Managing Leadership and Inclusion in Schools - Report Example

Management leadership and Inclusion in Schools Name Institution Contents 3 Introduction 4 Inclusion Management strategies, Benefits and Disadvantages in Different Countries 4 Instructional Strategies 5 Disadvantages Arising From the Instructional Strategies 7 Resources 8 Psychological Behavior and Emotional 9 Community 10 Certification and Training 11 Recommended Leadership Models that Relate to the Inclusion reform 12 Conclusion 16 References 17 Contents Contents 3 Introduction 4 Inclusion Management strategies, Benefits and Disadvantages in Different Countries 4 Instructional Strategies 5 Disadvantages Arising From the Instructional Strategies 7 Resources 8 Psychological Behavior and Emotional 9 Community 10 Certification and Training 11 Recommended Leadership Models that Relate to the Inclusion reform 12 Conclusion 16 References 17 Introduction Dating back to the nineteenth century, students with disability received education in settings based on the type of disability instead of their individual needs (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson & Hoppey, 2010). Special schools were created to provide education for children with mild to severe disabilities such as sensory impairments. These schools were opened in many locations but where it was not feasible, special classes were created in the mainstream public schools (Department of Education and Science, 2007). These schools have made significant contributions to learning and teaching of students with disabilities. From the network of these special schools and classes emerged an education system that was isolated from the general school system. This segregated model inhibited the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream schools, especially at post-primary level. Increased awareness in 1990s led to the establishment of an equitable society and an inclusion model for mainstream schools. However, the inclusion reform has been found to have both positive and negative influences on the teaching and learning of students in our public school. The positive or negative influences of the inclusion reform in different countries can be largely attributed to the management leadership approach applied in those countries among other key factors that have been shown to influence the success or failure of the inclusion reform Inclusion Management strategies, Benefits and Disadvantages in Different Countries The school inclusion reform continues to be marked with controversy in countries such as the U.S, Sweden, and Portugal as the reform implementation progresses. The major controversy revolves around the practical benefits and disadvantages likely to be accrued from the inclusion reform in respect to the student or pupil, community, teachers and the government. The emergence of the inclusion reforms in school was attributed to research based evidence on the failures of the special education approach in addressing the educational needs of the people with disabilities. The realization of the benefits of the inclusion reform is dependent on the strategies, leadership management approaches, community participation, and resource allocation. In addition, the benefits are realized at the student, teacher, and community levels. Instructional Strategies Teachers play an important role in facilitating inclusion in education. Their views and attitudes towards inclusion affect their pedagogical practices in general school curriculum (Ross-Hill, 2009). In Sweden, teachers have been very positive towards inclusion of students with physical abilities in the general physical education programs. Key factors that affect Swedish teachers’ instructional strategies for inclusion are access to adequate training, sufficient resources, and general support from the school management and teaching staff (Jerlinder, Danermark & Gill, 2010). The success of the Sweden’s public schools inclusion reforms and its benefits can be attributed to an effective school management blueprint and sound leadership. Through the national curriculum, the government has place responsibility of ensuring all students regardless of their status attain the outlined educational goals (The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2004). Schools are mandated to create enabling environments where students with special needs can realize full their full potential in both academic and developmental aspects. As such, students will special needs have been provided with an opportunity to reap the benefits of learning within the regular school classroom. The instructional model of school management and leadership, school principals have been given the overall responsibility of ensuring that all students gain access to the much-needed support, guidance, and teaching materials of good quality in order to achieve the national education goals. One of the major instructional approaches recommended by the Swedish government in respect to students with special needs is the need for remedial measures undertaken in respect the teachers’ assessment of the students with special needs. This has contributed to improved learning, acquisition of skills and general performance of the special needs students. The management of inclusion in Sweden recognizes the need not neglect the need for special education (OECD, 2015). The government decree provides that if the student with special needs is presumed not reach the set educational goals, she or he may be granted the right to special education either individually or in special group but within the regular school setting. Public school principals have been tasked with ensuring that individual educational plans for pupils with need for special support are developed in collaboration with the teacher, pupil/student and the parents (The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2004). The school principal is further mandated to ensure establishment of clear roles including the person responsible for continuous evaluation of the pupil/student. In the US, teachers have been positive towards incorporating inclusion practices in pedagogy. This positivity has largely been attributed to instructional leadership where school principals facilitate inclusion by developing learning standards, encouraging teachers to design their teaching strategies, facilitating group practice and