by Eman Al-zboon
Fulbright Visiting Scholar, University of Northern Iowa, USAFull Professor, Hashemite university, Jordan
Abstract
This study explores Iowa’s inclusive education model through field research conducted in 2025, including observations and interviews with K–12 educators, administrators, and support staff. Iowa’s approach centers on early intervention, non-categorical eligibility, and transdisciplinary collaboration. Rather than relying on disability labels, the state uses a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) to identify student needs and guide interventions. Paraeducators, though often underprepared, play a key role in implementing inclusive practices. Innovative staffing strategies—such as university partnerships and floating support roles—help extend services in resource-limited settings. Iowa’s transition to inclusive education also involves strength-based IEP development, co-teaching models, and adaptations using general education curricula and low-cost technologies. The model emphasizes family engagement, teacher mentoring, and ongoing professional development aligned with social-emotional learning (SEL). Despite challenges such as paraeducator qualifications and limited planning time, Iowa’s coordinated efforts provide actionable strategies for schools initiating or improving inclusion. The findings offer policymakers a roadmap for reform that maintains service quality while broadening access. For practitioners, Iowa’s example demonstrates how inclusive policies can translate into equitable classroom practices when supported by collaboration, capacity-building, and intentional system design.
Introduction
As a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at the University of Northern Iowa during the spring of 2025, I conducted field research in inclusive classrooms across Iowa. Through interviews with district leaders, educators, including special education teachers, general education teachers, administrators, and support personnel, I gained firsthand insight into Iowa’s robust approach to inclusive education. What emerged was a system deeply committed to ensuring all students, regardless of ability, have access to meaningful learning experiences alongside their peers.
This robust approach to inclusion is built on three pillars: early intervention, data-driven decision-making, and collaborative practices—all supported by the strategic deployment of paraeducators. However, Iowa’s reliance on paraeducators highlights a systemic tension: these critical staff members often work with minimal qualifications (typically only a high school diploma) despite being tasked with complex responsibilities, from behavior management to academic support.
Paraeducator Qualifications:
- Minimum: High school diploma/GED (most common)
- Preferred: Some college coursework or associate degree
- Certification: Varies by state; Iowa requires passing the ParaPro Test or equivalent training
- Training Gap: On-the-job support often substitutes for formal preparation
Key Concern:
“Paraeducators are the backbone of inclusion, they are our angels, but we’re setting them up to fail when we don’t invest in their training,” admitted one special education teacher. This disconnects between paraeducators’ roles and their preparation surfaces repeatedly in Iowa’s staffing challenges.
Through this article, I share insights from Iowa’s model that can inform K-12 educators and policymakers.
The Child Find Process and Early Intervention
Iowa’s journey toward inclusion begins with Child Find, a federally mandated process that requires schools to identify and evaluate children who may have disabilities. When a parent or educator raises concerns, the school’s Area Education Agency (AEA) team—comprising specialists such as school psychologists, occupational therapists, and speech-language pathologists—conducts an initial review.
Before moving to a full evaluation, schools implement Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), a framework previously known as Response to Intervention (RTI). This three-tiered approach ensures that students receive increasingly intensive support before special education is considered:
- Tier 1: Universal interventions for all students (e.g., differentiated instruction).
- Tier 2: Small-group interventions for students needing additional support.
- Tier 3: Highly individualized, intensive interventions.
If a student continues to struggle despite these supports, a formal special education evaluation is initiated. The evaluation follows the RIOT protocol—Review, Interview, Observe, Test—to gather comprehensive data before determining eligibility.
“We’ve moved away from standardized IQ tests,” explained a school psychologist. “Now our psychologists spend more time observing in classrooms than doing traditional testing. We learn more watching a student attempt a math problem in class than giving a Woodcock-Johnson.”
Key Insight:
“We don’t categorize students by disability labels. If they’re behind and not making progress with interventions, they qualify for an IEP—no matter the diagnosis.”
Non-Categorical Eligibility and IEP Development
Unlike many states that categorize disabilities (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, learning disabilities), Iowa uses a non-categorical approach. Students are deemed eligible based on educational need rather than a specific diagnosis. This prevents service gaps for students who might not fit traditional labels but still require support.
Once eligibility is determined, an Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed within 30 days. The IEP team, including general and special education teachers, parents, and AEA specialists, collaborates to design:
- Measurable goals aligned with grade-level standards.
