Principals’ Efforts to Create and Foster an Inclusive School Culture: Pragmatic Approaches in Fast-Growth School Environments

Abstract

School leaders are central to addressing educational inequality by fostering inclusion and belonging within their school communities. In fast-growth educational environments where enrollment surges and demographic shifts outpace resource capacity, school leaders face complex challenges in developing inclusive structures and cultures for students with disabilities. In this qualitative case study, the authors examined how 18 principals across PreK-12 grade levels in three rapidly expanding Texas districts conceptualized and enacted inclusive leadership. Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews and focus groups revealed that while principals believed all students are capable of learning, they defined inclusion philosophically but implemented pragmatically limited notions of inclusion shaped by their districts’ organizational structures and continuum of services approaches to special education. Findings illustrate that fast-growth contexts amplify tensions between compliance and care, as school leaders balance external accountability and resource constraints with efforts to cultivate school cultures grounded in empathy, relationships, safety, and belonging. The study presents a complicated picture of how principals navigate pragmatic constraints while pursuing inclusive practices for students receiving special education services. Inclusive educational leadership in fast-growth school environments is more likely to occur when leaders reframe inclusion not as placement, but as a shared commitment to recognizing every student’s capability within a responsive community.

1. Introduction

Over the course of the past five decades, scholars and practitioners have stressed the importance of working to address educational inequality within our schools on behalf of students with disabilities and other marginalized student populations (Pazey & Combes, 2020; Pazey & Yates, 2019; Lindle, 2004; Kozleski et al., 2014; Rivera, 1972; Vasquez Heilig, 2025). Inclusive-oriented educators and school leaders are charged to serve as advocates, cultivating a sense of belonging and community while leading learning for all students (Pazey et al., 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Pazey & Combes, 2020). In this article, we seek to amplify the voices of 18 school principals identified as inclusive school leaders by their district administration. The principals worked in fast-growth school districts1 and each endeavored to strengthen inclusion for students identified for special education services in ways that expand educational opportunities and cultivate greater overall levels of student well-being and success. We were interested in understanding three phenomena: (a) school leaders’ beliefs regarding student ability and capability as they relate to all students, but most particularly students with disabilities receiving special education services; (b) school leaders’ definition of inclusion within the context of their district’s organizational structure and systematic approach to special education; and (c) the ways in which the districts’ organizational structure and systematic approach to special education influenced the identified school leaders’ ability to promote inclusive school structures and culture.

We begin by briefly introducing literature that undergirds beliefs regarding student ability and capability before describing inclusion in schools and inclusive leadership practices. Next, we explain our use of a qualitative case study research design (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Yin, 2014; Stake, 2005) and purposive sampling approach (Orcher, 2016; Stake, 2005) as well as a description of the research sites, participant recruitment and selection, data collection tools, and the data analysis process. We then present findings around three themes: principals’ beliefs about student ability and capability, principals’ navigation of district structures and systems, and principals’ promotion of an inclusive school culture. In our concluding discussion on inclusive pragmatism, we explore ways in which principals search for a pragmatic approach to inclusion that emphasizes intentionality rather than placement as they navigate the challenges and possibilities of enacting a more fully realized vision for equity and inclusion.

2. Review of Literature

2.1. Inclusion and a Social Model of Disability

A social model of disability underpins inclusion advocacy and inclusive practices in education. A social model of disability suggests that disability is produced by institutional structures and normalizing concepts that create physical, attitudinal, and systemic barriers that prevent an individual’s full participation. Advocates of this position have often posited disability studies and critical disability studies as contrast to a medical model that tends to view disability as inherently caused by the individual’s deficits (Annamma et al., 2016; Davis, 2018; Shakespeare, 2006). A disability studies approach shifts attention away from attempting to fix a societally pathologized individual and focuses on removing barriers that stand in the way of the individual’s ability to participate. Social models include a critical historical analysis and argue that “…the history of disability and disablement in education has been a story of oppression through ableism” (Slee & Tait, 2022, p. 149). Slee and Tait claim that “redressing ableism demands ‘justice’ and, therefore, dramatic transformations of the way we conduct the business of schooling” (p. 149). Given this critique, the focus must be on changing beliefs and the environment. Shakespeare (2006) credits a social model of disability with “launching the disability movement, promoting a positive identity, and mandating civil rights legislation and barrier removal” (p. 202). A social model of disability provides an epistemological foundation for the concept of inclusion and the least restrictive environment.

Social models often critique special education practices, particularly its lack of criticality, compliance orientation, and calcified special and language that create deficit ideas around dis/abled individuals. Slee and Tait (2022) contend that “terms such as ‘special educational needs’ or ‘additional needs’” serve as an “administrative rationale for systems that see the child with disabilities as having a secondary claim to schooling” (p. 2). They critique the “special education needs” term and the practices surrounding the term as “an exquisite and ubiquitous catchall assignation for those children who don’t fit the standardised notion of the ordinary” (p. 155). The authors extend their argument by stating that the term has “become a euphemism for the disabled child” and “its effect is disablement” causing the term to stand “as a beacon of ableism in education” (p. 155). Florian (2019) argues that special education itself is rooted in exclusion, as “principals also accept segregated supports as part of inclusion” (p. 695). He further claims that this quote legitimizes that nuance and shares that “targeted responses to individual difference” tend to “rely on the logic of exclusion where differentiated forms of provision for some is the process by which all are ‘included’” (p. 695). In the context of organizational structures and practices termed special education, leaders’ inclusionary beliefs are often ahead of structural realities (Florian, 2014, 2019).

Social models tend to also center ethics. Slee and Tait (2022) frame inclusion as an ethical responsibility which supports the argument that principals view inclusion as moral work, not merely programming. Norwich (2015) explicitly positions inclusion as a continuum shaped by context, values, and inevitable dilemmas. Leadership in that continuum is inevitably steeped in ethical planning and decision-making. Ainscow et al. (2006) suggest that inclusive education is centered around a set of values and ethical principles that call for the right of every individual to be able to participate in society and the education system without being subjected to exclusionary or discriminatory actions. Thus, according to Norwich (2015), an ethical approach to inclusion may be “more genuine and fruitful” if one considers the matter of inclusion “in terms of the on-going and underlying tensions between difference as enabling vs. stigmatising, choice vs. equity, participation vs. protection, the generic vs. specialist” (p. 450).

However, Shakespeare (2006) claims that the social model of disability risks the potential of ignoring the possibility that an individual may, in fact, be disabled by a particular material impairment. He argues that the social model falls short in providing an understanding of the “complex interplay of individual and environmental factors in the lives of disabled people” (p. 202). While it may be an aspirational goal, Norwich (2015) argues that ultimately, no educational system can achieve “pure” full inclusion.

2.2. Inclusive Education

The United Nations, propelled by the Education for All movement in the 1990s, sought to provide a quality education program available to every learner (Calder Stegemann, 2021). Ainscow (2020) asserts that inclusion should be viewed as a core principle and process aimed at creating the same access to quality learning opportunities and academic achievement for all students, with an emphasis on the inclusion of students who are at risk of being marginalized. The concept of inclusion is rooted in the belief that education is a fundamental human right and the foundation for a more harmonious society.

Ainscow (2020) further contends that inclusive education should aim to transform the existing system by identifying and removing “barriers to the presence, participation, and achievement of all students” (p. 9) rather than focusing on incorporating vulnerable groups such as students with disabilities into the education system. The author maintains that an inclusive education should welcome diversity among all learners and strive to eliminate social exclusion stemming from attitudes and responses to differences in “race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and ability” (p. 9).

In attempting to define inclusive education, Woolfson (2024) claims that a considerable amount of variability in how inclusion is interpreted exists, highlighting the “lack of consensus about what inclusion looks like in practical terms” (p. 2). In the context of both special education and general education, several researchers have provided a working definition of inclusion for education systems (Ainscow, 2005; Ainscow et al., 2006; Carter & Abawi, 2018; DeMatthews et al., 2020; SWIFT Center, 2017; Voltz et al., 2001). Several researchers (Pazey et al., 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Pazey & Lashley, 2018; Pazey & Combes, 2020) link the concept of inclusive education to equity, justice, fairness, and the right for students to be granted the opportunity to fully participate in every aspect of the educational enterprise. Billingsley et al. (2018) refer to inclusion as a value, a philosophy, or an attitude

The SWIFT (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation) Education Center (SWIFT Center, 2017) advances an equity-oriented perspective of inclusive education and calls for every student, regardless of the levels of supports needed, to be able to (a) be “welcomed” and “valued” and achieve full membership in their general education classes within their neighborhood school; and (b) receive the assistance they need so they can be “educated in age-appropriate classes” (para. 2) and participate in the learning offered within those contexts. DeMatthews et al. (2020) refer to inclusion as “a continuing process to include all students, including students with disabilities, as valued, accepted and actively participating members of a supportive school community” (p. 540). Highlighting the need to move beyond the concept of inclusion in terms of the physical location where a child is educated, Voltz et al. (2001) spotlighted attention on how educators respond to student differences, calling for a culture of belonging and acceptance to prevail within educational environments, regardless of individual differences.

