 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wright State University
Titles:
This qualitative study examines how principals' leadership qualities influence effective elementary inclusion programs. Guiding questions address principals' perceptions of the beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors essential to leadership in an inclusive school. Sites for this study were three fully included elementary schools (no self-contained classes) in southwest Ohio. Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews, observations, shadowing, and document review. The conceptual framework of relational leadership, particularly the attributes of caring, collaboration, courage, vision, and intuition organized the study. Findings illustrated that the principals believe relational leadership is necessary for the success of inclusive learning communities; they make collaborative, proactive leadership by teachers and others a fundamental part of their school renewal efforts. A
special education teacher for fourteen years during the 1980s and
1990s, I taught children in four states and five different schools.
I witnessed firsthand the degradation my students, many of whom were
from poor, working class, or minority families, felt as they ducked
quickly into my room, trying not to be noticed by other students who
were on their way to the "regular classrooms." I heard the
taunts and observed the belittling looks or sympathetic smiles that
often followed us whenever we left our self-contained sanctuary to
venture out onto the playground or into the community. Sometimes
my students appeared to resent me, as if I was a constant reminder
of their "dummy" status. At other times, they clung to me,
as if I was the only protection against the harsh world that waited
outside our classroom door. I cared about my students and I appreciated
their unique talents: Chris, who could recite every score of every
baseball game reported in the daily newspaper; Rose, a vivacious and
imaginative storyteller; Carrie, who had the kindest heart and most
sympathetic ear of anyone I've ever known. Unfortunately, because
we were so often excluded from the daily life of the rest of the school,
my students' strengths and abilities went unrecognized and unappreciated
by the other students and staff. John Dewey (1916) said schools are primarily responsible for educating children about the habits of democracy: courtesy,
tolerance, respect, a sense of justice, and the ability to engage in
dialogue necessary to form public policy. The extent to which schools
will be successful in this endeavor will depend on the extent to which
those with differences can "share similar values, goals, and interests,
as well as by the freedom with which they can interact fruitfully and
share their experiences with one another" (cited in Soltis, 1994,
p. 1523). By fulfilling the role of "special education teacher"
assigned to me, I could, in the end, only fail my students. As representative
and protector of the separate educational system, I could never provide
my students with what they needed most in order to become productive
democratic citizens: a meaningful membership in their own school community.
This realization sent me on a search for a more equitable system of
education for students with disabilities, indeed, for all students who
deserve an opportunity to learn the habits of democracy of which Dewey
spoke. What I found was inclusion.
The term
inclusion evokes powerful emotional reactions in many educators. For
every staunch supporter of this practice of blending special and general
education into one cohesive system of services, there is an opponent
who will argue just as adamantly against inclusive education. Interestingly,
if one were to survey educators in order to assess their understanding
of the concept of inclusion, the number of different responses would
surly rival the number of participants. For the purposes of this study,
I use the following definition of inclusion: Providing
to all students, including those with significant disabilities, equitable
opportunities to receive effective educational services, with the
needed supplementary aids and support services, in age-appropriate
classrooms in their neighborhood schools, in order to prepare students
for productive lives as full members of society (Lipsky and Gartner,
1997, p. 99). It is
important to note that inclusive education does not demand that all
instruction take place in the general education classroom all the
time. There may certainly be times when it is appropriate to provide
services in settings other than the classroom. Nevertheless, inclusion
does mean that the primary placement is in the general class. It also
means that the general education teacher has overall responsibility
for every student, whether or not that student has been identified
as having a disability (Lipsky and Gartner, 1997). The primary purpose for educating students together is to provide all children with the opportunity to learn to understand one another through experiences of working and learning in a natural environment (Stainback & Stainback, 1990). The key to success in integrated classrooms is the provision of appropriate educational programs that challenge, yet address the needs of all students, along with the provision of any necessary supports or related services students or teachers may need. Inclusion adheres to a new conceptualization of children and schools: children are more alike than different; therefore, it is not sensible to separate them for learning. Contrary to the traditional, separate system of education, which is based on a deficit model, an inclusionary model of education maintains that students with disabilities are capable of significant achievement and are worthy of respect (Lipsky & Gartner, 1989).
