| Inclusive education
has emerged as a school wide improvement approach
for educating students with diverse abilities
in general education classes. Despite the key
role of principals in school improvement initiatives,
few empirical studies have been reported of the
administrative climate and context of inclusive
schools. Five elementary schools actively engaged
in inclusive approaches were studied using survey,
observation, and interview methods. Findings revealed
(a) commonalities in leadership practices and
core principles across this diverse sample of
schools, (b) consistent patterns in measured climate
indices, and (c) a range of administrative strategies
used by principals to promote inclusive practices.
Implications for future research and practice
are discussed.
Differences hold great opportunities for learning.
Differences offer a free, abundant, and renewable
resource. I would like to see our compulsion for
eliminating differences replaced by an equally
compelling focus on making use of these differences
to improve schools. (Barth, 1990, pp. 514-515)
American public schools are serving a more heterogeneous
population than ever before. Thirty-five percent
of children in the U.S. are members of minority
groups. Twenty percent of this country's children
live in poverty and the same proportion of children
live in households headed by an immigrant (Olson,
2000). Despite the increasing diversity in our
schools, the challenge of meeting the needs of
diverse groups of students in public schools is
not new. Riehl (2000) highlights over a century
of such efforts in a recent analysis of the principal's
role in creating schools that are responsive to
diverse students. Described by Grubb (1995) as
"the old problem of new students," it
is clear that issues associated with diversity
are familiar challenges for school administrators.
Currently composing over 10% of the school population
(U.S. Department of Education, 1999), students
with disabilities and those considered "at
risk" represent one source of the increasing
diversity in today's classrooms. The 1997 reauthorization
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA, P.L. 105-17, 1997), as well as the
1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (i.e., The Improving America's Schools
Act; ESEA, P.L. 103-382, 1994), emphasize the
integration of supplementary services and instructional
supports within general education classrooms to
ensure that students have access to challenging
and stimulating learning environments. Further,
both federal laws require the participation of
students served within these programs in all large-scale
assessment activities. One of the greatest anticipated
benefits of inclusive educational accountability
systems is that schools will have access to a
fully representative picture of student performance.
This information, in turn, will better inform
school improvement initiatives, helping educators
critically evaluate whether all populations of
students are benefiting from current instructional
practices and school improvement initiatives (Thurlow,
Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998).
While support for inclusive approaches to school
improvement is evident in critical components
of the current policy environment (Consortium
on Inclusive Schooling Practices, 1996; Lipsky
& Gartner, 1997), much remains to be known
about the cultures, characteristics, and practices
of settings in which this is actually occurring.
With few exceptions (e.g., Fisher, Sax, &
Grove, 2000; Keyes, Hanley-Maxwell, & Capper,
1999; Salisbury, Palombaro, & Hollowood, 1993),
research about these issues has been implemented
in settings in which the term inclusion describes
approaches to education with school populations
that are diverse in terms of ethnicity and race
(e.g., Deering, 1996; Dei, James, Karumanchery,
James-Wilson, & Zine, 2000), but not necessarily
disability.
Regardless of the specific focus, the importance
of the school leader in establishing and maintaining
an ongoing focus on school improvement and support
for change has been well established in theory
and practice (Elmore, 1996; Fullan & Miles,
1992; Sergiovanni, 1992). Further, there is evidence
of both the importance and complexity of the interrelationships
between the principal's behavior, school climate,
and school effectiveness (Hoy, Tarter, & Wiskowskie,
1992; Ouchi, 1981; Tarter & Hoy, 1988). Despite
these findings, few empirical studies have been
reported of the administrative climate and context
of inclusive schools. To address this need, the
current study was undertaken to better understand
the school context and leadership practices of
building principals who clearly articulate an
agenda of school improvement that is inclusive
of the needs of all students, including those
with disabilities. By understanding the context
and practices in such settings, it may be possible
to leverage this information for the benefit of
other schools seeking to use inclusion as a whole
school change strategy.
Method:
Design:
A cross-site, case study design was used to study
the administrative and contextual characteristics
of elementary schools in which inclusive educational
practices were being promoted by the building
principal. Principals from five schools in three
states participated as key informants and collaborators
in this investigation. Participating districts
and buildings were purposively selected for demographic
differences (e.g., locale, socioeconomic status
of community, enrollment). In addition, each school
met a priori criteria designed to identify exemplary
schools actively engaged in promoting quality
instructional practices and an inclusive learning
environment.