Tafura et al. (2024) claim that “the underlying principle of inclusion is rooted in acknowledging the individual capabilities of each student” (p. 2) and call for the educational process to be “organized to fully address the educational needs of every student” (p. 2). Furthermore, Norwich (2015) suggests a comprehensive and nuanced approach to “the concept of inclusiveness that covers a range of values, such as social belonging, acceptance, respect and equality” (p. 450). In the context of discussing how well a school meets the needs of students with disabilities, Rhim (2020) asks, “[H]ow can a school be considered good if it does not recognize and embrace the unique learning needs of students with disabilities, creating an environment in which all students can thrive?” (p. 18, 19). Creating an inclusive school culture that “unanimously and positively responds to difference” and enables every student to “achieve full membership and feel welcomed and valued” (p. 1), however, is a process (Black & Burrello, 2010) and often requires adjustments along the way.

2.3. Limitations and Challenges to Faull Inclusion

Fuchs and Fuchs (2025) acknowledge that the concept of full inclusion, when applied to “special education policy and practice”, has been “beneficial” as well as “controversial” (p. 244). Several special education researchers and scholars (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2025; Fuchs et al., 2025; Kauffman et al., 2023a, 2023b, 2024; Wiley et al., 2025) critique the full inclusion approaches that argue that all students should always be educated with their age-appropriate peers in general education settings. Kauffman et al. (2024), Fuchs and Fuchs (2025), and Wiley et al. (2025) contend that a fully inclusive approach that primarily emphasizes placement can overshadow the critical importance of appropriate instruction and may lead to inadequate considerations of individual needs. They argue that full inclusion reduces the concept of inclusion and the least restrictive environment (LRE) to a single dimension--the general education classroom–-and neglects other critical dimensions of what is more or less restrictive for the individual student.

Wiley et al. (2025) frame the debate as a conflict between two contrasting philosophies: “place-centric” and “instruction-centric” approaches to special education (p. 4). The place-centric approach emphasizes eliminating alternative placements in favor of full inclusion, while the instruction-centric approach prioritizes providing an effective free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004) in the United States. Wiley et al. (2025) argue that the place-centric philosophy relies on “seductive but flawed reasoning” (p. 4). In contrast, they advocate for the instruction-centric approach which treats FAPE as the primary obligation under IDEA and the LRE as secondary. Under this framework, “place must ‘bend’ to instruction” (p. 9) to ensure students receive meaningful educational benefits.

Wiley et al. (2025) critique the place-centric, full inclusion approach by first acknowledging the good intentions behind the slogan “special education is a service, not a place” (p. 14) while noting that such phrases exemplify “deepity” or statements that are “true but ultimately trivial when applied to a deeper problem” (p. 14). They also point out that educational settings are pedagogically and structurally distinct environments that produce different learning outcomes. Wiley et al.’s argument echoes Kauffman et al.’s (2023b, 2024) call for reframing inclusion as a full continuum of placement rather than a moral endpoint confined by a physical location. The insistence on one-size-fits-all inclusion practices place moral aspirations over effective teaching and individual student needs, resulting in students with disabilities who may be physically present without truly participating or learning (Kauffman et al., 2023b).

2.4. Inclusive School Leadership

Inclusive school leadership embraces a holistic approach that prioritizes (a) authentic community and family engagement, (b) recognition of multiple student identities, and (c) the social and emotional development of students in a welcoming environment (DeMatthews et al., 2021, 2023). This approach necessitates recognizing and addressing historical and ongoing inequities related to race, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, language, and immigration status that often lead to marginalization (Pazey & Cole, 2013; Pazey & Combes, 2020; Theoharis, 2007).

When applied to students with disabilities, inclusive school leaders are expected to link the complementary disciplines and responsibilities of general and special education leadership associated with the various functions of their role, with a focus on doing the right thing to advocate for all students (Pazey & Yates, 2019). Carter and Abawi (2018) call for school leaders to operationalize inclusion as a vision for embracing every student as a valued member at the individual, school, and larger school community level and afford each individual the right to actively participate and engage in all facets of daily life within these contexts. In order to do so, principals lead with vision and purpose (“what and why”) while also effectively fulfilling management (“how and when”) roles. However, both are inextricably linked, and principals must be capable leading and managing effectively to implement a vision for inclusion (Pazey & Combes, 2020).

Inclusive education is a dynamic, ongoing process that requires continuous self-reflection, examination of assumptions, and a willingness to adapt practices (Allen et al., 2017; Black & Simon, 2014; Pazey & Combes, 2020). Principals are considered “critical change agents” (DeMatthews & Mueller, 2022, p. 318) in creating and sustaining inclusive schools due to their broad authority and responsibility within school systems (Pazey & Combes, 2020). Research consistently highlights that principals who are “well-prepared, knowledgeable about special education, and committed to inclusion” (DeMatthews et al., 2023, p. 6) significantly impact the academic and social success of students with disabilities. As Salisbury (2006) noted in an earlier study: “Schools that function inclusively do so for a reason… [and] the principals in these schools were the reason” because they “made a substantial difference in how inclusively their schools functioned” (p. 79). Inclusive school principals frame inclusion as something that concerns the whole school community, not a “special” issue for a few (Slee & Tait, 2022).

2.5. Fast-Growth Districts and Inclusive Leadership

School leaders in fast-growth districts may be constrained by the ability they have to provide the services needed at every school, particularly for students whose placement according to their individualized education program (IEP) requires them to be in a more restrictive placement. This may be due, in part, to the district’s organizational structure and systematic approach to special education, how school leaders define the concept of inclusion, and the various configurations of supports and services that are available to students with disabilities in their schools. Boothe (2021) drew attention to the challenges inherent in staffing schools due to teacher shortages and the number of highly qualified teachers, particularly in fast-growth districts. The specialized academic needs and instructional support required to serve students with disabilities and legalities associated with the role the teachers were expected to perform made it difficult to fill teaching positions in special education. The fast-growth nature of the district in terms of facilities and trying to build schools fast enough to house the increasing number of students enrolling in the district also had an effect on their ability to ensure the existence of adequate learning spaces and programs needed at each school.

2.6. Least Restrictive Environment, Continuum of Services, and Inclusive Leadership

When discussing the concept of an inclusive education as it applies to students with disabilities, the least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate serves as the overarching guide for school leaders. Applicable to U.S. schools, IDEA (2004) requires schools to provide a free and appropriate public education (FAPE), delivered through an individualized education program (IEP) in the LRE. The law does not define “appropriate,” but this determination is made collaboratively by parents and school personnel through the IEP process (Yell & Bradley, 2024). To align with the LRE mandate, school principals and the student’s IEP committee work to ensure the student receives their education in the general education classroom alongside students without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. However, defining and achieving LRE remains a complex and contentious issue, particularly in finding the balance between inclusion and appropriate, individualized support (Kauffman et al., 2024; Yell & Bradley, 2024).

While most students with disabilities benefit from the general education classroom, special education scholars have argued that the general education classroom is not always the best solution for every student with a disability. They claim that some students may benefit more from other individualized learning environments, pedagogies, and/or specialized materials that are absent from the general education class. For these students, Fuchs et al. (2025) pose that the “LRE should offer more specialized and intensive instruction while also facilitating as much interaction as possible with typically developing peers in mainstream classrooms” (p. 2). Inclusive leaders often have to navigate within this approach to the LRE principle. In these contexts, leadership acts are both constrained and informed by interpretations that balance specialized instruction with inclusion, making fully inclusive practices difficult to achieve. This approach typically manifests as a continuum of services delivery model rather than full inclusion.

Lemons et al. (2018) suggest that students with disabilities tend to “receive services in four primary placements: the general education classroom, the co-taught general education classroom, the general education classroom with supplemental supports, and the special education resource room” (p. 132). This continuum of services approach is dominant in the United States and many other developed countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, Spain, France, and Finland (Antoninis et al., 2020; Hoteit et al., 2022; Rix et al., 2013). Supplemental support can include both “push in” supports from special education teachers or paraprofessionals and “pull out” supports in special education resource classrooms for varying periods of time.

3. Method

3.1. Qualitative Case Study

For this study, we utilized a qualitative case study research design (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 2005; Yin, 2014) and incorporated a purposive sampling approach (Orcher, 2016; Stake, 2005). According to Merriam (1998), a case study can be applied to a “unit around which there are boundaries” and can be about “a student, a teacher, a principal; a program; a group such as a class, a school, a community” (p. 27) within a specific parameter of space or time. We were interested in purposely sampling from a “specific, a complex, functioning thing,” within “an integrated system” which “has a boundary and working parts” (Stake, 1995, in Yazan, 2015, p. 148). In line with Merriam’s (1998) approach toward purposive sampling, parameters were established before data collection began (Yazan, 2015). We interviewed 18 principals from three fast-growth school districts in Texas to explore the school leaders’ beliefs about student ability and capability, their definition of inclusion, and their ability to create an inclusive educational environment in the context of their district’s organizational structure and systematic approach to special education.

3.2. District Contexts

This study, conducted in spring 2024, was situated within three fast-growing suburban public school districts in Texas—referred to here as Districts A, B, and C. These districts have experienced substantial enrollment increases over the past decade, driven by regional population growth, suburban expansion, and residential development. As a result, they have faced or continue to face ongoing challenges related to staffing, infrastructure, and equitable access to services for all students, including those with disabilities.

Texas represents a unique case due to the federal oversight that took place in January 2018 (Kamenetz, 2018; Swaby, 2018) after Rosenthal (2016) exposed a monitoring system set up by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) for Texas’ publicly funded districts and schools serving students with disabilities and their families. Starting in 2004, a select group of officials at TEA arbitrarily assigned Texas special education departments a conglomerate 8.5% target to aim for when engaging in child-find activities and determining whether a particular student should be identified as eligible for special education and related services and receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Between 2004 and 2015, the enrollment numbers of schools declined from roughly 12% to 8.5% despite a national average of roughly 13%.

