, people don’t get those great experiences.

Another barrier is that we haven’t focused enough on general educators. We need to lift them up as leaders. There are general ed teachers doing amazing things, and we keep trying to come in through the special ed door. We’re missing it. This is a general education problem, not a special education problem.

We need to support and amplify the great things happening in general education.

Michael McSheehan:
We’re trying a new approach this year in New Hampshire. We’ve started a statewide project with support from the state department of education. I’m partnering with an amazing general educator who’s now an independent consultant. We’re working with 12 different schools across New Hampshire—some districts, some individual schools.

Our focus is general educators and high-quality general instruction. The goal is to do high-quality instruction with learners with disabilities in mind and in the classroom. We haven’t invested there well enough.

The last barrier I’ll point to is leadership. It’s huge. It takes a principal, superintendent, or associate superintendent for curriculum and instruction who says, “I want this to happen,” and who has a sustained presence with passion and clear-headed leadership. Someone who knows when it’s time to transform the system versus when it’s time to improve it—and who has the will to dismantle as much as they want to build.

When there are strong, clear-headed leaders with sustained presence who get it and are moving, it’s more likely to happen. But when we have turnover in leadership, things fall apart.

Tim Villegas:
Hmm. What about this idea that inclusion done badly is better than segregation? We have situations where, for whatever reason, inclusion is happening, but people aren’t ready. It’s a horrible experience for everyone, and then it gets labeled as “inclusion” and people say it didn’t work. Is that situation really better than if the student had just been in a segregated special ed classroom?

Michael McSheehan:
This is a hard question. I don’t like this, Tim. I do not like this question. It’s right in the heart of the real challenge here.

No, inclusion done badly is not better than segregation, in my opinion. Let me give you a student example to explain why.

Michael McSheehan:
Let’s call him Andy. I worked with Andy two years ago in his local K–8 school—a small, rural school with maybe 300–400 students. Andy was having daily meltdowns. His sensory needs were overloaded, his attention needs weren’t being met, and the teaching wasn’t engaging or based on his interests. At his age, his interests were really important to him. If you weren’t on his wavelength, he wasn’t with you.

When that happened, he acted out. Things got thrown, people got hit. The school community really rallied. They tried everything they had the capacity to try. There were more things I wanted them to do, but they weren’t positioned to do them.

After five or six months of trying, Andy was going to school every day and ending up in the teachers’ conference room, secluded from everyone—or sent home. That meant every day, Andy was being retraumatized. He was being told, “You can’t make it here.” Just by the action of needing to keep him and others physically safe, he was being excluded.

So if I have to choose between repeated trauma and harm versus a separate place where a child can get out of crisis, I’ll choose the separate place.

We found a separate special ed school for Andy. We visited several, and there were some I wouldn’t have allowed him to enter. But we found one where the educators really understood his needs. It took a few months to make the transition, and then the pandemic hit, so he was on remote learning. But when he returned to in-person learning, he started thriving.

He reports loving school. He’s happy when he comes home. He’s developing friendships, being invited to meet up with friends. He’s grown two grade levels in reading achievement. That’s huge for him.

Now, we’ve put a transition plan on the table. If he continues to thrive, we’ll talk about returning to the neighborhood school. Everyone’s okay with that being on the table, but it needs to be thoughtful.

So yes, if you’re in crisis, sometimes you need to get away and find safety. Then we work on doing it better next time.

Tim Villegas:
I think that’s what people need to hear, Michael. Especially educators like me, who taught in schools with special education classrooms—which, by the way, is still the majority of schools.

People who are hesitant to buy into inclusive education often say, “What about Andy? It doesn’t work for Andy.” But I think what Andy experienced wasn’t actually inclusion. He was in the class, but he wasn’t supported.

Michael McSheehan:
Exactly. And there wasn’t pressure in the system to say to that school, “You have to figure this out.” You have to create a safe space in your building where kids can go to deescalate, regroup, and take the time they need. Andy needed that safe space. He also needed structured environments tailored to him.

There wasn’t pressure in the system to force the school to go to that next level. They had the staff they had, and that was it.

Sure, the family could have pressed legally. The state disability rights organization was involved, and we had conversations about whether to press the school to implement the supports that would move toward inclusive education. But meanwhile, Andy needed a place to feel safe and connected for learning. Monday was coming.

The pressures on the system still aren’t strong or clear enough.

Tim Villegas:
Did I have that question? Maybe I just thought I wrote it down. Oh yeah, here it is. Is it fair to say that the majority of school districts are not implementing inclusive practices?