- Accommodation and modifications (e.g., assistive technology, extended time).
- Service delivery models (co-teaching, pull-out, or a hybrid approach).
“Our IEP meetings always start with student strengths—that changes the conversation,” noted an administrator. The district also provides “AEA-developed materials to train parents on IEP rights,” ensuring meaningful family engagement.
Key Insight:
“Our IEPs are comprehensive—everyone’s input is integrated into one plan. It’s not a bunch of separate documents floating around.”
Teacher Training and Professional Development (PD)
New special educators complete an intensive onboarding, including “a robust 4-day new teacher training covering IEP meeting effectiveness and parent communication.” As one administrator noted, “We role-play difficult parent conversations, so teachers leave prepared.”
Ongoing support continues through mentoring and PD aligned with the district’s Social Emotional Learning (SEL) framework. “Special Ed teachers receive ongoing mentoring and district PD that’s directly tied to our classroom needs,” shared a veteran teacher.
Service Delivery: From Co-Teaching to Specialized Programs
Iowa schools prioritize inclusive settings whenever possible. Special education teachers often co-teach in general education classrooms, ensuring students with disabilities receive support without unnecessary segregation. When pull-out services are necessary, they are targeted and time-limited to reintegrate students into general education.
For students with significant needs, Iowa offers:
- Extended Core Programs: For students with severe academic delays.
- Behavior-Focused Programs: For students with high behavioral needs.
- Assistive Technology: Speech-to-text tools, screen magnifiers, and adaptive devices.
The Strategic Role of Paraeducators
Paraeducators serve as essential yet flexible supports in Iowa’s inclusive classrooms through two innovative staffing solutions:
- University Partnership Model
Districts collaborate with teacher preparation programs to address shortages. “University education students work as paras 2-3 days weekly,” explained a school principal. These aspiring teachers provide consistent support while gaining hands-on experience. The pipeline intentionally cultivates future special educators, with many current teachers having “started as paras through this program.” - Floating Para Positions
To reduce over-reliance on 1:1 aide, schools deploy para’s classroom-wide. “Instead of being tethered to one child, they rotate between literacy circles, math stations, and transitions,” noted a principal. This approach:- Addresses staffing gaps
- Prevents dependency by training paras to “facilitate peer interactions, not be permanent crutches”
- Ensures continuity when specialists are limited (“OTs visit weekly, but paras implement strategies daily”)
Behavior Support and Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)
Iowa’s approach to behavior has evolved significantly. “We modified Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to focus less on token rewards and more on intrinsic motivation,” shared a district leader. “Our SEL framework emphasizes prevention over reaction for behavior needs.”
“When PBIS first came, it became all about token economies and prize boxes,” reflected a principal. “We rebuild ours around teaching coping skills because stickers don’t help when kids are truly overwhelmed.”
Challenges in Implementation
Despite its strengths, Iowa’s inclusive model faces challenges:
- Time for Collaboration
- Co-teaching requires structured planning time, which is often scarce.
- Solution: Some districts provide substitutes to facilitate collaboration.
Key Insight:
“The biggest barrier isn’t policy—it’s finding time for teachers to plan together.”
- Teacher Beliefs and Training
- Some educators still default to a “pull-out” mindset.
- Solution: Ongoing professional development and success stories shift perceptions.
- Behavioral and Social-Emotional Needs
- Post-pandemic, more students struggle with self-regulation.
- Solution: Schools are investing in SEL frameworks and sensory-friendly spaces.
4. Paraeducator Qualifications and Systemic Inequity
Problem:
- Underprepared Workforce: Paraeducators frequently lack training in disability-specific strategies yet are frontline implementers of IEPs.
- High Turnover: Low wages and limited career pathways exacerbate shortages. “We train paras, they leave for Target because it pays better,” lamented one principal.
- Equity Issue: Schools in high-poverty areas often rely more heavily on underqualified paras, widening resource gaps.
Solutions Observed in Iowa:
- Paid Apprenticeships: Districts partnering with community colleges to offer tuition-free coursework (e.g., “Para-to-Teacher” pipelines). Additionally, the University of Northern Iowa (UNI) offers an online “Purple Pathway” program for paraeducators to earn a bachelor’s degree in elementary education.