Nearly 10 years later, a report from the Texas Education Leadership Lab at the University of Texas at Austin (DeMatthews et al., 2025) revealed that many of Texas’ public schools continue to fall short of complying with federal special education law, a claim reinforced by the Texas AFT (2025) addressing the inadequate delivery of “equitable, inclusive, and effective education to students with disabilities” (para. 6). Even now, concerns abound regarding the future of students with disabilities in U.S. school due to the recent cuts made to the Department of Education and potential for the oversight of special education services to be returned to the states (Vollers, 2025).

Each of the Texas districts selected for this study were recognized by their superintendent peers during a superintendent advisory meeting for their commitment to inclusive education. Principals were nominated by district officials for their leadership in fostering inclusive school cultures. These districts provide a continuum of special education services, ranging from inclusive models embedded in general education classrooms to highly structured, specialized programs designed for students with significant academic, behavioral, or developmental needs. The following descriptions illustrate how each district operationalizes inclusive education.

Within the previous five years when this study was conducted, District A experienced a 15.5% growth in student enrollment and a 2% increase in the number of students with disabilities, with a district percentage of 11%. District A emphasizes inclusive practices through the co-delivery of instruction in general education settings, with specially designed instruction provided via collaboration between special education and general education staff. For students with more intensive needs, districts provide structured learning classes (SLC) with alternative curricula and offer applied behavior analysis (ABA), augmentative communication, and embedded services such as music therapy. These classrooms emphasize structure, reinforcement, and positive behavioral supports while offering supervised participation in general education activities when appropriate.

District B doubled in size, experiencing a 100% growth in student enrollment and a 5% increase in the number of students with disabilities, with a district percentage of 12%. District B offers a full continuum of services across all campuses based on individualized student evaluations and goals determined by ARD (Admission, Review, and Dismissal) committees, the Texas equivalent of IEP teams. In addition to campus-based services, District B offers centralized programs including the behavior transition classroom (BTC) and functional academics (FA). The BTC provides structured supports and explicit behavioral instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders, while FA serves students with cognitive impairments through prerequisite-level curriculum focused on life skills, social-emotional development, and academic progress.

District C experienced a 10% growth in student enrollment and a 7% increase in the number of students with disabilities, with a district percentage of 18%. District C adopts a mainstream model in which students with disabilities are supported through accommodations within general education classrooms, with consultation from special education staff. The district’s Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) program supports children with developmental delays through both self-contained and blended settings. For students whose needs cannot be met in less restrictive settings, behavior intervention classes (BIC) offer highly structured, individualized instruction grounded in ABA principles. Through behavior modeling, explicit instruction, and positive reinforcement, students develop self-regulation, interpersonal skills, and emotional awareness necessary for appropriate school behaviors and meaningful classroom engagement.

At the time this study was conducted, all three Texas districts adhered to the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement, with the majority of students with disabilities receiving at least 80% of their education in the general education classroom. Yet, each district also operated centralized special education programs for students with more intensive needs. District documentation indicated that the ARD committee determined whether students needed specialized programming from a set of highly specialized staff to gain an educational benefit. If these services were not available at their neighborhood school, the student would receive those services in a centralized setting. Because specialized supports designed to address the variable needs of every student with a disability were not available at every campus, some students received their special education and related services at centralized locations rather than their neighborhood schools.

We used purposive sampling to recruit a targeted set of principals whose district administrators identified as exhibiting inclusive leadership in their school. To recruit participants, the first author, employed at a Texas university, initially spoke with superintendents from three school districts in Texas who had experienced rapid growth over the past decade or were continuing to experience rapid growth at a superintendent advisory council meeting in the fall of 2023. She shared about her interest in interviewing principals recognized for fostering inclusive school cultures for all students, including students with disabilities. She subsequently sent a follow-up email explaining the purpose of the study and requested nominations of highly regarded principals who fit these criteria. Each superintendent granted permission to conduct the study and delegated the identification process to their district administrators who were more familiar with the leadership approaches of principals within their schools. The superintendent forwarded the recruitment email stating the purpose of the study which asked them to provide the names of four to eight “cream of the crop” principals who they believed “create a strong inclusive culture on behalf of all students, including students with disabilities.” One administrator was responsible for the district’s continuous improvement efforts; a second administrator served as the district director of accountability and evaluation; and a third administrator oversaw the district’s school leadership and innovation efforts. As previously noted, each administrator from all three districts received the email stipulating the specific request for them to nominate school principals they viewed as instrumental in creating an inclusive school culture and demonstrating inclusive school leadership. None of the administrators, however, provided any information regarding their definition of inclusive school leadership, making it difficult to determine whether they had the same or different understandings of who the inclusion criteria applied to. This represents a limitation of this study.

A total of 18 principals (12 female, 6 male) from three districts were individually interviewed. Two principals oversaw their district’s pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) program, nine served as elementary school principals, six principals led middle schools, and two served as high school principals (see

Table 1. Study Demographics.

Name	Gender	School Level	District	PYAS	SWD
A1	Female	Pre-K	A	5	47%
A2	Male	Elementary	A	6	15%
A3	Female	Elementary	A	7	14%
A4	Female	Elementary	A	7	11%
A5	Male	High School	A	10	7%
A6	Male	High School	A	2	8%
A7	Male	Middle School	A	17	8%
A8	Female	Middle School	A	2	8%
A9	Female	Elementary	A	10	20%
B1	Female	Elementary	B	3	20%
B2	Male	Elementary	B	2	22%
B3	Female	Middle School	B	1	11%
C1	Female	Pre-K	C	7	17%
C2	Female	Elementary	C	12	25%
C3	Female	Elementary	C	10	22%
C4	Male	Elementary	C	3	21%
C5	Female	Middle School	C	9	13%
C6	Female	Middle School	C	8	21%

Notes. This table displays the pseudonyms assigned to the principal participants for anonymity, along with their gender, school leadership level, district designation, PYAS: principal years at school, and SWD: students with disabilities school percentage.

). Principals were given the opportunity to participate in a focus group to share their insights and generate additional data regarding their beliefs, values, and mindsets about student ability, capability, and their views on whether full inclusion for students with disabilities could be achieved in their schools. Due to scheduling constraints, only 12 of the 18 principals were able to participate in one of three mixed-district focus groups.

3.3. Data Collection

Data obtained from 18 one-on-one, semi-structured interviews and three focus group interviews, conducted across all three districts using the Zoom video conferencing tool, served as primary data sources. Individual and focus group interviews were audio-recorded through Zoom and ranged from 30 to 60 min. Researcher memos documenting participants’ non-verbal cues or hesitations and researcher reflections after each Zoom interview served as additional primary data. Secondary data sources included publicly available information from district and school websites, particularly content related to special education programs and departments.

We examined data derived from participants’ responses to individual interview questions that asked them to (a) briefly describe their beliefs about the concept of ability and capability as they relate to all students, including students with disabilities; (b) explain how they promote an inclusive school culture and implement practices to meet the needs of students with disabilities; and (c) describe any inclusive practices they implemented at their school to support students with disabilities. Additionally, 12 of the 18 principals participated in one of three focus groups. Focus group participants were asked to (1) react to the concept of full inclusion and whether they believed full inclusion could be enacted in their schools and (2) describe specific practices they implemented at their school to meet the needs of all students, including students with disabilities.

To check for validity, accuracy, and an adequate representation of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994), the first author downloaded the cloud-recorded transcripts, listened to the recorded Zoom interviews, and edited them to ensure the transcripts mirrored participants’ responses to the questions verbatim. To further validate the data, the first author sent the individual interview transcripts to each of the participants so they could review their transcripts and offer any additional insights they wished to share. Several participants added information to their statements to further clarify certain practices or statements in response to questions the first author noted in the margins of the transcript. Focus group transcripts were also sent to all 12 principals for review; however, none provided any additional insights or made any changes to their contributions.

3.4. Data Analysis

An inductive coding process was used to allow the themes to emerge from the interview transcripts (Hesse-Biber, 2017). We first conducted a primary exploratory analysis of the data by reading through the transcriptions of the individual and focus group interviews and creating analytic memos in the margins of the transcripts (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2015). Discrete data parts derived from principals’ responses to and descriptions of specific programs, actions, experiences, or approaches were grouped into larger categories and subcategories (Saldaña, 2016).

We soon realized that each principal housed one or more centralized programs at their school, reflecting the district’s systematic approach to providing special education and related services to students with disabilities. This discovery led us to narrow our inquiry to search specifically for categories related to principals’ beliefs about student ability and capability, how they defined inclusion, and the ways in which they described their approach to creating and promoting an inclusive school culture. Significant statements were highlighted, listed separately, and then combined into themes. References to specific incidents, individuals, conditions, situations, and contexts were also noted. Similar themes and subthemes emerged from the 18 participants’ responses; therefore, the narrative of the findings merges the descriptions and insights shared by principals from all three fast-growth districts.

4. Findings

The discussion of findings is organized around three interrelated phenomena: (a) school leaders’ beliefs about student ability and capability, particularly as they relate to students with disabilities; (b) how school leaders define and conceptualize inclusion within their district’s continuum of services approach to special education; and (c) the ways in which the districts’ organizational structures and systematic approach to special education as well as school leaders’ post-pandemic realities shape their efforts to promote an inclusive school culture.