Michael McSheehan:
Yes, that is a fair statement. The majority of school districts in the United States are not implementing inclusive practices—especially for students with the most significant disabilities. That includes kids with autism, Down syndrome, and those who need augmentative and alternative communication. They’re the fastest to get pulled out if they’ve ever had the opportunity to be included with classmates without disabilities. Saying the majority of places are doing that would actually be a kind way to put it.

Tim Villegas:
Okay. Here’s a follow-up. If this is the state of education, and people like you and I are in the minority, then we’ve made very little progress. We’ve made some progress—thanks to case law, advocacy, and systems change—but what’s the next step, Michael? Where do we need to go to really make change?

Michael McSheehan:
Oh, if I were only in control of the world. Part of this is acknowledging all the things we’ve tried to support the change process. Tens of millions of dollars have been poured into projects—federally and at the state level—to help schools and districts move this work forward. And we still have a very short list of places in this country that are truly built on inclusive principles and practices.

I think there are a few things we could do differently going forward. I want to be cautious here and say I’m speaking from a systems and policy perspective. This is not about individual teachers. I believe individual teachers, given the right supports, can do incredible things. The system is fundamentally broken. The policy is fundamentally problematic.

Our current policy in IDEA is civil rights legislation. But in education, we often don’t interact with it as civil rights law. We treat it like educational guidance for kids with disabilities. That needs to shift.

We need to change how we enforce the continuum of placements. There’s a perception that placements must be explored and available, but we have insufficient accountability for trying supplementary aids and services in general ed before placing students elsewhere.

Michael McSheehan:
If we look at Brown v. Board of Education, we didn’t ask teachers, “Are you ready to teach a student of color?” We said, “This is a civil rights issue. These students will now have access to these schools.” We changed all kinds of things to make it happen. The National Guard was even called in to ensure access.

That’s very different from how we’ve approached inclusive education. We’ve tried to help people slowly change and build their ability to teach kids with disabilities. I think we need greater pressure on the system.

Financial incentives are fine. You can fiscally incentivize inclusion. But if you don’t back it up with real accountability—like “You’re going to have to teach kids with disabilities, and they must experience general ed settings first”—then we’ll be right where we are now in 20 years.

The exclusion rate for kids with the most significant disabilities hasn’t changed substantially in 20 to 30 years. That line has not moved. We need different pressure on the system. It’s time to get mad, get loud, and say this has to shift. The current approach is insufficient.

If we’re going to increase accountability, we also need to increase support for teachers. Because they can do it.

Tim Villegas:
Oh, I can, Michael. Let’s start a revolution.

Michael McSheehan:
Well, I mean, yes, let’s.

Tim Villegas:
I’m not really kidding.

Michael McSheehan:
No, I’m with you. And I’ll gladly show up on Monday at a school, roll up my sleeves, and help make it work. If we’re going to increase accountability, we’ve got to be ready to increase support. And I think we can do it.

Tim Villegas:
Absolutely. So we’ve got about 10 more minutes. One more question, and then I want to ask the fun question—because it’s my show, so I get to do things. Do you have an example of what an inclusive school looks like, feels like, smells like?

Michael McSheehan:
Yes.

Tim Villegas:
Doesn’t have to be real, I guess.

Michael McSheehan:
I like real. Let’s stay with real. With that question, I struggle to describe it in words because it’s a much richer experience to see it. So my first response is: check out the videos available online that have been well-produced to show what inclusive schools actually look like in the U.S.

There are three videos from the SWIFT Education Center I recommend: Together, Whatever It Takes, and SWIFT Features at Henderson School. The first two capture classroom and school-wide experiences in Maryland, Mississippi, and Oregon—very different places making great things happen for kids.

Michael McSheehan:
You see and feel the level of investment from leadership. You hear an assistant superintendent in Cecil County, Maryland say, “This is the right thing to do.” When we bring kids together and support them and their teachers well, great things happen. When we hold high expectations, kids reach up to them.

You hear a principal say, “If it’s good for kids, then we should be doing it.” You hear a middle school student say, “Segregating kids with autism is like apartheid. If this were a school only for kids with autism, I would feel really sad.” When a kid with autism tells you, “I want to be included,” listen.

That’s part of what an inclusive school looks like—listening carefully and building and rebuilding teaching and learning structures to respond to the students in front of you. You see a strong sense of community. Learners come and go from different places in the building. People not only allow kids to learn in different ways and at different rates—they celebrate it.