Measures:
Multiple sources of data were gathered to create
a comprehensive picture of these schools. Surveys
and structured interviews were conducted to collect
information about building climate, school restructuring
activities, and reform initiatives prevalent in
each participating school. Demographic data were
also collected to characterize the district, school,
and the principal. Each school participating was
assigned a project staff person (critical friend)
who coordinated data collection at the building
level and was on site at least twice monthly for
18 to 24 months. Critical friends were master's
level educators with public school and applied
research experiences. All critical friends participated
in a 6-hr training session on the measures and
data collection procedures for this study. Monthly
conference calls ensured consistency across sites
and provided a forum for addressing procedural
questions and interpreting emerging findings.
The prolonged involvement of these staff members
in each school enabled them to provide important
insights into the work of the principal and the
meaning of our data. For purposes of this study,
data are reported that were collected during the
first year of this project in each elementary
school.
Organizational Climate:
The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire
for Elementary Schools (OCDQ-RE) (Hoy, Tarter,
& Kottkamp, 1991) was adapted and used early
in Year 1 to assess the entering status of the
building wide administrative and instructional
climate. This 42-item instrument captures teachers'
perceptions of their general work environment
relative to six dimensions that describe principal
and teacher behavior. Table 3 provides definitions
of these six dimensions. Although no psychometrics
was described by the authors, normative data from
a large sample of elementary schools were provided
as a referent for assessing school prototypes.
A 6-point Likert-type rating scale was used to
measure the extent of agreement or disagreement
with each item. Climate measure scores across
these six dimensions paint a picture of the "personality"
of a school. In schools with an open climate,
principals are highly supportive of teachers and
are perceived by teachers as being both nondirective
and nonrestrictive. Teachers are highly engaged,
collegial, and have high levels of intimacy. Schools
characterized by a closed climate score low on
dimensions of support, intimacy, and collegiality,
and high in the areas of disengagement, directive
ness, and restrictiveness.
School Restructuring: The Criteria for School
Restructuring was developed from Newman and Wehlage's
(1996) research on over 1,500 restructured schools.
The 38-item scale was used to evaluate principals'
perceptions of how closely their school reflected
features found to be most directly related to
building wide capacity to restructure and change.
Items focus on dimensions of a school's operation:
Student Experiences (13 items); Professional Life
of Teachers (11 items); Leadership, Management,
and Governance (7 items); and Coordination of
Community Services (7 items). In this study, a
6-point Likert scale was applied to each criterion
statement and used by principals midway through
Year 1 to rate the extent they felt that each
item was true about their school.
Principal Interviews. Individual, semi structured
interviews were conducted over a 3- to 4-month
period with each principal to obtain additional
information about the school context. A protocol
for the questions was developed and pilot-tested
with no participants. Protocol questions asked
respondents to describe reform initiatives operating
in their buildings, how these initiatives were
implemented, and the extent to which all students
were successfully included in these initiatives.
Interviews lasted about 1 hr and were conducted
by the critical friends at times convenient to
the principal. Responses to the questions were
audio taped and transcribed verbatim for analysis.
Data Analysis:
Organizational Climate Data. As described previously,
the 42 items of this instrument fall within six
dimensions that describe principal and teacher
behavior. To analyze responses for each school,
box plots (Tukey, 1977) were created for each
school relative to the dimensions of principal
and teacher behavior that constitute this climate
measure. Box plots provide a simple graphic means
of comparing school scores in terms of mean locations
and spread (SPSS, 1988). The box represents the
interquartile range (i.e., 50% of all values fall
within the box). The whiskers extend from the
box, representing the highest and lowest values,
excluding extreme outliers. For this purpose,
outliers are values between one and one-half and
three box lengths from the upper or lower edge
of the box. Box plots of each school's score on
the six dimensions were created to facilitate
visual comparison across schools. These scores
were examined relative to the indicators and descriptors
of school climate provided by Hoy et al. (1991).