4.1. Principal Beliefs About Student Ability & Capability

The principals in this study shared an asset-based philosophy grounded in the conviction that every student possesses inherent capability and deserves equitable educational opportunities. Among the 18 principals that we interviewed, 11 of them (61.1%) explicitly shared common perspectives regarding students’ ability and capability. This section explores the core beliefs that shaped their inclusive leadership practices, revealing how their values and experiences translated into systems, cultures, and advocacy that positioned student potential—rather than predetermined limitations—at the center of their work.

4.1.1. Every Student Has the Capacity to Learn

A recurring theme across participant narratives was the deeply held belief that all students are capable of learning, regardless of their starting points and backgrounds. All of the principals believed that every student had the ability and capability to learn and accomplish goals specific to them as students, albeit within different time periods and, for some situations, in differentiated contexts. Their vision for an inclusive education placed the best interest of the student at the forefront of their thinking. They resolved to create a school culture where a belief in the student’s ability to learn prevailed. For example, in focus group discussions, both C5 and C2 emphasized the individuality and inherent capability of every learner. According to both participants, the professional responsibility of principals as educators is to discover and cultivate each student’s strengths and talents. C5 asserted, “I think that we need to look at students as individuals and not try to fit them in whatever category.” C2 claimed:

Every student has an ability and every student is capable. It may not look the same for every student, but they all have it [ability and capability] in them and I think it’s our job to find out what that is. To make them feel successful in whatever that ability is. But they’re all capable of something on different levels.

C6’s viewpoint corresponded with both C5 and C2. According to C6, “Every person is able to learn, and in certain areas at a very high level. It’s just finding out how to make that work.” A1 also echoed the sentiments of the other participants and placed responsibility on the educators in the system rather than the students themselves. She noted:

It’s our job to do everything we can—to provide everything we can—for our students. The limitations are what adults put on them. It’s not what they’re putting on themselves. So really seeing potential for them and really looking for ways—creative ways—whatever, to meet their needs.

4.1.2. Respecting Individual Strengths and Assets

Each of the principals emphasized that every student possesses individual strengths and assets. A1 framed her belief as an urgent challenge to create supportive environments that allow students to flourish; while also modeling the kind of mindset she expects of her staff. She emphasized the importance of identifying any deficit-oriented thinking among educators and addressing it head-on.

Participants emphasized that each student’s learning journey is unique and should not be constrained by conventional benchmarks or a deficit-based mindset. A2 captured this mindset powerfully: “Don’t let what is typical define what your student is going to do or what they’re not going to do and let their journey be their own journey. And they’re gonna show you [they can do] amazing things.” He further elaborated that each student brings something to build upon—something already present that educators must identify and nurture. Therefore, educators should utilize a ‘kid-centric’ approach to focus on each student’s individual traits and developmental growth:

I would start by saying that students come to you, and they show you what they’re capable of, and then you get to build on that. I don’t like to look at it as a deficit. I think every student is different and comes to you with a unique set of abilities and capabilities. And that’s kind of your starting point… I tend to have a flexible view. It’s very kid-centric.

A5 and A9 reinforced this idea by acknowledging that all students can learn, even if they do so through different routes. A5 stated:

Well for me, I have a strong belief that all students can learn. They may learn at a different rate or in a different way… We’re gonna be about all kids. Doesn’t matter what level they are; if we’re talking about students of very high achieving capabilities to the ones that struggle.

A9 affirmed each student’s learning ability, emphasizing the ultimate goal of the school is to remove barriers for students and hold high expectations on their academic achievement:

My belief is that every child has the capability to learn and deserves every opportunity to learn in our school setting that we offer them. I have very high expectations for student achievement, and that transfers across all demographics and all settings and all students. But recognizing that certain conditions need to be in place for a child to be successful.

A5’s reflection points to an inclusive leadership approach—one that views variation not as a limitation but as a call for individualized teaching and equitable support. A9’s statement captures the dual commitment: holding high expectations while also ensuring equitable access for every student to fulfill their potential. Similarly, C3 challenged the concept of quantifying the determination of a student’s capability via the intelligent quotient (IQ) score:

Everyone has gifts. Every student. I don’t care who they are. I don’t care what their IQ score is. There is something about them that will rest on the top and shine. IQ is a number. I think it is reflective.

C3’s emphasis on recognizing student strengths reflects a deeply humanistic interpretation of education: one that rejects the deterministic thinking of evaluating and measuring each student’s values and abilities against a standardized norm.

4.1.3. Growth Mindsets for All

Six of the participants (33.3%) also emphasized how a growth mindset should not only be applied to students, but to educators and leaders themselves. A6, who admitted to being a student with ADHD and dyslexia, offered a powerful testimony of transformation. Resonating with other participants, A6 believed that every student can grow and develop in their own ways, and within their areas of expertise. He now leads with the explicit goal of modeling perseverance and self-belief for his students:

My responsibility is to take them where they need to be, and I’m a big believer in growth mindset. I can develop that in kids… I’m a big proponent for being able to grow kids how they are… building into them the capacity so they can actually be self-sustaining.

Similarly, C4 offered a systems-level perspective that redefined learning success not in terms of standardized benchmarks but through diverse and meaningful indicators of growth. He challenged the over-reliance on summative assessments by advocating for mechanisms that capture the process of learning:

…we have to realize that students have multiple ways of demonstrating that learning. Not just test scores, but other kinds of growth mechanisms like data folders and portfolios. I truly believe in those tools that really track their progress over time.

Both C4 and A6 emphasized the importance of providing students with the opportunity and space necessary for growth and development to take place, which is another notion beyond the oft-heard statement that “all kids can learn”. They focused on the notion of progress rather than normalized notions of capability. Capability could vary based on different children’s backgrounds, school grades, situations, or could differ based on educators’ changing mindsets and interpretations.

4.1.4. Leadership Responsibility for Building Inclusive Systems

Sixteen principals (88.9%) stressed the important role they held related to their responsibility for building inclusive school cultures and systems. For example, A9 spoke directly about the responsibility of educational leaders to create and sustain the conditions necessary for inclusion for every student. She framed inclusion as a deliberate design challenge that begins with leadership and extends through systems of support: “That’s our job as educators—to create those conditions in our schools, in our classrooms, and in our teaching mindsets. To make sure that each kid has access to learning at high levels.” A9 also emphasized that high expectations must be maintained for all students, and that school leaders must constantly reinforce this vision and communicate effectively:

I think it’s first of all, as the leader of the school, communicating the worth of every child on your campus constantly, and setting the tone that high expectation needs to exist for all students. But then, the bigger piece behind that is--you have to have really strong systems on your campus to make sure that students have access to inclusive classrooms.

C1 reinforced this view by drawing attention to the powerful role of learning environments in shaping student success. She described a purposeful approach to early childhood inclusion in which students are supported across varied settings before any long-term decisions are made:

What’s most important to us is to give the students as many opportunities as possible to be successful in different environments before ever making a determination of where they may be going in elementary school. And we try them out in different classrooms and settings. And really, seeing that it comes down to the environment that a child is in. The environment can either nurture or it can hinder a student’s abilities.

Her insight reframes inclusion as a process, necessitating a careful, individualized design of spaces, schedules, and supports to nurture each child’s strengths.

4.1.5. Inclusion as a Moral and Ethical Imperative

Five participants (27.8%) asserted that inclusive practice is an absolute requirement tied directly to the ethics of being an educator. For instance, A2 offered a values-based rationale for inclusion, describing it as a fundamental expression of justice and equity in education: “This is what education should be about. I want to break down barriers for kids. I wanna help all kids have access to and get the education that they deserve.” A2 shifted the concept of inclusion from a logistical or compliance issue to a moral imperative—a way to dismantle the barriers that often marginalize students with special needs and deny them equitable opportunities.

A3’s commitment to inclusion evolved over time through her professional experiences as a teacher and principal. She described how her advocacy sharpened, especially as she witnessed the exclusion of students with disabilities from certain school activities: “When thinking about some of our kiddos with the most significant needs, and providing that inclusive environment, I would say that advocacy piece, on my end as a leader, has probably evolved the most through those experiences.” As a result of her experiences, A3 adopted a no-excuses approach:

Having all of our children be included with all children, period. That’s just how we operate. It’s not an option. I’ve been at campuses, as a teacher, where that wasn’t really the same mindset and I hear stories from parents, when their children come to us, and how their child wasn’t included in certain things, because of their disabilities. That is heartbreaking. As a parent, you don’t want that for your child. You want them to have the full experience as much as possible.

Her leadership now centers on ensuring that a commitment to inclusion is non-negotiable—not as surface-level policy, but as a lived reality.

4.2. Navigating District Structures and Systems

While all participating principals expressed a deep commitment to inclusive education, they enacted this commitment within complex organizational realities that often tested their philosophical beliefs. Operating in rapidly growing districts, these leaders navigated tensions between inclusive aspirations and practical constraints—balancing individual student needs with available resources, district policies, and the collective well-being of their school communities. This section examines how principals conceptualized inclusion as a dynamic process within a continuum of services model and how post-pandemic challenges related to student behavior, safety concerns, and system strain reshaped their approach and enactment of inclusive practice.