supporting learning assessments (Kozleski & Smith, 2009). From an instructional perspective, inclusion of students with disabilities has been shown to provide such students with more engaged instructional time with better enriched growth and learning compared to the special education programs. In addition to the exposure to a wider scope of academic activities, the regular classroom setting offers students with disabilities an enhanced stimulating experience, which translates to improved learning. Particularly, inclusion has been demonstrated to translate into improved reading performance, grades, and standardized scores. Disadvantages Arising From the Instructional Strategies In respect to the instructional approach, in many a times, the focus is on the socialization of the student with disabilities by virtue of being in classroom with regular student. With the students with disabilities expected to learn from the regular students, the academic aspect is often ignored with consequent limited gains in regard to important skills such as reading and math among other academic outcomes. This could be partially associated with the reported minimal difference in standardized scores between inclusion and the special education program. Arguably, the inclusion reform denies students with special needs the privilege a conducive learning environment characterized by limited distractions, individualized academic programs designed according to need and one-on-one instruction cognizant of their special needs. This way, students with special needs can learn important skills and enhanced learning. Inclusion may impact negatively on the regular student especially where the inclusive classroom requires inclusion of additional special educational aides, distractions by lead teachers and activities of the students with special needs (The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2004). In addition, the teachers are significantly affected by the inclusion reform especially where there is inadequate investment in the development of teachers including provision of special training lack of incentives for the extra work and attention demanded by the students with disabilities. Moreover, inadequate instructional planning often result in demoralization and frustrations among the teachers especially where they are unable to achieve the expected learning outcomes for all students in the classroom. This lead to psychological and behavioral changes, including fear, and poor attitude towards the inclusion reform among the teachers. Resources The adequacy of resources such as staff, technology, and training time is critical in facilitating inclusion in public schools. In the US, school principals are responsible for ensuring that they provide the necessary organizational resources to support inclusion and integrate specialized interventions to achieve the desired learning and teaching outcomes for children and teachers respectively. Instructional leadership plays a greater role than moral leadership because instructional principals are inclined to advocacy that commits resources for coaching of teachers, professional development, time for communication and collaboration (Odom, Buysee & Soukakou, 2011). Portugal has fewer resources to implement inclusion compared to the US. Limited resources in Portuguese classrooms affect the teacher’s ability to achieve inclusion. The limited resources place greater pressure on teachers to ensure a successful inclusive classroom (Linn, 2012). In terms of resource benefits, the inclusion reform has had significant advantage in respect to cost effectiveness with cost of the special schools or segregation emerging as double that of the inclusion approach. Moreover, the inclusion reform in the U.S has positive improvement in the employment rate of high school graduates with disabilities compared to the era of special school education programs. This has consequently reduced the dependence rate of people with disabilities with increasing numbers securing employment and being able to support themselves. Psychological Behavior and Emotional One area of concern is the attitude of students towards their peers with disabilities. Instances of bullying have been observed among students with mild disabilities or educational needs. In the US, students with moderate disabilities that aggressive personalities are more likely to bully their peers compared to those that are academically gifted (Estell et al., 2009). Although, it has been argued that inclusion has the potential to enhance the self-esteem of students with special needs, this is not always the case with some students often leaving the regular classroom setting even lower self-esteems attributable to their difference in learning and grasping academic content. Studies have reported incidences of isolation, frustration, fear, bullying, and ridicule of the students with special needs mainly arising from the regular students. This shows that there is a need to provide psychological support for students in general schools as well as those with disabilities to reduce victimization and bullying in the school setting. Resistance to change is common in reform implementation. In Australia, some teachers were resistant to inclusion of the students with disabilities or severe behavioral disorders. According to Kell, Vialle, Konza and Vogl (2008), at least 30 percent of teachers in pre-school and beginner classes resigned due to the inclusion of students with behavioral and emotional disorders in general classrooms. Although some preschoolers were positive due to the age of the studies, school principals, classroom teachers and resource teachers were less optimistic and enthusiastic about inclusion. Similar negative attitudes have been observed in some teachers in UK where 30 percent said that there were unprepared to integrate students due to lack of skills (Kell, Vialle, Konza & Vogl, 2008). Community The engagement of principals, teachers, and parents is important in making inclusion decisions. In some countries such as the UK, parental involvement is encouraged as a means to make schools accountable to communities. In addition, parents are encouraged to select the education system they want for their child and to support their children’s academic achievements. The UK also encourages the community to engage in school-family programs to address social