For
inclusion to become a viable alternative to the dual system of education,
it must become a joint venture, embraced by general as well as special
educators. Furthermore, inclusion must not be simply a new approach
to teaching special education students; it has to be a philosophy
of teaching and learning that leads to a complete and systemic transformation
of schools. The
development of inclusive school communities requires major systems
change (Sage, 1994) and purposeful leadership (Parker & Day, 1997).
Systems-level thinking (Senge, 1990) and a change toward a more inclusive
learning environments requires opportunities for teachers and other
school community members to engage in dialogue about the future of
education and their own visions of schooling. Sage (1994) maintains
that changes supporting inclusion require leaders who emphasize teamwork
and encourage critical inquiry. According to Parker and Day (1997),
inclusive schools also require principals who believe in and assertively
support a philosophy of inclusiveness. These principals nourish school
communities that believe in success for all students. They understand
that all really does mean all, and they "continually encourage
and strengthen the culture for inclusion of all members of the learning
community" (p. 83). There
is a need to examine more closely the connection between leadership
qualities of principals and effective inclusive schools. Traditionally
the principal's involvement in the lives of students with disabilities
has rested primarily with attention to requirements detailed in federal
and state laws. In fact, according to Sage and Burrello (1994, p.
253), "The rules and regulation mentality that has protected
special education's narrow interests is a key inhibitor of other social
values necessary in the pursuit of educational outcomes for students
with disabilities." This type of authority, based on functionalism
and bureaucratic professionalism, is inconsistent with the concept
of inclusion (Skirtic, 1991). To lead an inclusive school requires
a "personal belief that all children can learn and a commitment
to providing all children equal access to a rich core curriculum and
quality instruction" (Servatius, Fellows & Kelly, 1992, p.
269). Principals
have long been acknowledged as instructional leaders (Parker and Day,
1997). Until recently, however, the extent to which the principal
was responsible for the learning of students with disabilities has
been less evident. In a dual system of education, it has been acceptable
for the principal to defer to the special education administrator
in matters involving students with special learning needs. By contrast,
in an inclusive school, the principal is responsible for the needs
of all students. This realignment of responsibility establishes a
fundamental change in the roles for principals (Sage, 1994). "Just as instruction must be congruent with the goals of inclusion-oriented curriculum, so must leadership approaches be consistent with both inclusion-oriented curriculum and instructional practices" (Giangreco, 1992, p. 249). Thousand and Villa (1992) report that schools that have successfully restructured into inclusive environments identify collaborative teams and the group decision-making process as fundamental to their success. Sage and Burello (1994) also refer to teaming as they discuss the key elements of leadership in schools that are restructuring for inclusion. The primary task of the leadership team is to provide a model for the individual school, "a way of seeing the patterns, relationships and linkages between one another and between their shared values and purposes" (p. 28). A
Qualitative Study of Leadership in Inclusive Elementary Schools Much
of the research that addresses principals' involvement in inclusive
schools, such as that of Villa, Thousand, Meyers and Nevin (1996),
appears to rely primarily on surveys. Research that explores the beliefs
and behaviors of inclusive school principals from their own perspectives
is more rare. As a researcher whose beliefs about inclusion are grounded
within an ethical paradigm (Paul & Ward, 1996), I am interested
not in the question, "Does inclusion work?" but rather "What
needs to be done to make inclusion work?" (p. 6). In
this qualitative, multi-site case study of inclusive elementary schools,
my intent was to gain a greater understanding of the perceptions of
school principals in regard to how they make inclusion "work"
in their school learning communities. I used methods including participant
observation, semi-structured interviews, document review, and shadowing
to help me in this endeavor. Through sustained interaction with participants
(principals, general education teachers, and intervention specialists),
I have attempted to provide a vivid description of the contexts within
which the principals go about living their professional lives. I tried
to understand how these principals interpret and make sense of their
experiences as inclusive educators. The
purpose of this study was to examine how principals' leadership qualities
influence elementary school inclusion programs. The study investigated
the beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors of principals who promote and
sustain successful inclusive learning environments. Four questions
guided this study: 1) What is it in the principals' professional and/or
personal backgrounds that has encouraged them to support inclusion?