4.2.1. Inclusion as a Dynamic Process

Across interviews, all of the 18 participants advocated a clear commitment to inclusive education while challenging narrow definitions of what inclusion means. The principals emphasized that inclusion is not simply defined by placement in general education classrooms. Rather, it is a fluid, dynamic process requiring intentionality, professional judgment, attention to individualized needs, and context-responsive decision-making that eventually benefits everyone within the community. Leaders emphasized that meaningful inclusion requires aligning students’ needs, instructional conditions, support systems, and relationship building, not merely placement in general education settings.

B2 exemplified this perspective by framing inclusion as a proactive goal that needs careful planning, collaborative decision-making, and ongoing support. He stated, “Our goal [inclusion] is to have them access the general education setting as much as possible.” This goal, he noted, is not always realized according to the strict parameters or timelines often imposed by instructional mandates, progress monitoring systems, and external accountability frameworks. Rather, inclusion is an evolving process—one that requires educators to remain responsive and reflective.

I have found that it’s helpful to talk from a place of my experience and share that our goal is high growth for all students. But it doesn’t always fit into those [fixed] parameters or those [certain] timelines that we like to pursue.

B2 challenged the notion that inclusion simply means physical presence in general education classrooms. Instead, he advocated for purposeful placement and ongoing monitoring within a continuum of services model so that students are not only present but also learning and thriving. According to B2, the learning environment and instruction should be continually adjusted to match students’ evolving needs, capacities, and circumstances. He emphasized that such a learning environment requires a balance between ensuring equitable access to the general education setting and maintaining rigorous yet supportive conditions for student success. He noted that leaders should be “very intentional about if they are pulled from the classroom, how are we ensuring that they get that Tier 1 instruction? Otherwise, all you’re doing is kicking the can down the road. You’re not helping to close any gaps.”

A7 also emphasized the tension between philosophical ideals of full inclusion and practical realities of navigating the LRE placement in a district that offered a range of placements in a continuum of services model. He described the challenge of weighing what is “least restrictive” with what is appropriate and effective for a student: “Decisions of what is least restrictive versus what is best for individual students is something that we have to navigate and adjust so that we are at a comfortable place. It’s a give and take.” A7 highlighted the importance of ongoing team-based deliberation, guided by both data and student voice, to determine when inclusion is developmentally and functionally appropriate.

A4 expanded this reconceptualization by challenging the assumption that inclusion must always occur within the same physical setting--the general education classroom. She acknowledged that the goal of inclusion can be fulfilled through small group instruction and differentiated settings when those environments are more aligned with student needs: “It doesn’t mean that we’re not going toward an inclusive model. But sometimes, the most inclusive and most appropriate place is in a small group.” A4’s insights reflected an understanding of inclusion that is both aspirational and grounded in practical instructional design and individual needs.

4.2.2. Balancing Philosophical Commitments with Practical Realities

Though many leaders acknowledged the philosophical appeal of full inclusion, 13 out of 18 (72.2%) expressed practical reservations about its implementation. C2 reflected this tension by stating, “I do believe that up to a point, everyone should be included.” She qualified her “up to a point” statement accordingly: “But there are times when they do need to be removed from the classroom because it’s not beneficial for the other students and it’s not beneficial for them.” B2 echoed C2’s perspective, emphasizing the need to prioritize individual student needs in a fast-growth district with continuum of service structures:

You can have a philosophy or mindset of including and integrating all student populations together. But as soon as you make broad, sweeping decisions and do not look at the student’s needs, you are kidding yourself right back into the same challenge and difficulty.

Many principals acknowledged the adaptive language around inclusion, noting that even within centralized models, they sought to offer the least restrictive environment possible for their students. A1 illustrated this with a nuanced description: “It’s still a centralized program. But we call it inclusion. They’ll go into the less restrictive centralized classroom, but they’re able to move from the more restrictive centralized program to a less restrictive one.” Principals’ adaptive implementation of LRE reflected an understanding of inclusion as a continuum of services.

These adaptive approaches to inclusion are directly tied to district organizational structures. One district solution to student variability across elementary, middle, and high schools was the development of centralized classrooms—specialized programs designed to support students with various disability categories in more restrictive environments. These centralized programs, housed on select campuses, included structured learning classrooms, behavior transition programs, and classrooms tailored for students with functional academic needs or non-verbal communication profiles. Principals at the two early childhood centers reported serving particularly high percentages of students with disabilities, highlighting the system-wide reliance on specialized settings to meet student needs.

B3 offered her perspective on what the purpose of schools and inclusion should be: “Schools don’t exist for us to have a place to teach. They exist for us to have a place for students to learn. That’s what inclusion should be.” Yet, she followed up with the statement, “But, I don’t know if that’s what it’s going to be.” B3’s idealism, tempered with doubt, captured a broader concern among the principals about the gap between inclusive ideals and the realities they encountered in their schools. Principals stressed the importance of closing this gap by creating an environment where every student not only has the opportunity to learn but can also experience genuine belonging and a deep sense of security—conditions most participants believe are inseparable from students’ ability to survive and thrive. Such security, both physical and emotional, is not auxiliary to learning; it is the bedrock upon which true inclusion must be built.

4.2.3. Post-Pandemic Challenges: School Safety and System Strain

An overriding concern among 11 (61%) principals was the physical and emotional safety of students and staff. Seven (39%) participants shared that there had been increasing incidents of physical aggression on their campuses following the COVID-19 pandemic. They stressed that student behavior had become more unpredictable, intense, and sometimes violent. This rising intensity of need placed school leaders in a challenging position: how to honor the philosophical and legal mandates for inclusive education while simultaneously protecting the well-being of the entire school community.

C1 recounted a particularly severe incident that she encountered in a behavior support classroom for three- to five-year-old children when trying to offer assistance and shared, “One of the students in the classroom gave me a concussion from multiple blows to the head.” She described the students’ behaviors as “the most violent” and noted they “pose the greatest risk, not only to the adults, but also to their peers and themselves.” She acknowledged, “Believe me, my teachers are getting beat up a lot” which caused her to admit, “My number one priority is safety.” Similarly, A7 shared, “I’ve had, just this past year, probably about six or seven teacher injuries.” These accounts underscore the difficult balance principals must strike between promoting inclusion and ensuring that classrooms remain safe and supportive for all students and staff.

For many, the emotional and ethical weight of these decisions added another layer of complexity. B2 spoke to the emotional burden of making placement decisions relevant to the LRE in terms of full inclusion, especially when balancing full inclusion with the need to create a safe learning environment for every student: “Taking care of kids is at the top of my list: creating a safe environment for all students to be able to come that allows them to be present and learn.” He further noted: “Making hard decisions that have students at the center and have their best intentions in mind. That’s hard. It’s nice to put on the bumper sticker. It’s a lot harder to live out.” B2 and other principals identified safety as a practical necessity that constrained the implementation of inclusive practices in the post-COVID era.

Post-pandemic shifts in student behavior and academic readiness further complicated efforts to meet diverse needs. C4 expressed growing discomfort with how quickly students were being referred to special education services:

Particularly post-pandemic, we’re identifying a lot of students with special needs. And I’m beginning to feel a little uneasy putting the label on so many when I think it’s a result of some learning loss and some other things that need to be addressed—perhaps another way—versus putting them in special education.

His concern reflected a larger unease about over-identification and the risk of mislabeling students whose challenges may stem from trauma, disconnection, or instructional gaps rather than cognitive or emotional disabilities.

In addition to student safety, six (33%) of the principals spoke candidly about the emotional toll the post-COVID learning environment and student behaviors had taken on staff and principal well-being. According to C3, “There’ve been a lot of mental health issues with staff and it’s been very, very hard to be a principal, and I think some principals have not handled it well.” C3 elaborated: “Principals have not been able to take care of themselves because oftentimes, we’re taking care of other people.” The pressure of supporting both students and staff while navigating policy constraints created a landscape where burnout and emotional fatigue were real and growing concerns among school leaders. This type of burnout, if left unaddressed, can become an invisible barrier to inclusion, as overwhelmed educators struggle to extend energy and empathy to students with the most intensive needs.

Despite these challenges, eight (44%) of the principals described efforts to support student behavior in compassionate, structured ways. A5 emphasized the value of instructional aides and behavior support staff in helping students de-escalate:

We have a lot of supports in place… we have some paras [paraprofessionals] in there to help them through their frustrations, because a lot of that is they get frustrated. And you’re spending time on helping them cope with their frustration so that they can go back to the task, right?

His comments reveal a trauma-informed approach to inclusion—one that recognizes behavior as communication and supports students in building emotional regulation skills without exclusion. Together, these perspectives represent a contextually informed stance: for inclusion to be meaningful and sustainable, it must be accompanied by systems that ensure the physical, emotional, and psychological safety of all individuals within the school community. The voices of these principals reflect the urgent need for support structures, professional development, and district-level policies that acknowledge the complexities of today’s schools. In such contexts, inclusion, safety, and student well-being must coexist in practice, not just in principle.

4.3. Promoting an Inclusive School Culture

Creating and sustaining an inclusive school culture requires more than policy compliance or structural accommodations—it calls for intentional leadership that shapes beliefs, challenges assumptions, and builds systems that support both students and educators. Ten (56%) of the principals in this study recognized that inclusive practices are fundamentally shaped by the mindsets and beliefs of the adults in the building. Transforming school culture meant engaging in difficult conversations, modeling inclusive values, and embedding inclusive practices into the daily operations of the school. Yet, these principals grappled with real-world tensions between inclusive ideals and practical limitations, navigating complex decisions about what truly serves each student’s best interests. This section examines how principals worked to shift deficit thinking, foster growth mindsets among staff, and address the challenges they encountered in building and sustaining inclusive school environments.