School Restructuring Data:
Responses to the school restructuring measure
were entered into a computer and verified using
an established procedural fidelity coding system
(Wolery & Holcombe, 1993). For each school,
the mean and standard deviation of scores within
each of the four dimensions were calculated. These
descriptive statistics were also calculated for
the entire sample of 5 schools.
Principal Interviews. Principal interviews were
transcribed verbatim, read by the critical friends
and the authors, and coded for recurring themes
within each protocol question (Patton, 1990).
Themes were then interpreted by project staff
and supported with evidence from the transcript.
The interview data and our interpretations were
shared with the principals to validate the representativeness
of the data and the accuracy of our interpretations.
Principal Interviews:
The critical friends were able to develop an understanding
of how the experiences, perceptions, and actions
of our partner principals influenced the culture
and climate of schools from the interviews and
their extended presence in each site. Each of
the principals spoke about inclusion as a core
value in her school, about the importance of reflection
and inquiry as professional tools for change,
and about how she tried to develop various ways
in which teachers, parents, and students could
be included in the decision-making process of
the school. One principal illustrated the commitment
to inclusive practice saying, "The kids are
considered a part of the classroom. They're assigned
to a grade, no matter what.... All of the initiatives
in our school apply to all kids."
Reflection and inquiry were seen as important
tools for change. One principal noted the link
to her site-based management and to teacher teams:
"I find myself asking guiding questions like,
`What do we need to know?' `What data do we need?'
It has helped me, as a building leader, to realize
that it is OK not to have all the answers."
It is also noteworthy that principals felt they
functioned with support and with expectations
to be progressive. As one principal indicated,
"The school district has always been supportive....
When I was hired, the superintendent said, `We
want risk takers, not care takers.' We are expected
to have new thoughts and ideas."
Table 5 identifies additional cross-site school-level
themes that emerged from the interview data. These
themes speak most directly to the characteristics
of these principals and their influence on the
inclusive culture of their schools. As is evident,
the administrative style of these principals contributed
to a climate in which change was expected, supported,
and encouraged. Further, there is evidence of
active efforts to create a sense of direction,
shared leadership, reflective practice, and time
for staff teaming and collaboration. Each principal
tried to create the conditions necessary for their
staff and students to be successful. The resulting
cultures in these schools were ones that valued
diversity, inquiry, collaboration, and the meaningful
inclusion of students, teaching staff, and parents.
Demographic and interview data indicated that
four of the five principals were involved with
some type of significant change that affected
their work during this study--one was planning
to retire, two were in a district with a new superintendent,
and one was new to the role of principal and to
her building. These factors affected how these
principals interacted with their staff, and in
particular, how they approached the task of creating
and sustaining an inclusive school environment.
For example, Seaside's principal reported feeling
"more directive" as she prepared to
retire and transition her building to a new principal.
She had served as principal of this school her
entire career and had guided this school's development
of an inclusive service delivery model as a model
site in her state. She was proud of her accomplishments
and the partnerships she had established to promote
building wide change. Relinquishing this leadership
position and transitioning her school to another
principal were significant events for this principal.
She was particularly mindful of how this transition
might affect the sustainability of the inclusive
culture she had worked hard to develop.
In contrast, Franklin's principal was new to her
school and used the newness of that perspective
to also see its needs. She viewed her role as
a catalyst for change and as the "weaver,"
creating ways for her staff to see how initiatives
connect and interrelate. She shared,
I do see a lot of orbiting of things ... but teachers
haven't understood the connection ... I kind of
pushed my staff and I made some people unhappy
... what needs to happen to make this work for
all kids requires much more
interconnectedness ... It is like weaving a fabric
and taking important
threads and trying skillfully as an administrator
to weave and create.
The building wide initiatives that were in place
in each of the five schools at the inception of
this project are described in Table 6. This information
contributes to the picture of the context of these
schools and describes the general education reforms
into which students with disabilities were included.
While each school had a formal initiative that
focused on improving learning results for all
students, there was also consistent reference
among these schools to integrating general and
special education initiatives within their buildings.
Further, each district and building used data
to inform decision making (e.g., Continuous Quality
Improvement; school improvement plans, Accelerated
Schools, Goals 2000 team). In each site, principals
used information about where and how students
with disabilities were served to deploy resources
and promote their inclusion in general education
reforms. Each principal spoke about how teams
were used to create instructional supports for
all students and how they vested power in these
teams for decision-making, particularly as it
related to the incorporation of students with
disabilities in general education.