2) How do principals initiate/sustain a school wide commitment to
inclusion? 3) What beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors are perceived
by principals as essential to leadership in an inclusive school? 4)
How do principals relate the concept of inclusion to their personal
visions for education? I
used a criterion-based selection process to choose three elementary
schools in the southwestern part of Ohio, within close proximity to
a middle-sized urban community. Two of the schools were suburban sites,
located within 10 miles of one another. One of these sites, River
Valley, is a K-6 building whose students are mostly from middle to
upper middle class income families. The second suburban site, Woodland
Road, houses grades 1-5. Its students are of predominantly Appalachian
background; 49% qualify for free or reduced lunch. The third school,
Countryview, is a K-4 building and serves a rural community situated
some 20 miles to the northeast of the middle-sized city. All of the
schools are fully inclusive, to the extent they do not have any self-contained
special education classes and all students with disabilities spend
the majority of their school day in the general education classroom.
Experts in the field of special education, including special education directors and university professors, recommended principals in the schools. All three principals had over 20 years experience in the field of education and had been at their current site at least five years. Emergence
of Relational Leadership as a Conceptual Framework Using
a constant comparison method to examine and reexamine each set of
data, I began to notice how the three principals' expressed beliefs
and behaviors were consistent with the philosophy of relational leadership,
a leadership style developed from a feminist perspective. Gradually,
I began to use this theory of leadership to frame my study. The similarity
between the language the principals used to describe their inclusionary
learning environments and that used in the writings of female educational
leaders who were describing their efforts to transform schools was
striking. The ideals, beliefs, and values expressed by the female
leaders are closely aligned with those held by the principals in my
study as well as with those of other proponents of an ethical paradigm
of inclusion. For example, Ferguson (1984) explains that women's identity
is consistently formed through contexts of social relationships: Before
the relationship between inclusion and a feminist style of leadership
can be more fully illustrated, however, it is necessary to emphasize
that describing particular leadership styles, or behaviors in general
as, "natural" for a particular sex is inappropriate. The
different approaches are not biologically determined, but are influenced
by social and cultural factors (Adler, Laney & Packer, 1993).
They may be more accurately represented as "feminine" or
"masculine," keeping in mind that some women definitely
operate within a masculine tradition of leadership, while some men
may be most comfortable with more feminine ways of leadership. Conventional
leadership in schools is stereotypically masculine: based on authority,
motivated by competition, and linked to success defined as prevailing
over the opposition (Ozga, 1993). Traditionally, educational administrators
have made decisions based on bureaucratic management models. They
devise strategies and organizational guidelines to help them reach
their goals. Unfortunately, the overemphasis on performance standards
that reduces students to so much quantitative data, such as scores
or a test or figures on attendance records provides little information
about the quality of learning and growing that is taking place in
schools (Adler, Laney, & Packer, 1993). Hegelson
(1990) contrasts these masculinist traits with values that women typically
view as strengths: an attention to process rather than to achieving
the bottom line; a willingness to think about how an action will affect
other people; a concern for the wider needs of the community; a predisposition
to draw on personal, private sphere experience when dealing in the
public realm and; an appreciation of diversity. Hegelson does not
deny that men can share these values; she does maintain, however,
that they are primarily female. Relational
leadership, based on the work of Helen Regan and Gwen Brooks (1996),
is based on language associated with maternal and female stereotypes-
caring, vision, collaboration, courage, and intuition (p. xi). Relational
leadership is created in practice, however, by the union of these
feminist attributes with traditional traits typically thought of as
masculine, such as an emphasis on individual achievement, competence,
and predictable "rules." Regan and Brooks make the point
that to advocate for an approach grounded in the female experience
is not to negate the need for male-based formulations of leadership.
Rather, a synthesis is required that will merge the best of each.
They offer a powerful metaphor of the DNA double helix to illustrate
the importance of merging feminist and masculinist types of leadership.