4.3.1. Replacing Deficit-Thinking with a Growth Mindset

Each of these principals repeatedly identified teacher beliefs and mindsets as both a barrier to and an essential condition for meaningful inclusion. While many school leaders articulated personal and institutional commitments to inclusive practices, they noted that not all teachers naturally shared those beliefs, particularly when it came to students with behavioral challenges or those requiring extensive support. Several leaders discussed the work they have done to foster a growth mindset among staff as a strategy to shift from deficit-based thinking to possibility-driven action. A9 described how her campus invested in professional learning rooted in Carol Dweck’s research:

We did a lot of work around Carol Dweck’s research with a growth mindset. Several years ago, we really dug into what she was able to explain—about how the brain is like a muscle and that continues to develop over time. This effort included multiple book studies and, more importantly, real honest conversations with each other about what we believe about all students learning at high levels.

This commitment to shifting mindsets extended to more direct interventions. C2 described how she worked to resist fixed mindsets and deficit thinking demonstrated by certain teachers. She recounted an instance in which a teacher suggested excluding a male student with a behavior disability from a school activity due to a recent meltdown in class. C2 challenged this exclusionary logic by drawing a direct analogy to a student with a reading disability:

I said, ‘Okay. It’s not any different than little Susie, who has a reading disability. Are you going to make her miss something because she doesn’t know all of her sight words? No. You know that he [the student] has a behavior disability—emotional disturbance. That’s his disability, and he shouldn’t have to miss this activity.’

Her leadership highlights how equity requires not just belief in student potential, but also advocacy to ensure students with disabilities are included, able to access the same opportunities to learn as their peers, and are treated with dignity and respect. She acknowledged that shifting adults’ deficit mindsets takes time, especially when teachers feel overwhelmed. Yet, through consistent coaching and modeling, she built a culture that expects every educator to internalize and act upon the belief that all students can thrive with the right support.

The need to interrogate belief systems was echoed by A2, who emphasized the critical role of teacher mindsets: “My mind first goes to teachers’ beliefs about student capacity or capability… Do they believe that they can reach or teach a particular child? Do they believe that that child is capable of learning? And to what degree?” These internalized beliefs often dictated the extent to which teachers engaged with inclusive practices, especially when faced with students who required nontraditional support. Recognizing this challenge, C4 approached it by identifying strong teachers and working strategically with early adopters: “I had to start with a small group that was willing and open… Once we began to see success… we were able to build momentum.” His strategy reflects an understanding of change management, starting with those most open to the work in order to model possibilities to more skeptical colleagues.

4.3.2. Shaping Teacher Mindsets Through Conversation

Beyond strategic change management, B1 shared that confronting entrenched mindsets often requires courageous conversations. She recalled a moment from her time as an elementary principal when a teacher voiced frustration to her about a student disrupting the class: “What am I going to do? They’re--you know. They’re tearing up my room.” B1 responded firmly: “If you’re asking me to take your side—over an 8-year-old—I’m not gonna choose the way you want me to choose because we are here for kids.” B1’s response revealed the challenges that leaders encounter when attempting to support both teachers and students in creating an inclusive classroom. She later referred to one of her proudest accomplishments recognized by the teachers in terms of creating an inclusive school culture: “One of the things that the teachers talked about was my visible commitment to inclusion, and I think that’s probably one of the things I’m the proudest of.”

These principals also recognized that shifting staff mindset was not just a matter of belief—it was a matter of systemic support and emotional sustainability. A3 added a practical perspective on building inclusion into the everyday structure of school: “If it’s built-in, it happens; if it’s not built-in, then it can slide off. It’s just how we operate.” Her comment underscores the importance of embedding inclusive practices into schedules, systems, and routines.

Together, these reflections reveal that teacher mindsets and beliefs are not just philosophical issues—they are also deeply practical ones. They shape how educators interpret student behavior, how they respond to challenges, and ultimately, how inclusive a school culture can become. For principals committed to inclusion, shaping teacher mindsets and beliefs is ongoing work that requires modeling, coaching, structural alignment, and emotional support.

4.3.3. Challenges and Limitations to Inclusive Leadership

Participants consistently identified the increasing challenges inherent in implementing full inclusion, especially in light of changing student needs, classroom dynamics, and resource constraints. Eight (44%) principals expressed concerns about the feasibility of full inclusion for all students, especially those with more intensive support needs.

C1 spoke about this tension directly, describing inclusion in terms of a “perfect world.” She viewed herself as someone who “was always all about inclusion” but acknowledged a shift in her perspective as the school’s population changed: “I feel like over the last couple of years, I’ve fought against inclusion solely because these classrooms are just not appropriate for these students.” Due to the growing numbers of autistic students and those with developmental delays and processing issues, the demands of the general education classroom had become overwhelming for certain students. C1 noted the heightened difficulty students encountered in general education classrooms due to the loudness of the classroom. Combined with the rapid pace of instruction, the general education learning environment created barriers that prevented certain students from accessing the curriculum meaningfully:

There’s too much going on, and we’re having more and more students that are autistic. It’s too overwhelming. There’s too much going on. They can’t even get to the academic part because it’s just too much for their brain to process through. They’re not able to take in everything.”

Pressures caused by student behaviors and staffing limitations added to her concerns: “And you have screaming over here and crying over here, and the teachers are expected to teach all of this stuff… It’s just not appropriate.”

Despite her reservations about full inclusion, C1 highlighted what she believed to be a positive alternative of placing students in a more restrictive learning environment (e.g., self-contained classrooms). She described the benefits of a “push-in” approach where supplementary aids and services are delivered in a more restrictive learning environment dedicated to students’ skill development. C1 emphasized that these smaller, quieter learning environments allowed students to focus and provided “a more level playing field.” Her insights underscored the need to prioritize environments that are both cognitively and emotionally accessible, rather than assuming that the general education classroom is the default best setting for all learners.

A7 captured a shared sense of cautious optimism about full inclusion: “We are all very mindful as educators about the least restrictive environment… But at the end of the day, it’s not always reality.” A1 reflected on the difficult trade-offs leaders must navigate when weighing the benefits of inclusion to students with and without disabilities: “You might be providing a lot of support for inclusion, like the special ed students, and then not what you need to do for the general ed students, or vice versa. It’s really difficult to meet all their needs.” C1 concluded the discussion with a note of hard-won realism:

It’s really easy for district personnel to theoretically come in and say, ‘Absolutely inclusion for everyone.’ But we have just found, really, over the last 3 or 4 years since we came back after COVID, that it’s not what’s best for all students.

Eight (44%) principals in the study articulated beliefs aligned with the ideals of fully inclusive schools. However, they enacted their leadership within fast-growth district contexts characterized by resource constraints and district organizational structures that implemented a continuum of service approach (Ferguson, 2014; Lemons et al., 2018). In contrast to conceptualizations of full inclusion represented in disability studies literature (Bornstein & Black, 2025), we found that in their context, leaders framed a continuum of service approach as fully inclusive leadership practice.

The fast growth experienced by these districts created significant constraints on principals’ ability to provide adequate student support. One principal explicitly connected funding levels to the quality of support students receive, explaining that budget cuts forced the elimination of a paraprofessional and a teacher for the upcoming year, meaning the campus would serve the same number of students but “have to do with less.” This administrator criticized the legislature for continually passing laws and mandates requiring schools to do “more and more and more every year with less,” arguing that children suffer from inadequate support as a direct result.

Principals spoke of the staffing crisis they faced. One middle school principal reported approximately 50 unfilled special education positions across their district during the year, necessitating constant employee reassignments between campuses to address the highest needs. Another recounted a period when their structured learning classroom operated without a full team due to a missing paraprofessional, forcing administrators to alter their own schedules to provide coverage. A7 felt like they had to make difficult personnel shifts: “I worked with a lot of principals who did have to make changes in their staffing to accommodate a teacher being moved from one campus to another because of a position that was unfilled.” A8 echoed A7 by directly linking budget cuts to reduced student support: “I lost a para for next year. And I’m losing a teacher. So we’re still gonna have the same amount of kids. But we’re gonna have to do with less.” An elementary school principal stated that when students enrolled with IEPs requiring intensive supports, such as one-on-one assistance, campuses often lack the necessary staff to meet those needs immediately. Despite being vital, special education faced cuts alongside other areas, with one principal noting they needed “three more teachers here” just to meet basic student needs. The combination of fast growth, budget constraints, high turnover, and the broader state of education funding constrained principals’ capacity to support students effectively.

However, three principals demonstrated how securing additional funds (federal, state, or self-generated through advocacy) allowed them to create structural support, provide specialized staff, and bridge equity gaps. For example, A2 detailed successfully advocating and using newly acquired federal funding to support inclusive leadership: “It’s primarily funding. And so you can do more for kids. And it’s about leveling the playing field. Right? It’s, you know, something that I think will come out on our needs assessment this year that’s kind of cool.” B2 also shared his insights about Title I funding which helped to foster a safer environment: “There are also groups of students in enrichment and extension which, I think, is creating an environment where you feel safe as an educator.” A1 successfully advocated for administrative assistance to manage the massive number of meetings related to special education services due to having to conduct over 1200 ARD [IEP] meetings at the early childhood center for the district the previous year:

I think we had, last year, if I remember correctly because I kept count… over 1200 ARD [IEP] meetings. We were able to get—we have a retired administrator who actually was an AP [assistant principal] here at the early childhood school before I came. He comes in twice a week and is able to cover for us. So that’s been instrumental.

