Inclusion is a practice,
not a posture.
The Trust Framework is the relational foundation embedded in every book, activity, and plan in the Trust Curriculum. It gives students and the adults who teach them shared language for trust, connection, and the social decisions they make every day.
It names the work that is already happening.
Developed by Rebecca Cann, M.A., CCC-SLP, the Trust Framework emerged from years of school-based clinical practice, AAC work, and the recognition that inclusion fails not because educators lack commitment, but because the systems around them make collaboration invisible, indirect service time uncountable, and shared language rare.
The Framework does not ask schools to do new work. It names the work that is already happening and gives teams a shared structure to make it visible, documented, and sustainable.
What the Framework asks of a building.
Universal Access
Every text in the Trust Curriculum is selected, presented, and supported so every learner can enter the story on their own terms. Universal Access is not about simplification. It is about multiple means of entry.
A book that only some students can access is not a shared object. The power of the model comes from the fact that the same story anchors every adult’s work. When the text is universally accessible, the collaboration becomes possible.
Universal Access draws on Universal Design for Learning principles: multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement. In practice, books are supported with AAC overlays, sensory-adapted read-aloud guides, visual supports, and family discussion guides.
Co-Constructed Plans
The teacher leads the read. Specialists weave their goals into the same book. One plan, many lenses. Co-Constructed Plans is the principle that says the general education teacher does not hand off to specialists. They invite them in.
In most schools today, lesson plans and IEP goals live in separate systems, written by separate people, rarely seen by each other. The result is pull-out service that fragments the student’s day, indirect service time that goes unlogged, and teachers who feel unsupported and specialists who feel unwelcome.
Co-Constructed Plans makes the lesson the shared object. The teacher creates the reading plan. The SLP layers in a language goal. The OT attaches a fine-motor activity. The BCBA adds a joint-attention data sheet. All of it lives in one place, visible to everyone, tied to the same story.
Visible Collaboration
Consultation is real work, and it should count. Visible Collaboration is the principle that says the record of collaboration should be a by-product of doing it, not a second task layered on top.
Indirect service time is real work. It is the co-planning, the consultation emails, the materials adaptation, and the professional development conversations. It is often federally required, contractually mandated, and directly tied to student outcomes. But it has never had a home. It happens in hallways, in email threads, in conversations that leave no trace.
Visible Collaboration asks that when a specialist contributes to a lesson, that contribution is tied to the students it supports and recorded without a separate documentation step. The collaboration is the documentation.
Belonging First
Story is the bridge. Every book, activity, and plan begins from a single premise: this student belongs here. Belonging First is not a sentiment. It is a design constraint.
It means we select books in which students with disabilities are present, complex, and central, rather than peripheral, pitied, or inspirational. It means activities are designed for the inclusive classroom, not adapted down from a pull-out model. It means the default is togetherness.
Belonging, the felt sense that one is a valued member of the learning community, shapes academic engagement, social-emotional development, and long-term outcomes for students with disabilities. Belonging First asks every tool in the curriculum to answer one question before anything else: does this help this student feel like they belong here?
Not good or best. Deeper or not yet.
Relationships are understood not by labels like good or best friend, but by depth of trust. Each dimension serves a meaningful purpose.
Connection happens through shared spaces and group settings, not emotional disclosure. These relationships provide belonging, stability, and joy. They are not a stepping stone. They are complete in their own right.
Think: classmates, colleagues in a meeting, teammates on a field.
Opinions, preferences, and individuality are shared. These friendships move beyond the group into intentional one-on-one connection. They are a bridge between comfort and deeper trust, and it is okay to stay here.
Think: a coworker you grab coffee with, a teammate you text outside of practice.
Defined by emotional depth, not time spent together. Emotions can be shared safely and without judgment. Honesty feels safe because there is confidence the relationship can hold it.
Think: the friend you call at two in the morning, who may be the one you see least.
All three are valid tools.
Social problem solving is not about finding one correct response. It is choosing a plan that fits the relationship, context, and level of trust.
Directly address or confront the other person within the social situation. Make direct statements about how you feel or think, or ask direct questions to gain clarity. Most effective with deeper trust.
Indirectly attempt to address the situation by giving hints or being subtle. Often used every day but rarely taught. Meets your needs without creating discomfort, and keeps relationships intact.
Focus on what you do to protect your own peace, not what you demand from others. Internal and action-based. When a boundary requires someone else to change, it is no longer a boundary.
Trust is what makes communication possible.
Your current dimension plus the outcome you want equals the plan you choose. Your current dimension plus the plan you choose equals the updated dimension. You cannot communicate your way into trust. Trust is what makes communication possible in the first place.
A living framework.
The Trust Framework is not finished. It grows with the districts, teachers, and specialists who use it. If you are doing this work and have something to add, we want to hear from you.
Start a conversation