One strand of the helix is the "either/or" strand, representing
the necessity of choice. The other strand is the "both/and"
strand, which embodies the necessity of collaboration. The
hydrogen bonds linking the strands together represent the necessary
and frequent passage from one mode of life to the other. The strands
are intertwined; neither is superior to the other, because neither
is always more valuable than the other, and because it is not possible
to life a fully human life on one strand alone (Regan & Brooks,
1996, p. 20). The
strength of relational leadership lies in its inclusiveness. Regan
and Brooks maintain that the best leaders, female or male, will be
those who "move back and forth from the conceptualization of
the world primarily associated with their gender to that associated
with the other" (p. 21). Relational
leaders understand that there are times when one of the strands must
temporarily become dominant. For example, there are situations in
which it is necessary for school leaders to focus on compliance with
federal or state regulations. Even then, however, relational leaders
will use their intuition to maximize opportunities to include others
in collaborative decision-making. I maintain that even as the integration of masculine and feminine traits results in more powerful leadership, the integration of the separate systems of education that still exist in our country's schools will result in a more powerful learning environment for our children. Relational leaders seem well suited to accept the challenge of providing a unified system of education that recognizes and values the strengths of all students. Those leaders who adhere to a relational form of leadership, which blends both masculine and feminine traits into an integrated, moral leadership, are the most obvious choices to support the development of inclusion in schools. The
principals in my study exemplified the attributes of relational leaders,
as described by Regan and Brooks (1996). They were caring, courageous,
intuitive, visionary and collaborative. As I continued my analysis,
I began to think of them as "tough nurturers." These principals
emphasized participatory, shared leadership; yet, they were not afraid
to make tough decisions for what they believed was ethical practice.
Listening to their voices, one begins to really understand the seamless
blending of the both/and strand with the either/or strand of the double
helix metaphor. Caring.
Caring is "the development of an affinity for the world and the
people in it, translating moral commitment to action on behalf of
others" (Regan and Brooks, 1996, p. 27). According to Regan and
Brooks, caring is the essence of education. The principals in my study
believed this as well, and the caring they felt not only for students
but also for the adults in their learning communities was clearly
evident, even in the "small" things they did and said. For
example, one of the principals, Lenore, told a story about attending
a 5th grade play in which one of the performers was a young man with
autism. When this student first came to River Valley he was nonverbal
but now he was speaking lines in a play: Another
principal, Joseph, expressed his caring through action: he maintained
that inclusion could not work in a school where the principal sat
at his desk all day. Joseph does a "walk through" his school
twice a day and spends extended time in one classroom each day. He
also communicates in tangible ways, such as this morning bulletin
excerpt: As
I pass through the classrooms students are engaged in learning; the
classrooms are alive, warm, and great places for kids. What a nice
environment for our students! Thanks to everyone for making Countryview
a wonderful place for our children! For
example, in another bulletin he placed this ad: The
caring and nurturing attitudes of these principals spilled over into
the schools themselves. Actions of children and adults alike demonstrated
a respect and caring that was visible inside the classroom and out.
Simply giving a child a little extra time to formulate an answer,
or providing extra assistance in an unobtrusive way are vibrant examples
of caring. Teachers in the schools I studied clearly cared for and
accepted responsibility for every one of their students. One teacher
stated simply, "I am here to teach and that means I teach anybody
that walks into this classroom!" Vision.
Vision is the "ability to formulate and express original ideas,
enabling others to consider options in new and different ways"
(Regan and Brooks, 1996, p. 36). Joseph's vision for inclusion developed
through his own experience with students with disabilities. He sees
inclusion, as simply the way things should be: Inclusion
is an integral part of my personal vision for education. We're in
a world where there's all kinds of people and we need to learn how
to deal with them. Second, we need to learn that everyone has their
own unique strengths and we need to appreciate them for those traits.
Finally, I believe that segregation just dooms students to a lesser
level of academic achievement. I believe that if you expose these
kids to higher levels of knowledge, the kinds of things that other
kids get exposed to, then the kids who are struggling are going to
learn and want to learn more. Teachers
at River Valley give Lenore credit for having a vision that supported
inclusion. Lenore's resolve illustrates the strong beliefs that Regan
and Brooks talk about. One teacher explained, "Lenore has dug
in her heels and said we're not going back; we're going forward and
you either get on the train or get off." Lenore illustrated her
vision with this example: When
we first started doing inclusion, we realized how far off base these
kids were because they've never had to take turns; they've never had
to wait in a lunch line. They always went in their little groups of
four or five to the cafeteria and they went right through together
and they never had to ask for something. An adult was always there
to say now Johnny will have and Susie will have-They didn't have to
do anything. We disabled them. We did that to them. And a lot of times
people will come here and say well, your kids aren't as severe as
mine. Well, the heck they aren't; I mean on testing and everything
they're just as severe. They just appear more normal because we've
made them more normal by living in a normal environment. That's what
happens to them. According
to Regan and Brooks (1996), vision is not a product; it is a continuing
process, shaped by experiences and understandings of others. The experiences
of Joseph, Lenore, and Gwen with their teachers and their students
continue to shape their personal visions of inclusion. Intuition.
