When leaders at Harvest Park Middle School in California’s Pleasanton Unified School District analyzed data about outcomes for students with individualized education plans (IEPs), they realized they needed to make significant changes. They embarked on a schoolwide transformation to foster a more inclusive, student-ready learning environment and remove systemic barriers that limited access to rigorous coursework, electives, and schoolwide opportunities for students receiving special education services.

Harvest Park’s comprehensive plan was grounded in professional learning. From building buy-in and groundwork through honest conversations to making major shifts in instructional practices, every step of the process included intentional efforts to build staff members’ understanding, collaboration, and skills. As educational practices and supports improved and barriers were removed, schoolwide test scores rose, chronic absenteeism declined, and behavioral referrals and suspensions decreased.

Understanding barriers to inclusion

In 2021, only 68% of students with IEPs at Harvest Park spent time in general education classrooms for 80% of the school day or more (sometimes referred to as least restrictive environment level 1). Although this was consistent with national trends, it fell short of inclusive benchmarks (Irwin, et al., 2024) and of the school’s goals for students to feel both connected to their community and academically successful.

In response to this data, Harvest Park staff reviewed over 70 IEPs to examine placement, services, and long-term academic trajectories. They found that most students in specialized programs rarely exited such programs or moved to general education classrooms full time. Furthermore, fewer than 30% of students with disabilities met state-established requirements for admission to the University of California or California State University systems, which included taking a certain number of courses in seven areas and earning a C or better in each one (California Department of Education, n.d.). In essence, if the middle school kept doing what it was doing, the impact would be felt through 12th grade and beyond.

Professional learning as a strategy for change

The first step in creating a more inclusive school was engaging staff in structured conversations held individually, in small groups, and in whole-staff meetings to reflect on beliefs, surface concerns, and align on shared goals for students with disabilities. During these discussions, some general education teachers expressed concern about supporting students with complex needs, and case managers questioned whether general education settings could provide adequate differentiation. Rather than ignoring these concerns, leaders used them to start honest conversations about what was working, what wasn’t, and what would need to change.

These discussions also informed the school’s professional learning agenda. Creating a more inclusive learning environment required more than a commitment to the work; it demanded continuous professional learning and a clear vision of what high-quality, accessible instruction looks like across classrooms.

Whole-school professional learning focused on concrete instructional moves, including explicit instruction, literacy and language development, Universal Design for Learning, updated accommodations, and collaboration routines between general education teachers and case managers. The school also invested in culture-building work, including Capturing Kids’ Hearts, positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) foundations, supporting neurodivergent students, and a four-session series on Courageous Conversations About Race.

All staff including custodians, noon supervisors, and secretaries participated in schoolwide professional learning to ensure inclusive and culturally responsive practices were embedded throughout the school building and in every program, from music to robotics to afterschool sports, clubs, and other enrichment opportunities.

The information staff learned during professional learning sessions was reinforced through department learning cycles and consistent feedback from administrators and case managers. Departments regularly reviewed what accessible lessons should look like and conducted informal rounds to examine teaching and learning across grade levels. Educators analyzed student work, used common rubrics, and identified areas where more professional learning was needed. Administrators were in classrooms daily, offering support and providing feedback. New teachers engaged in tailored onboarding, mentoring from veteran staff, and learning walks that showcased accessible classrooms.

Through these efforts, staff came to recognize that students receiving special education services thrive in fully immersive, supportive environments. They also recognized that implementing such an approach schoolwide would require full participation and shared responsibility from everyone on campus.

Data-informed decision-making

Leaders regularly analyzed data to assess the impact of changes and identify areas for improvement. Every six to eight weeks the team discussed behavioral data and interventions during coordination of services team meetings to ensure timely support for students and reviewed student performance data including course grades, academic progress, demographic indicators, and IEP status. These reviews helped staff identify classroom trends and guide instructional adjustments such as when to reteach or retest, how to facilitate productive group collaboration, how to strengthen explicit instruction, and how to support students working with complex texts.

Once the team compiled the data, leaders shared it with departments and teacher leaders for review. When they identified anomalies or disparities across student populations, department heads and administrators worked directly with teachers to explore solutions. Instead of imposing mandates, the instructional leadership team facilitated reflective discussions that asked educators to analyze who was affected, where and when challenges occurred, why they happened, and how to address them.

In one case, 80% of students with IEPs were failing a general education math class. A team analysis identified instructional gaps including a lack of formative assessments, limited collaboration, and misaligned accommodations. The school responded with a support plan for the teacher, stronger communication with families, and instructional strategies adjusted based on student needs.

The 6th-grade English language arts (ELA) team demonstrated a similar approach to analysis and adaptation. After creating standards-based common rubrics and analyzing quarterly data, they recognized they needed to change their approach to writing instruction to be accessible to all students. They started to more explicitly teach a claim, evidence, reasoning, and conclusion structure. They also introduced targeted interventions for any student who was reading at grade level but had lagging skills in writing. Within a year ELA scores rose by nine percentage points (from 78% to 87% meeting or exceeding expectations) for all 6th-grade students.