- Standardized Training Mandates: A pilot program requires 30 hours of pre-service training on inclusion practices.
Key Insight:
“Paras aren’t ‘helpers, our angels’—they’re educators. We need to train them like it,” argued a general teacher. Without addressing qualifications and compensation, inclusive models risk perpetuating a two-tiered system where students with disabilities receive support from the least-prepared staff.
Recommendations for Strengthening Inclusion
Drawing from Iowa’s inclusive education model, several strategic recommendations emerge for educators, school leaders, and policymakers seeking to build or enhance inclusive systems:
1. Invest in Early, Tiered Intervention Systems
Schools should prioritize a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) to identify and assist struggling students before disability labels are applied. This approach ensures that educational needs, not diagnostic categories, guide support decisions. Policymakers can reinforce this by funding early intervention programs and training teachers in data-based instructional practices.
2. Adopt a Non-Categorical Eligibility Framework
Shifting away from strict diagnostic categories allows schools to serve students based on functional needs rather than labels. This approach promotes equity by removing barriers for students who require support but may not fit traditional disability definitions. It also helps streamline service delivery, reducing delays in accessing help.
3. Build Strong Paraeducator Pathways
Given the central role of paraeducators in inclusive classrooms, districts must prioritize their preparation and retention. Initiatives like paid apprenticeships, university partnerships, and standardized pre-service training are essential. States and school systems should explore “grow-your-own” models to cultivate future special educators from the paraeducator workforce.
4. Protect and Structure Collaboration Time
Effective co-teaching and IEP development rely on ongoing collaboration between educators. Administrators should allocate dedicated time for joint planning, possibly by adjusting schedules or using substitute coverage. Structured collaboration fosters stronger instructional alignment and shared accountability for student progress.
5. Reframe Behavior Support Within SEL Frameworks
Schools should move beyond token-based behavioral systems and toward strategies that build students’ self-regulation and resilience. Embedding social-emotional learning (SEL) into daily routines equips students with coping strategies and reduces the need for reactive discipline. Training all staff, not just counselors, in SEL practices helps create a unified, preventive approach.
6. Use General Curriculum with Embedded Supports
Rather than segregating students into separate curricula, inclusive classrooms should adapt existing materials to meet diverse needs. Modifications, accommodations, and co-teaching strategies allow all students to access grade-level content, preserving high expectations and promoting a sense of belonging.
7. Engage Families as Equal Partners
Family engagement should extend beyond compliance to meaningful participation in planning and decision-making. Providing accessible training materials, scheduling flexible IEP meetings, and valuing parent insights strengthen the home-school partnership and lead to more responsive educational plans.
8. Leverage Technology Strategically
Resource-constrained schools can utilize standard tools (e.g., Chromebooks) for assistive technological purposes when specialized devices are unavailable. Training staff to use built-in accessibility features allows for scalable, low-cost solutions that maintain inclusiveness.
9. Monitor Equity in Staffing and Resource Allocation
Inclusion efforts must be mindful of systemic inequities. Schools serving high-poverty communities often depend more heavily on under-qualified staff. Targeted investment, such as bonuses for working in high-need schools or subsidized training programs, can help close these gaps and ensure consistent quality of support across districts.
Conclusion
Iowa’s inclusive education model offers a compelling example of how systemic collaboration, early intervention, and a commitment to high expectations can transform educational experiences for students with disabilities. Rather than relying on rigid labels, Iowa schools focus on individual needs through non-categorical eligibility and a robust Multi-Tiered System of Support. The strategic use of paraeducators, co-teaching, and flexible service delivery allows for meaningful inclusion even in resource-limited settings.
Crucially, Iowa’s approach emphasizes the importance of teacher collaboration, family engagement, and ongoing professional development, acknowledging that successful inclusion depends as much on mindset and preparation as on policies. While challenges persist—particularly around paraeducator training, staffing inequities, and the increasing behavioral needs of students—innovative practices such as university partnerships and SEL-focused behavior frameworks show promising results.
For policymakers and educators developing or refining their inclusive systems, Iowa’s experience highlights the value of starting small, building on existing resources, and prioritizing long-term capacity over short-term fixes. The lessons learned from Iowa demonstrate that inclusive education is not only possible but also practical, scalable, and essential to achieving educational equity.