This attribute is defined at the "ability to give equal weight
to experience and abstraction, mind, and heart" (Regan and Brooks,
p. 33). Intuition is a critical balance to reason; it is a respecter
of feelings. This became evident in one of my conversations with Gwen,
when she warned that even with a staff that is actively involved in
reform, one must be cautious about the rapidity with which change
occurs. Intuitively, Gwen knows that people come to accept change
at different times: Gwen
accepts the presence of conflict in this same intuitive way: Intuition
stimulates creativity and leads to the successful solution to problems
(Regan and Brooks, 1996). It plays an integral part in the success
of the inclusion schools in my study. Courage.
This is the "capacity to move ahead into the unknown, testing
new ideas in the world of practice" (Regan and Brooks, p. 27-28).
Courage requires a willingness to take risks. Gwen exemplifies courage
in that she is willing to share leadership with others in the learning
community. Gwen listed an acceptance of diversity and empowerment
of staff as the two guiding forces of her leadership. She's not afraid
to let others be leaders. In fact, one teacher complained that sometimes,
"You just want her to tell us what to do, but Gwen usually won't
do that." Gwen came to believe in inclusion partly because of
the faith she had in her teacher-leaders: I
trust my teachers and I believe in what they tell me. I ask them constantly
to educate me, saying I don't know what you're telling me; tell me
more. Maybe you've got the answer and I just don't know it yet. Gwen's
courage stems from her willingness to listen to her teachers about
what, as she says, "is good for kids." One intervention
specialist paved the way for inclusion at Woodland Road School. Gwen
related: I
didn't realize we were doing anything wrong with our special education
students until one day Laura came to me and said, "Do you realize
that the student in special education only come upstairs one day a
week and that is to go to the library?" It was true because the
LD and DH classes were in the basement, and so were the art, music,
and gym classes as well as the cafeteria. Well, then we had to change. Collaboration.
Regan and Brooks (1996, p. 26) define collaboration as "the ability
to work in a group, eliciting and offering support to each other member,
creating a synergistic environment for everyone." In describing
collaboration, the authors also use the terms inclusive and connectedness,
which they say are inherent to the school community. These traits
were certainly inherent in all three of the schools I studied. At
Countryview, collaboration is operationalized both formally and informally.
One teacher gave Joseph the credit for the faculty's ability to work
so well together. She said, "Joseph is the big thing. The atmosphere
here did a flip-flop when he came. Joseph responded: People
have to be able to trust each other. There have to be structures that
consistently throw teacher together-we have planning time, IATs, cadre
meetings and family meetings-I've worked to develop the kind of culture
where if you have a problem when you're a teacher, you're going to
sit down with others and you're going to talk about it. The
collaborative structure at Countryview, particularly the Intervention
Assistance Team (IAT), allows teachers and other staff to help children
without labeling them. One teacher remarked that only a very few children
had been formally tested for special education since they'd begun
this process and one of those was at the request of a parent. Lenore
also sees the importance of structured time for collaboration and
she schedules common planning time for her teachers. But Lenore also
takes pride in her teachers' ability to work together and support
one another in an informal way as well: Relational leaders create opportunities for collaboration and they model collaborative behaviors. They also encourage and support risk-taking. They nurture and they share their visions; they move back and forth easily between the different strands of leadership, using traits such as intuitiveness and decisiveness equally well. The principals in this study embody the characteristics of relational leaders, and through their leadership they have encouraged and supported effective inclusive learning environments. Findings:
Answering the Questions I
have been involved in the field of special education, in one capacity
or another, since 1981. During this time I have come to believe that
the most ethical way to educate students with disabilities is to support
their learning in general education classrooms along with their peers
without disabilities. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that
teachers and administrators alike, despite mandates and litigation
that encourage its implementation, often resist this practice, known
as inclusion. Sometimes, educational practices that are labeled "inclusion"
have been enacted without the necessary supports and services; both
teachers and students have suffered as a result. My
purpose for this study was to look at schools where inclusion is being
successfully implemented in order to determine what it is about the
principals' leadership that fosters inclusive school environments.