Structural changes

The school redesigned its specialized academic instruction model to prioritize inclusive general education settings. Instead of relying on multiple self-contained classes, the school shifted support into Tier 1 classrooms using research-backed strategies, including explicit instruction, literacy and language scaffolds, Universal Design for Learning principles, and principles of PBIS. This shift allowed students with disabilities to remain with their peers for more of the day and increased access to core instruction and electives.

As a result, the school was able to reduce the number of self-contained classes from 12 to two, which helped distribute students with IEPs more equitably across the campus. This required that families work with case managers and teachers to agree to receiving services in general education settings first. The special education department reimagined accommodations to ensure consistent implementation across classrooms, and the school replaced program-based reading interventions with a two-tier system available to all students. Case managers collaborated closely with general education teachers to refine accommodations, plan instruction, and ensure alignment between IEP goals and classroom expectations.

The school engaged families of students with IEPs early in this process of change, particularly during the transition meetings from 5th to 6th grade and from 8th to 9th grade. Many parents (and staff) had expected that a separate environment for students with IEPs would result in more independence and improved academic performance. Recognizing this wasn’t the case constituted a paradigm shift. To help them make this shift, staff shared with parents the admissions requirements for the public university systems and the long-term implications of students’ grades for their academic paths. They held information nights to discuss programming, pathways, and transitions, helping parents understand their options and the potential benefits for their children. The overarching goal was to ensure families understood the importance of inclusive programming and were on board with the changes.

To enact these changes quickly, case managers conducted additional IEP meetings for every student in the resource program during an intensive three-month period. This step was essential because delays in implementing inclusive specialized academic instruction would have pushed needed master schedule adjustments back by one to two years. These meetings allowed the school to move students into appropriate courses, expand elective access, and transition students from self-contained core classes into general education settings.

Improvements in student outcomes

The results of the inclusive model were evident in the school culture and in outcomes for students across the spectrum of class placements, achievement levels, and engagement levels.

• More inclusive classrooms. After implementing the inclusive model, the percentage of students with disabilities participating in general education classes at least 80% of the time jumped from 68% to 80%. This allowed many more students with disabilities to interact with their peers and experience the full range of school activities. Furthermore, there was a 46% increase in enrollment in elective courses among students with IEPs. In previous years, no students with IEPs were enrolled in courses such as leadership and computer science; however, it is now common to see multiple students with disabilities participating in each of these electives.
• Higher academic achievement across student subgroups. More students met grade-level expectations across content areas, showing statistically significant growth on state tests in ELA and math from spring 2022 to spring 2024. The percentage of students meeting and exceeding expectations increased from 81% to 84% in ELA and from 79% to 83% in math. Moreover, average scores were well above the standard threshold established by the state, with significant growth over time: from 75.6 points above the standard threshold to 85 points above in ELA and from 81.5 points above to 97.8 points above in math.
• Higher achievement among students with disabilities. For students with disabilities, mathematics scores — historically a challenging area for the school — moved from the red category (well below standard) in the 2021-22 school year to the yellow category (approaching standard) in the 2023-24 school year.
• Improved student behavior and higher engagement. The suspension rate dropped to 1%. Chronic absenteeism dropped to 4%, a 3.3% change. This likely reflected higher feelings of engagement and belonging, as 80% of students reported feeling connected in 2024, according to the California Healthy Kids Survey, compared to 71% in 2022.

Success stories

Educators and parents are expressing their appreciation for changes brought by the inclusion efforts.

With increased enrollment the school expanded and diversified its elective offerings, particularly in physical education, arts, culinary programs, music, and robotics and included students with intensive needs. One physical education teacher reflected on the impact of this shift, stating, “I like how we do PE at HPMS. At the high school, the students in ESN [extensive student need] have to go to a separate room, but here, they get to be with all the other kids, and they make friends. I think this is much better.”

Families and students have also described the cultural impact of these changes. One Harvest Park parent shared, “My son was born premature and has many learning needs. Generally, high-performing schools are not accepting of kids like my son, but we could not be happier. When his case manager put him in a general education ELA class, I was scared. But he came home and said, ‘Now I have the same stories as all of my friends. I feel like this is my school.’”

Another student entered Harvest Park with limited verbal communication and received restrictive support through the specialized academic instruction program. Although the school initially considered a substantially separate placement, they worked in partnership with the family to incorporate him into general education settings, electives, and schoolwide activities. Today, as a high school student, he holds rich conversations with peers and competes on the cross-country team.

These outcomes, including confidence, communication, friendships, and meaningful participation, demonstrate how an inclusive culture expands what is possible for students.

Inclusion is a practice, not a destination

Harvest Park Middle School’s transformation shows inclusion is not the result of a single initiative, but is the outcome of committed leadership, ongoing professional learning, collaborative reflection, and consistent, campuswide practice. Teachers, case managers, and school leaders continue to refine instruction, analyze data in cycles of inquiry, and engage in coaching and feedback that keeps expectations aligned across classrooms. This shared commitment ensures inclusive instruction remains strong even as student needs evolve, research develops, and the school welcomes new educators and families. Harvest Park Middle School continues to build on this progress, and its journey offers an important reminder that inclusion is not a destination. It is a daily practice sustained by a community that is committed to continuous improvement.

Download pdf here.