It is noteworthy that each principal described
existing, ongoing, and planned efforts to ensure
that her school reflected an inclusive culture.
In Maine, a number of building-level strategies
were used to support the delivery of inclusive
services. Specifically, merged funding was used
to provide noncategorical support to students
with and without disabilities. Grade level, rather
than individual student level, technical assistance
was used to provide support to students and teachers.
As with other sites, all students, including those
with disabilities, were enrolled in age-appropriate,
general education classrooms. The "inclusive
mentality" and core values of this school
were evident in their policy of providing small
group instruction for any student who needed it,
not only those with identified disabilities. In
Pennsylvania, all students were assigned to homerooms,
and educational support teachers were assigned
to grade levels, not to groups of labeled students.
Teams of teachers were involved in developing
strengths-based interventions for students with
and without disabilities. In Missouri, the schools
in our project assigned paraeducators to grade
levels rather than to students. Participating
schools from this state also used action teams
at the building level to design supports for students
and used parents extensively to support school
activities in the community.
Discussion:
The schools in our sample were selected because
they shared characteristics of innovativeness,
commitment to diversity, and a strong emphasis
on school improvement. They were also selected
for their demographic variability. Analysis of
the administrative contexts of these schools suggested
that principals shared common personal attributes
as leaders. They tended to be leaders who shared
decision-making power with their staff, led by
example, extended the core values around inclusiveness
and quality to initiatives throughout their buildings,
and actively promoted learning communities. These
findings are consistent with the work of Lambert
(1998), Fullan (1993), and others who suggest
that effective principals are those that promote
change through practices that are collaborative,
intentional, and supportive.
The strategies to promote inclusive practices
adopted by the principals in this sample reflect
primarily, though not exclusively, incremental
types of change (e.g., Elmore, 1996; Fullan, 1993).
Incremental or surface changes can often be made
with relatively little expenditure of resources
and time. Typically, our principals were able
to initiate changes in schedules, deployment of
personnel, or assignment of students within the
existing structures of the school. These surface
changes produced opportunities and supports for
students with disabilities to be physically and
academically included in age-appropriate classrooms.
However efficient or effective, these administrative
solutions did not necessarily address attitudinal
and knowledge barriers that can affect participation
and membership of students with disabilities in
the school.
Changing attitudes, beliefs, and practices requires
attention to factors that influence the culture
of the school and imply deeper levels of change.
Each of our principals used a process of reflective
inquiry within existing teams and management groups
to promote changes in the culture of her school.
Each principal used information from her own school
to engage her staff in discussions about the values
and implications of diversity, inclusion, collaboration,
and instructional practices. At Harper Elementary,
where teachers were challenged to think about
how students with diverse needs, including those
with disabilities, could be academically and socially
included in all aspects of the school, the principal
noted, "The kind of instruction that children
with IEPs need is the type of instruction needed
by all children. We need to view all kids as individuals
and realize the need to tailor instruction to
the learner." Setting the stage with such
commentary provides an important context for discussion
and examination of traditionally held beliefs.
Each of our principals created time and opportunity
for discourse within her school to address issues
that affected the development of inclusionary
practices. Their attention to both process and
content helped form the foundation for the successes
they experienced in creating integrated, building-wide
change.
Each of our principals used a process of reflection,
discourse, and theory-testing to facilitate both
personal and larger scale change. At Franklin,
the principal observed that "The attitude
and atmosphere has changed. Staff are aware that
this is an atmosphere of growth and learning."
Using a process of reflective inquiry targeted
at communication and teaming helped the staff
in this school learn how to collaborate more effectively,
adapt instruction to support all learners, and
document their effectiveness with different types
of evidence. Taken together, these examples illustrate
how principals can create conditions for deeper
change to occur and increase the likelihood that
the staff in their schools think and act inclusively.
This investigation was undertaken to characterize
the climate and context in schools recognized
for their exemplary practices and their status
as an inclusive elementary school. It was not
our purpose to directly investigate the administrative
practices of principals, or to investigate the
outcomes of their work. We are, therefore, limited
in what we can say about the link between the
actions of our principals and the resulting impacts
for teachers and students, particularly those
students with disabilities. Further, using selection
criteria focused on exemplary schools potentially
narrows the generalizability of findings to the
larger pool of elementary schools. We attempted
to counter this limitation by sampling from a
range of schools with differing demographic characteristics.