I wanted to understand why these principals believe in inclusion and
I wanted to learn how they go about the business of promoting it within
their school cultures. Inasmuch
as my purpose was to come to a deeper understanding of inclusive school
principals' perspectives of leadership, I selected a research design
based on interpretive discourse. I used a multi-site case study design
and qualitative methods. In this way, I was able to discern the patterns
of life and leadership in schools where inclusion had become a primary
goal. Certainly, this study is tempered by contextual factors of culture,
place, and time; it is only one interpretation of the multiple perspectives
that exist at each of the sites. Furthermore, there is no one "right
way" to "do inclusion." Each school must find its own
way. Nevertheless, answers to the following questions may help other
educators address the current and future needs of their own schools
and of all the students who belong there, including those with disabilities. What
is it in the principals' professional and/or personal backgrounds
that has encouraged them to support inclusion? The
principals in my study were most highly influenced by issues of political
and social justice (Berres, 1996), and by their own personal experience.
Lenore, Gwen, and Joseph all expressed the opinion that students with
disabilities had the "right" to be included. They maintained
that segregation of students, in any form, was wrong. The strength
of the principals' beliefs was influenced, at least in part, by their
own personal experiences. Two of the three were former special education
teachers, and had seen for themselves the negative effects of segregated
learning environments. While Gwen never taught special education,
she did have childhood memories of a classmate with cerebral palsy
who simply "disappeared" one day and never returned to her
"regular" classroom. For Gwen, however, the most powerful
personal experience has been to see the growth that inclusion has
wrought in students in her school. How
do principals initiate and sustain a school wide commitment to inclusion? The
principals in my study were able to initiate and sustain a school
wide commitment to inclusion because they are relational leaders.
As such, they are also moral leaders who lead, not only with their
hands, but also with their heads and hearts (Sergiovanni, 1992). They
attend to values and personal beliefs as well as intellectual percepts
in matters of leadership. Lenore,
Gwen, and Joseph have transformed their schools through their leadership.
They accomplished this by modeling relational leadership and by sharing
their own firmly held beliefs regarding the intrinsic value of every
human being. They sustain a supportive environment for inclusion because
they continue to foster a caring and collaborative learning community
based on a common vision of doing whatever is best for children. Using
courage and intuition, they encourage teachers to accept the challenge
of inclusive classrooms, and all that entails. They nurture an environment
of trust, where responsible risk taking and innovation are welcomed
and rewarded. One
of the most critical ways in which principals in this study sustain
and inclusive environment is their commitment to provide emotional
support to their students and staff (Littrell, Billingsley, and Cross,
1994). The principals in my study interact with teachers and students
on a continual basis. They are genuinely interested in what others
have to say and they make time to listen. They are honest and straightforward
in their communication; they solicit others' input in all matters
affecting the effectiveness of the school environment but they are
not afraid to make tough decisions. They
also expect their teachers to look to one another for help in problem
solving. The culture of each of the three schools was one of positive
interdependence and collaboration. Cultures such as these make it
possible to sustain inclusive practices because they are compatible
with the philosophy that acknowledges the talents and worthiness of
every individual. What
beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors are perceived by principals as essential
to leadership in an inclusive school? Essential
leadership in an inclusive school is founded on the belief that every
human being has intrinsic value. The principals in this study believe
that every child can learn. They believe all children should be challenged
to their fullest potential; high expectations in their schools are
the norm. They believe an inclusive learning environment that appreciates
diversity is the best way to educate all students. All
three principals hold themselves to the same standards as their teachers.
They display a fundamental curiosity and strive to seek out new knowledge.
They keep current regarding educational research that pertains to
the goals for their schools and they actively seek out ways to increase
their ability to pass this knowledge on to their teachers. Just as
importantly, however, the principals understand that their teachers
often have a higher degree of expertise in particular areas than they
do and they attest to learning from their faculty every day. The
principals in this study understand that for inclusion to work there
must be an atmosphere of shared ownership and responsibility. They
constantly work to increase the decision making power of their staff
in regard to school governance. Whenever possible, they encourage
and model teacher leadership, whether it be in the classroom, at faculty
meetings, school improvement committee meetings, or in conferences
with parents. Finally, they appreciate the unique situations of each
of their teachers and maintain an "open door" policy in
which teachers are encouraged to come to them in times of trouble
as well as celebration. How
do principals relate the concept of inclusion to their personal visions
for education? The
visions for education that these principals expressed were so similar
as to be almost identical. They envisioned an educational system in
which students were valued for who they were instead of for what they
could do. They saw classrooms as places where teachers would "just
teach and keep on teaching" and where everyone learned to appreciate
one another for their strengths while accepting their weaknesses.