5. Discussion

All of the principals in this study consistently expressed their beliefs that all students are capable of learning and succeeding in their school environment when provided with the right supports (e.g., systems, resources, teachers, etc.). This core commitment to equity and high expectations, especially for students with disabilities, required principals to challenge deficit-based mindsets and meritocratic norms prevalent in districts and schools, particularly when determining the organizational structures of special education programs and the subsequent placement of students with disabilities in schools and classrooms (Stanczak et al., 2024). This commitment involved challenging deficit-based perceptions of students with disabilities, emphasizing high expectations, and viewing diversity in ability as an asset rather than a limitation–findings that align with the current literature (Allen et al., 2017; Black & Simon, 2014).

School leaders often framed their role as ensuring that no student is viewed as incapable of growth, a stance that locates barriers in environmental and attitudinal factors rather than in the individual. Several principals provided examples of situations in which students thrived when placed in supportive, inclusive environments. This finding aligns with Salisbury (2006) who found that the right setting, culture, and instructional practices can either nurture or hinder a student’s capabilities.

While the findings largely agree with the literature on equity-oriented leadership, they also reveal tensions not always adequately addressed in prior research. For instance, some principals’ definitions of “success” implicitly aligned with normalized academic benchmarks, which can risk reinforcing embedded assimilation assumptions, such as “fix the students’ disabilities” (DeMatthews & Mueller, 2022, p. 316) rather than affirming diverse expressions of competence (Barnes, 2019; West et al., 2023). This subtle divergence suggests that leaders may endorse high expectations; however, without a concurrent shift in how schools define and measure achievement, their beliefs may unintentionally perpetuate dominant norms rather than fully embrace neurodiversity and multiple ways of knowing.

5.1. Inclusion in the Context of Practice: Towards a Conception of Inclusive Pragmatism

In this study, the principals conceptualized inclusion based on their experience and organizational context. Although the l8 principals were purposefully selected because of their reputation for being inclusive school leaders, the findings suggest that their practices did not align with the vision of fully inclusive schooling described in the literature (Barnes, 2019). Because each school leader had to conform to the structures and processes put in place by the district, they defined inclusion pragmatically, within the constraints of their specific context.

Principals explained that the fast-paced growth of the school environment and the need to adapt and react to the district’s growth and changing enrollment made it difficult for district and building administrators to systematically plan for inclusion. Faced with the district’s inability to provide the full range of supports and services to students with disabilities at each neighborhood school, principals had to “make do” within existing constraints. This resulted in every elementary, middle, and high school housing one or more centralized programs that served students from throughout the district with various disability classifications (e.g., structured learning classes, behavior transition classrooms, functional academics classes, classes for autistic and nonverbal students). The early childhood (EC) centers operated as district-wide centralized programs, with a large percentage of their enrollment consisting of students with disabilities.

The concept of “full inclusion” in the general education classroom, regardless of the student’s disability, did not resonate with the principal participants. They cited several factors that complicated this ideal: changes in student behavior, heightened concerns about safety in their schools and classrooms, and an increase in non-verbal students since COVID-19. Despite their resistance to full inclusion, every principal believed they were fulfilling their role as an inclusive school principal in their daily work. They defined inclusion pragmatically (Frick & Pazey, 2024), in terms of moving students from a more restrictive placement to a less restrictive placement, adhering to the continuum of services delivery model mandated by the LRE requirement.

This perspective revealed a tension in principals’ beliefs: while they viewed their current practices as constituting inclusion, they simultaneously expressed a desire to move toward a more inclusive school culture. Every principal indicated they continually sought ways to ensure students were given the opportunity to be fully included in every aspect of school life to the largest extent possible.

School leaders operate within the constraints of broader institutionalized legacies and accountability pressures regarding special education and students with disabilities (Black & Simon, 2014; Fuchs et al., 2025). These pressures often hinder the realization of the social model of disability (Shakespeare, 2006) and instead reinforce rigid and segregated approaches. All the participants in this study were selected from fast-growth school districts, a context that intensified these institutional constraints.

These fast-growth districts are subject to state-level mandates that set specific expectations for special education services, often requiring compliance with prescriptive regulations regarding student placement, services, and assessment. However, the resource constraints these districts face—including inadequate funding, staffing shortages, and a lack of professional development opportunities (Boothe, 2021)—make it difficult to meet these requirements in practice. While state policies emphasize inclusive education, the financial realities of rapidly expanding student populations force districts to prioritize compliance with basic legal requirements over more comprehensive, resource-intensive inclusive practices (Kauffman et al., 2021). As a result, there is a significant disconnect between the policy expectations set by state mandates and the actual capabilities of these districts to provide the necessary services and supports for students with disabilities. This gap between policy and practice reinforces a reliance on centralized special education programs and, at times, results in more segregated models of education rather than the fully inclusive, integrated environments for which the social model of disability advocates. Similar to Norwich’s critique of inclusive education highlighted by Anastasiou, Kauffman, and DiNouvos, in this case study of principals who were recommended by district leaders as being inclusive leaders, we cannot assume that “policy enactment represents the social reality of an inclusive school system” (Norwich, 2015, p. 448).

5.2. Inclusive Pragmatism: Navigating Aspirations Within Constraints

When aspirations for inclusion are constrained, principals must navigate these tensions by adapting their strategies to fit within the organizational structures and financial limitations of their districts (Pazey & Combes, 2020). Although school leaders in this study expressed a strong commitment to the principle of full inclusion and the integration of students with disabilities into general education settings, this ideal proved difficult to achieve due to insufficient funding, staffing shortages, and institutional norms embedded in local processes and policies (DeMatthews, 2020). What we found is articulated by Florian (2014), who argues that inclusion must be interpreted and implemented differently depending on context, as inclusion is context-dependent, not universal. According to Florian, “The meaning of inclusion would take different forms in various places depending on the situation” (p. 288).

Principals often lack the resources to create the necessary conditions for students with disabilities to flourish in general education classrooms (DeMatthews & Mueller, 2022). In response they adopt a more flexible model of inclusion understood as “inclusive pragmatism”—an approach to inclusion that, while not fully aligned with the social model of disability, represents a strategic response to the realities of rapidly growing educational systems (Frick & Pazey, 2024). A methodology of pragmatism, when applied to inclusive leadership, “provides a means of identifying and resolving contradictions that arise at the theoretical and practical level in education” (Synytsia, 2020, p. 32). As pragmatism allows for a focus on a set of practices as constituting society, that then can become a benchmark for learning (Synytsia, 2020). This pragmatic stance serves as a starting point for addressing diverse student needs within significant structural constraints. Leaders can seek to publicly reorganize a set of concerns (Dewey, 1939/1969). Principals can come to understand the set of practices that circulate in the system and understand those practices in light of values that they endorse. So, leaders prepare for changes while they explain what values are to be endorsed. A pragmatic step that principals can take, especially in a fast-growth district where they have limited resources and are gaining new students and staff all the time, is to focus on reshaping campus culture. They can celebrate inclusion in assemblies and newsletters, recognize teachers who differentiate effectively, and ensure students with disabilities are visible in leadership roles and school activities. Drawing on theories of organizational culture, White and Fletcher (2025) argue that school culture is a core determinant of inclusive practice. Teachers felt empowered because the culture promoted collaboration, shared responsibility, and collective problem-solving as inclusion is culturally embedded and socially supported practice. Inclusion grows over time.

The leaders in this case study, in many ways, understood a pragmatic concept of meliorism (Dolan et al., 2022), which works from what principals might describe as “what it is” by opposing ideas of optimism and pessimism. It centers action and experience in addressing issues of inclusion, while still being committed to axiological commitments and values (Synytsia, 2020). What leaders might do is to understand disability studies and its commitments with knowledge of constraints.

Other studies provide insight into potential strategic navigations. Morrissey et al. (2024) demonstrated novel ways schools responded to standardization of the curriculum. Leaders and teachers in their study took a curriculum design framework and modified it in ways that better provided more opportunities for access to curriculum for learners with complex needs. In their study, meliorism was evident, not in condemnation or naïve optimism, but in experimenting and adapting local organizational approaches. Teachers adapted the curriculum extensively and utilized strategies articulated in values and embedded in action. The school used “curricular skipping” to remove inaccessible content and reorganized learning thematically (rather than sequenced lesson by lesson) to create access. Teachers assembled custom curriculum using multiple sources. The authors introduced a new curriculum framework to bridge the dilemma between “common” and “different” curricula (Morrissey et al., 2024).

Tsirantonaki and Vlachou’s (2025) study on principal’s attitudes towards inclusion in Greece parallels findings in this study. They acknowledge that “principals play a vital role in promoting inclusive education by focusing on curriculum enrichment, designing and implementing inclusive practices, and diversifying educators’ role (p. 344).” Yet, the study’s findings bear some resemblance to our findings: there is a gap between what principals believe about inclusion, how they feel toward inclusion, and what they do in practice. As we evidenced in our study, principals’ beliefs alone are not enough to ensure inclusive practices. Principals encountered system constraints. As Tsirantonaki and Vlachou (2025) note: “Principals encounter obstacles… including parental reactions, educator resistance, infrastructure limitations, and the need for further training” (p. 356). In their study, beliefs showed moderate association with attitudes, but weak association with practices. Consistent with our findings, they argue that without necessary knowledge, experience, and systemic support, principals cannot consistently implement inclusive practices—even if they genuinely support inclusion.