Future research is needed in at least two areas.
First, it is important to understand more dearly
what strategies principals find most useful for
promoting inclusive practices and how best to
leverage those strategies for the benefit of others.
Reflective practice and participatory approaches
to inquiry appear to hold great promise as strategies
for promoting the inclusion of students with disabilities
in general education settings (McGregor &
Salisbury, 2000; Salisbury, Wilson, & Palombaro,
1998) and as whole-school change strategies (cf.,
Calhoun, 1994). What is not clear is how effectively
an inquiry-based approach promotes positive outcomes
for all students. Finally, further investigations
are needed to identify what dimensions are salient
and need to be present to develop and sustain
a culture that supports diversity. Contextually
grounded inquiry appears well-suited to address
investigations of both form and function within
diverse school contexts.
Implications for Practice:
Our experience and role as outside partners in
an inquiry process with these building principals
suggests some implications for practice. First,
the value and grounding that each of these principals
found in a reflective approach to practice underscores
the importance of these skills for those who are
in building leadership roles. There is a growing
recognition of just how critical the building
leader is in promoting school improvement and
student achievement (e.g., Hallinger & Heck,
1996; Keller, 1998; Murphy & Louis, 1994).
The concept of "instructional leadership"
is being replaced by the concept of "transformational
school leadership" (Leithwood, 1994) as we
develop a clearer understanding that commitment
strategies, rather than control strategies, are
critical skills for leaders who are working to
improve schools. Reflective inquiry is a dynamic
and positive process that lends itself to the
many questions and problems that emerge on a daily
basis for both teachers and principals in search
of more effective practices. As such, it merits
time and application in programs that prepare
both teachers and administrators (Brubacher, Case,
& Reagan, 1994; Bullough, 1989).
Second, we were struck by the clear vision that
these principals were able to maintain on integrating
what, in many other buildings, are seen as separate
"general" and "special" education
initiatives. While the field is beginning to explore
more collaborative approaches to education in
teacher preparation programs (Blanton, Griffin,
Winn, & Pugach, 1997), it is evident that
most prevalent practices in personnel preparation
do not support the efforts of school leaders such
as those involved in this study. It is critical
that we move beyond change at the level of individual
buildings and districts, and think more systemically
about how to effectively align classroom, school,
district, and university teacher preparation practices.
These schools exemplify the notion that an inclusive
perspective to schooling has implications far
beyond the mere placement of students with disabilities
in settings with their typical peers (Consortium
on Inclusive Schooling Practices, 1996). Structures,
policies, attitudes, and practices are all affected
by inclusive thinking.
To achieve an inclusive culture focused on meeting
the needs of all learners, it is important that
school leaders make explicit the embedded values
of diversity, membership, and collaboration in
every aspect of their school's operation--from
purchasing textbooks and computers, to the deployment
of staff, to how decisions are made, to how professional
development activities are structured. As noted
by the National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future (1996), "The need for excellent teaching
grows ever more pressing.... America's future
depends now, as never before, on our ability to
teach" (pp. 2-3). Effective principals create
the conditions necessary for staff and students
to be successful. They do this by exemplifying
the characteristics of our participant principals
and by ascribing too many of the practices we
have described in this report.
There are additional implications from this study
for the preparation of principals. As districts
move to implement the provisions of recently reauthorized
federal special educational policy, principals
will need to be prepared to address these requirements
at the building level. Educational administration
programs in higher education often provide only
cursory attention to special education policy
and its implementation. As programs move to develop
course content and fieldwork that is reflective
of today's schools, we recommend that colleagues
in special education be included in the dialogue.
Their understanding of what the real questions
are, and our sense of what approaches and strategies
are likely to be most workable, emerge from field-based
partnerships (McGregor & Salisbury, 2000).
Working together with practitioners and administrators
to understand and resolve implementation issues
has been mutually beneficial. While labor-intensive,
often messy, and not without problems, we recommend
practitioner-directed inquiry as a sound and useful
approach to research.
|