They had a vision for schools in which being different and learning
different things at different rates and different times was the expected
and accepted way of learning. The principals' vision of inclusion is made possible through an environment in which teachers have the time and opportunity to work together for the benefit of students. It is made possible when there are adequate personnel to provide support to students and teachers in inclusive classrooms. Inclusion is made possible when the atmosphere of the school is one of trust, respect, and cooperation; where teachers are not afraid to try something new; where they are not afraid to admit failure or ask for help, from their principal or from one another. Finally, inclusion, as the principals in this study see it, is made possible when this same atmosphere of trust and respect is extended to include all members of the learning community, especially students. Inclusion
is a concept whose time has come. Both legislation and litigation
support the provision of inclusive educational opportunities for students
with disabilities. As more principals begin to accept responsibility
for leading their schools toward the development of inclusive learning
communities, they will have to acknowledge the necessity of developing
caring, collaborative relationships among all stakeholders in the
educational organization. The
consideration of data collected and analyzed from this study of principals'
leadership in successful inclusive elementary schools suggests several
implications for educators, particularly for school administrators
and university personnel who prepare teachers and principals for their
roles in public schools. Included in these implications are the following
issues: 1.
Traditional forms of leadership based on bureaucratic power positions
and masculinist traits of competition and confrontation alone do not
work in inclusive schools. In order for inclusion to be successful,
schools must be led by relational leaders who understand the necessity
and usefulness of both masculinist and feminist attributes; decisions
are based on caring and are made through the blending of moral and
rational/technical considerations. The principals in this study have
embraced an ethic of caring and have thereby made possible inclusive
learning communities. Other administrators and those who prepare administrators
for leadership positions must place an ethic of caring at the center
of all they do. 2.
Schools must be restructured to allow teachers time to collaborate
with one another and with other members of the educational community.
For inclusion to be effectively implemented and supported, teachers
must have the opportunity to leave their classroom "islands"
and begin to interact with other adults on a regular basis. This collaboration
must be valued as legitimate teacher work. This issue is one of the
most important…and most challenging in regard to making inclusion
work. 3.
Other resources, in addition to time, are critical to successful inclusion.
One of the primary roles for principals in inclusive schools is that
of resource provider. Unfortunately, principals are often hindered
in their efforts to fulfill this role due to financial constraints
and funding policy beyond their control. If federal, state, and local
education agencies are interested in furthering inclusive education,
they need to make sure that adequate funding is available for essential
personnel and other "necessary supports and services." 4.
Successful inclusion requires ongoing dialogue between general educators
and the intervention specialists who provide services and support
to teachers and students alike. While the skills and expertise
of both general and special educators are appreciated in inclusive
school environments, it is sometimes difficult for them to fully understand
one another's perspectives (Lortie, 1978). While the distance between
special and general education preparation programs may not be as great
as it once was, there remains a tendency for universities to maintain
separate courses of study for each group. Educating special and general
educators apart from one another "keeps each group from reading
the other's literature, from sharing the other's methods and techniques,
and, most importantly, from developing an accurate understanding of
children" (Fenden and Clabaugh, 1986, p. 184). In inclusive schools,
intervention specialists and other related service personnel often
join general classroom teachers in their classes, working in partnership
to meet the needs of all students. Universities need to take note
of what is happening in practicing inclusive environments and provide
similar opportunities for preservice teachers during their preparation
programs. 5. Preservice (and inservice) administration programs should likewise infuse knowledge of inclusive practices into their curricula, because, as this study has shown, the principal is primarily responsible for articulating the school's firmly held beliefs and has a tremendous influence on the development of a shared vision. Lenore, Gwen, and Joseph are all principals who have managed to go beyond the "old ways" of educational administration. They have embraced a form of leadership that allows them to modify the skills and viewpoints of the status quo to include new ways of knowing and doing. Preservice administrator programs must go beyond content knowledge and technique (Servatious, Fellows, and Kelly, 1992). One of the major goals of an administration preparation program must be to foster "the development of each candidate's personal values, beliefs, and vision regarding inclusion" (p. 268). Encouraging administrator candidates to be self-reflective, providing opportunities for exploring alternative perspectives, providing appropriate field experiences, and facilitating practice in intragroup communication are some of the ways university administration preparation programs can accomplish this goal. As society and schools continue to become more inclusive, and more complicated, principals will face new demands and challenges. If they are to meet these increasingly arduous challenges, the values that are the "foundation of inclusive schools-respect for diversity, cooperation, and openness to change" (Servatious, Fellows, and Kelly, 1992, p. 268) will need to become those that are stressed in preparation programs as well. This