Tim Villegas:
We’ll put those in the show notes.

Michael McSheehan:
That’d be great.

Tim Villegas:
And direct links to them. They’re great videos.

Michael McSheehan:
They really are. Those three videos are the ones I go to most when people ask, “What can this look like?” Then I let them ask all their hard questions. We often shut down hard conversations in the change process, but those are the best places for growth.

I’ve had New Hampshire educators say, “We just can’t afford inclusive education.” Then I show the SWIFT film with a Mississippi principal talking about their average family income of $19,000 and how they’re making it work. Then I ask, “Let’s talk about how you use your resources here in New Hampshire. What do you think you need?” That’s the sweet spot for change.

Tim Villegas:
I like it. Okay, before I ask what recharges you, is there anything else you wanted to mention?

Michael McSheehan:
Just briefly—one of your questions was about why administrators should want to do this work. Aside from wanting to do well by kids, I’ll talk numbers: return on investment. As a school leader, if you build inclusive communities, you’ll get more than just improved student outcomes. You’ll get community support in your town. Shift your resources to this value, and you’ll get so much more back.

Tim Villegas:
Thank you for bringing that up. I appreciate it. So Michael, tell me—what recharges you? What brings you joy?

Michael McSheehan:
Honestly, I feel like this work is a calling. I love it. I get charged up by hard conversations, by late-night calls from colleagues who need help. That feeds my soul—knowing one more kid is included, one more school has taken a step forward.

Outside of work, my family and friends rock. I love going to camp, sitting around with my parents, hearing about camp politics and activities. Playing cards with my parents—I love it. I have regular time with friends, even over Zoom. I have Zoom breakfasts with friends. Staying connected feeds me.

I also love dancing—country western dancing, two-step, west coast swing, east coast swing, line dancing. I love it. Birdwatching is another favorite. I live in a tiny house in a wooded area with amazing wildlife. I can sit on my deck and see black bears, porcupines, skunks, deer, and hundreds of birds. It feeds me.

Tim Villegas:
That sounds fantastic. Have you seen the movie The Big Year, Michael?

Michael McSheehan:
I have not seen it.

Tim Villegas:
Oh my gosh. It’s about birding. It has Owen Wilson, Jack Black, and Steve Martin. It’s amazing.

Michael McSheehan:
Well, the casting definitely works for me.

Tim Villegas:
You need to see it. My wife and I saw it years ago. It’s PG, so we watched it with our kids—15, 12, and 9. I expected them to be bored, but they loved it. You’d enjoy it as someone who appreciates wildlife and birding.

Michael McSheehan:
I’ll add it to the list.

Tim Villegas:
Add it to the list. We all have a long list. All right, we’re just about out of time. Do you want to plug anything, Michael?

Michael McSheehan:
I’m on Twitter https://twitter.com/MCMcSheehan. I’m an intermittent shiny-object tweeter. I’m setting up a business Facebook page soon for Evolve and Effect. For now, visit https://www.evolveandeffect.com/. You’ll find videos, info about my work, and where I’ll be next.

Be on the lookout—our New Hampshire project focused on general educators will wrap next June. We’ll have stories to tell and great exemplars of teaching practice to share across the country.

Tim Villegas:
We’re excited to hear about that. Sounds like you’ll be a recurring guest.

Michael McSheehan:
I think we see a return coming, yes.

Tim Villegas:
All right. Michael, it was a pleasure having you on the podcast. I appreciate it. Don’t go—I’m going to sign off, but don’t hang up. Michael McSheehan, thank you for being on the Think Inclusive Podcast. We appreciate your time.

Tim Villegas:
That will do it for this episode of the Think Inclusive Podcast. Subscribe via Apple Podcasts, Anchor, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Have a question or comment? Email us at podcast@thinkinclusive.us. We love knowing you’re listening.

Thanks to patrons Veronica E, Sonya A, Pamela P, Mark C, Kathy B, and Kathleen T for their support. Become a patron at https://www.patreon.com/thinkinclusivepodcast to help with audio production, transcription, and promotion—and get access to unedited interviews.

This podcast is a production of MCIE, where we envision a society where neighborhood schools welcome all learners and create the foundation for inclusive communities. Learn more at https://www.mcie.org/.

We’ll be back in a couple of weeks to talk with Jenna Rufo about reimagining special education. Thanks for your time and attention. Until next time, remember: inclusion always works.