Woodcock and Hardy’s (2022) study and White and Fletcher’s (2025) study also highlight systemic constraints and the role of experience in building knowledge toward inclusive leadership practice. Woodcock and Hardy’s (2022) study in Australia found that principals lack a clear, coherent understanding of inclusion. Due to ambiguity and policy overload, principals saw themselves simply trying to manage competing policies. Leaders’ beliefs on inclusion and leaders’ interpretation of a lack of concrete policies, blurred across multiple policy domains, reflected conceptual gaps between policy expectations and principals’ actual understanding. Principals equated inclusion mostly with disability support and a narrow conception of inclusion in terms of special education or disability services.

5.3. Navigating District Constraints: The Limits of Principal Agency

Principals are charged with implementing the requirements of IDEA (2004) and ensuring that students receive a FAPE within the LRE; however, they must work within the organizational structures and approaches established by the district. Every principal in this study expressed belief in the capability of every student to learn; however, their enactment of inclusion was mediated by the districts’ organizational structures and oversight of special education programs in their schools (Wolstencroft & Lloyd, 2019). This larger span of administrative control made translating principals’ espoused beliefs about inclusion into practice more challenging.

Billingsley et al. (2018) highlight the reality that district-level leadership and the structures they develop can stand in the way of moving toward inclusion. In such instances, district interpretations of the LRE mandate and subsequent systemic decisions such as centralized classrooms can hamper principals’ efforts to create an inclusive school culture. Tracy-Bronson (2025) notes that the “LRE presumes access to general education environments, but the continuum of placement options allow for variability. This elusiveness means districts interpret and implement IDEA disparately” resulting in “significant variability in inclusion rates and educational placement practices” (p. 363).

In studies conducted by Tracy-Bronson (2025) and Coviello (2025), district-level administrators responsible for special education programs utilized legal compliance to the LRE as a tactic to promote access to the general education classroom and extend inclusive practices. In contrast, the school leaders in this study worked within districts where schools housed one or more centralized classrooms. The fast-growth nature of the district and the need to provide a full array of LRE options precluded the participants’ ability to create fully inclusive school environments. Similar to the complexities revealed by DeMatthews and Mawhinney (2014), principals had to lead their schools in accordance with the district’s organizational structure and centralized classroom assignments, making it difficult to move toward more inclusive educational environments.

The rapid growth of student populations in the three districts created significant challenges when attempting to implement an inclusive school culture. Principals consistently described how fast-paced enrollment increases strained staffing levels, reduced access to specialized services, and complicated the delivery of individualized supports in general education classrooms. These challenges closely mirror patterns documented in prior studies, which show that fast-growth environments with increasing student enrollments often experience difficulties in personnel, funding, and specialized instructional capacity needed for inclusive practice due to the rapid developments (Boothe, 2021; DeMatthews et al., 2021). Although principals in our study expressed strong philosophical commitments to inclusion, they frequently navigated gaps between their values and the practical realities of limited resources. Similar to findings reported by DeMatthews et al. (2021), principals described how they faced varied challenges and constraints, but utilized different approaches to overcome the difficulties. Our findings underscore a persistent tension: Limited funding and staffing in fast-growth environments led schools to rely on centralized special education programs that, while necessary for compliance, resulted in a more segregated approach. This reliance on separate programs hampered the realization of full inclusion, creating a gap between aspiration and practice.

6. Conclusion: Towards Inclusive Pragmatism as Practice

6.1. Preparing Leaders for the Reality of Inclusive Leadership

When preparing school leaders to enact inclusive leadership in their schools, are preparation programs transparent about the inherent tensions between the ideal of full inclusion and the pragmatic necessity of negotiating partial inclusion within institutional constraints? Do they address the complexities of balancing the social model of disability with the legal requirements to ensure each student receives a FAPE within the LRE? Do they help leaders grapple with having to “make do” within the structures of fast-growth educational environments?

In light of special education teacher shortages, capacity building and training required for teachers and support staff to meet the needs of every student in the general education classroom, and district obligations to comply with IDEA (2004) and state-level policies that embrace LRE mandates, full inclusion often gives way to partial inclusion. Principals in this study reflected what Wolstencroft and Lloyd (2019) describe as the shift from “process” to “practice”—moving beyond prescribed procedural compliance toward creating leadership alternatives that work within institutional constraints. Yet, in many cases, the reality resembled partial inclusion: students with disabilities participated in general education settings to varying degrees, often moving in and out depending on service needs, staffing, and behavioral supports.

As Tefera and Fischman (2024) argue, well-intentioned policies can mask structural inequities unless leaders are equipped to critically examine the disconnect between ideals and realities. Preparing principals to grapple honestly with these tensions requires reframing inclusion not as a binary, but as a dynamic and evolving process negotiated within organizational limits. Only then can districts build the leadership capacity needed to move beyond rhetoric toward sustainable, equity-driven practices. Woodcock and Hardy’s (2022) study suggests that principal preparation programs need to pay greater attention to policy literacy and understanding the broader policy conditions within which leaders can exercise more inclusive practice that is coherent and contextually situated.

Inclusion in the education system is an ongoing process that requires continuous reflection and adaptation (Pazey & Combes, 2020; Pazey & Yates, 2019). In this case study, we examined how principals’ perspectives within three fast-growth districts enabled us to “illustrate, support or challenge” (Merriam, 1998, p. 39) theoretical assumptions about inclusion and the ideas that proponents of inclusive school leadership strive to achieve. We acknowledge that inclusive education has yet to be fully realized for students with disabilities and recognize the ongoing debates about full inclusion. Kauffman and Hornby (2020, 2025) caution that full inclusion may not be the only path to achieve social justice, arguing instead for evidence-based practices that prioritize what works best for each child.

Within this contested landscape, each district in this study operated within a continuum of services model, with principals conceptualizing inclusion primarily through the lens of the LRE. For these leaders, inclusion was understood as students moving along a continuum—from more restrictive to less restrictive placements. A problematic aspect of this approach is that it may reify deficits placed on students in special education programs. The burden of access to more inclusive placements is on the student to “earn their way back” to more inclusive settings–and most never do (Bornstein & Black, 2025). To operationalize this continuum, all three districts assigned centralized classrooms to specific campuses for students with intensive needs. This structural decision created a paradox: principals championed inclusion while simultaneously managing segregated programming. While every principal explicitly articulated a commitment to inclusive practices, their inclusion-with-limits stance represented a pragmatic approach to inclusive leadership.

6.2. Towards Inclusive Pragmatism

Pragmatist approaches suggest that knowledge and action are intimately connected and concepts become meaningful within the context of one’s experiences. Inclusion, for pragmatists, is not theory removed from practice, but rather a result of mutually constitutive interaction in context of action. Practice builds a theory of action (Biesta & Burbules, 2003; Dewey, 1939/1969; Ryder, 2022). In this study, principals balanced idealistic aspirations for full inclusion with pragmatic adaptations based on available resources and institutional norms. A pragmatic inclusion approach embraces the social justice commitments of disability studies while utilizing post-positivist empiricism that recognizes the value of evidence-based practices in special education (Hornby & Kauffman, 2024; Kauffman & Hornby, 2025). It advocates for educating children in general education classrooms while acknowledging that a continuum of placement option may be necessary to meet diverse needs in resource-constrained, fast-growth district and school contexts. While disability studies approaches emphasize institutional and social norms and structures, inclusive special education prioritizes individualization, the use of individualized education programs (IEPs), and well-delivered specialized interventions under the best possible conditions (Kauffman et al., 2024). While pragmatic approaches to leadership highlighted in this study overlap with conceptions of inclusive special education that Kauffman and Hornby (2025) articulate, inclusive pragmatism strives for belonging and community alongside high-quality special education supports (Bornstein & Black, 2025; Kauffman & Hornby, 2025. The emphasis on philosophical tenets of pragmatism centers a way of knowing and acting that are intertwined. It is the “thought work” through actions of the leaders and communities that are highlighted in inclusive pragmatism. An inclusive pragmatist approach centers ways in which leaders identify and resolve contradictions of values and practices that will always likely continue to exist (Dolan et al., 2022).

Our findings suggest that principals’ conceptualizations and enactments of inclusion were inextricably linked to district-level structures and their schools’ unique contexts within rapidly expanding districts. The district assignment of centralized classrooms, while intended to provide specialized services, may have inadvertently reinforced segmented thinking about student placement rather than promoting full participation. These tensions are particularly acute in fast-growth districts where resource constraints and infrastructure challenges compound existing barriers to inclusion.

Educational leaders and policymakers must recognize that advancing inclusion requires more than individual principal commitment; it demands systemic examination of how district policies, resource allocation, and facility planning either enable or constrain inclusive possibilities. It demands inclusively pragmatic leaders who identify and resolve contradictions of values and consequentialist practices. Otherwise, as Slee and Tait (2022) observe, “no matter how often the ethics of consequentialist reasonings are pointed out, it keeps rising up, phoenix-like with the policies and practices of mass schooling” (p. 21) that are evident in high growth educational environments. Florian (2014) notes that inclusive practice requires multi-level evidence (child, classroom, school, district). Moving forward, future research should explore how districts experiencing rapid growth can proactively design structures that support rather than limit inclusion, and how principal preparation programs can equip leaders to advocate for systemic change alongside pragmatic implementation.