study offers insight into the leadership of principals in inclusive
elementary schools. Additional benefits to the field of education
may be gained by expanding this study to middle schools, junior high
schools and/or high schools. In each of the schools I studied, teachers
at the upper grade levels became more frustrated with their ability
to successfully include students with disabilities. It appears that
teachers of older students need even more support from principals
and colleagues if inclusion is going to work as it is intended. Another
possibility for future research is the study of schools that are serving
more students with severe disabilities. Although there were a few
students identified as having multiple disabilities in the school
sites I visited, most of the students in special education had learning
disabilities or mild mental retardation. The perceptions of teachers
and principals in schools with children with more intense learning
needs might be very different from those I studied. Finally, each of the schools I studied was at approximately the same stage of inclusion development. They had all been involved with inclusion for the last four or five years. It would be interesting to examine leadership in schools that are either newly inclusive or those that have been fully inclusive for a longer period of time.
Adler,
S., Laney, J. & Packer, M. (1993). Managing women. Bristol, PA:
Open University Press. Berres,
M. S., Ferguson, D. L., Knoblock, P., & Woods, C. (1996). Creating
tomorrow's schools today: Stories of inclusion, change, and renewal.
New York: Teacher's College Press. Dewey,
J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press. Fergeson,
K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press. Giangreco,
M. F. (1992). Curriculum in inclusion-oriented schools: Trends, issues,
challenges, and potential solutions. In Stainback, S. & Stainback,
W. (Eds.) Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facilitating
learning for all students (pp. 239-264). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Lipsky,
D. K. & Gartner, A. G. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality
education for all. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Lipsky,
D. K. & Gartner, A. G. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming
America's classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Littrell,
P. C., Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1994). The effects
of principal support on special and general educator's stress, job
satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching.
Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 297-310. Lortie,
D. (1978). Some reflections on renegotiation. In M. Reynolds (Ed.),
Futures of education for exceptional children (pp. 235-244). Reston,
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children. Ozga,
J. (1993). Women in educational management. Bristol, PA: Open University
Press. Parker,
S. A., & Day, V. P. (1997). Promoting inclusion through instructional
leadership: The roles of the secondary school principal. NASSP Bulletin
81, 83-89. Paul,
P. V., & Ward, M. E. (1996). Inclusion paradigms in conflict.
Theory into Practice 35(1), 4-11. Regan,
H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1995). Out of women's experience: Creating
relational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc. Sage,
D. D. (1996). Administrative strategies for achieving inclusive schooling.
In S. Stainback and W. Stainback (Eds.) Inclusion: A guide for educators.
(pp. 105-116). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Sage,
D. D. & Burrello, L. C. (1994). Leadership in educational reform:
An administrator's guide to changes in special education. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes. Senge,
P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. NY: Doubleday. Sergiovanni,
T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement.
New York: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Servatius,
J. D., Fellows, M., & Kelly, D. (1992). Preparing leaders for
inclusive schools. In Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Stainback,
S. (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: an administrative
guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 267-284). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes. Skrtic,
T. M. (1991). The special education paradox: Equity as the way to
excellence. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 148-207. Soltis,
J. F. (1994). Dewey, pragmatism, and education. IN T. Husen &
T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.) the international encyclopedia of education:
Vol. 4 (pp. 1520-1524). Stainback,
W. & Stainback, S. (1990). Rationale for integration and restructuring:
a synopsis. In Lloyd, J. W., Singh, N. N. & Repp, A. C. (Eds.)
The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts,
issues, and models (pp. 225-240). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishers. Thousand,
J. S., & Villa, R. A. (1992). Collaborative teams: A powerful
tool in restructuring. In Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Stainback,
W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective
education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools
(pp. 73-108). Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-45.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