problems such as teenage pregnancy, substance abuse and delinquency (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). The views of children should also be considered when making decisions that affect them. This consideration is required in England where the Children Act of 1989 asserted that local authorities should consider the child’s welfare as an important factor in any decision. The United Kingdom is also bound by Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to assure the child that can form his/her opinion the right to speak their opinions freely and that the opinions would be given consideration in accordance with the child’s maturity and age (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). At the community level, inclusion has been shown to have positive impact on the behavior of students with special needs, a benefit attributable to the classroom interaction with the regular students. As such, the inclusion reform contributes to development of appropriate social behaviors among the students with special needs thus facilitating their effective inclusion at the community level (The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2004). One of the major benefits of the inclusion reform realized in the United States is the improved acceptance of persons with special needs in and out of the community. The school interaction between the regular student and the students with special needs enables development of friendships among the peers with positive appreciation of their different abilities and limitations. The school and out of school interaction has been shown to contribute to the enhancement of self-esteem and respect among the children with disabilities. Different studies and literature have shown that implementation of the inclusion reform can have detrimental effects if not appropriately implemented. This is much likely when all stakeholders in the education sector or some all not involved with more focus put on the government policy on inclusion. From the community context, inclusion may result in even more challenges for such students especially where the regular classroom setting re-affirms their inadequacies with the abilities of other regular students to fit into the community (The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2004). Parents and the community are left to deal with the consequences of the inclusion school process including depressed children and in some instances, suicidal attempts. Certification and Training Certification and training helps teachers develop confidence in instructional methodologies and skills to meet the needs of students with special abilities. Teachers in Australia agree that training addresses their feelings of inadequacy in teaching students and their peers with special needs. The teachers also assert that training helps them manage the behavior challenges of students with disabilities that affect the implementation of inclusive programs (Kell, Vialle, Konza & Vogl, 2008). Ireland has developed training programs in teaching colleges to equip student teachers with the skills and materials to teach students with disabilities (Department of Education and Science, 2007). Training in the US is encouraged because teachers encounter at least 10 students that have special needs in public classrooms (Linn, 2012). In Canada, the Principals Qualification Program (PQP) distinguishes leaders from other staff in the educational organization while France has separate certification requirements for primary and post-primary principals. School director in Estonia have to complete 240 hours of school management while English principals need to complete statutory programs, an exam and a test. Recommended Leadership Models that Relate to the Inclusion reform The moral and instructional models relate to the inclusion reform in schools. Either leadership model can work in centralized systems such as France and Singapore. In France, for instance, post-primary school principals have to be appointed as vice principals before they are promoted to principals. This appointment appears to be independent of teaching or educational experience. Similarly, Singapore has a framework where teachers are carefully selected into leadership roles. The Ministry of Education selects teachers that it deems worthy of leadership positions. On the other hand, school leadership in Estonia is dependent on membership to Communist Party. This appears to suggest that principals with the right academic qualifications and teaching experience can be disregarded if they do not belong to the political party. Moral school leaders could focus on the spiritual aspect or moral confidence. Spiritual moral principals rely on a higher order perspective such as a religious affiliation to determine how to handle inclusion of children with disabilities in their public schools. Alternatively, moral leaders could be guided by moral confidence. This moral confidence refers to the consistency of the leader’s behavior with regards to an ethical system. This consistency is developed over time and is based on the alignment of principle and practice (Bush & Coleman, 2000). With regards to the inclusion reform, morally-confident school leaders have an external motivation to develop an ethical system that supports the inclusivity of students with disability in their schools. They would ensure that teaching practice is consistent with inclusivity and apply ethical principles when designing structures to accommodate students with disabilities. They would also share their understanding of inclusion with teaching staff and students, justify their decision to accept inclusion from a moral perspective and ensure that ethical principles that support inclusivity are sustained in the long-term. In both instances, moral school leaders are externally motivated to ensure that their actions are consistent with the ethical principles that they uphold (Chapman et al., 2012). This responsibility is a challenge because it requires school principals to create a balance between managerial perspective of school leaders and their values (Bush & Coleman, 2000). Government inspection regimes often hold a technical or managerial perspective on school leadership. Some governments such as Estonia may impose political beliefs on school leadership. This means that school principals are guided by moral beliefs and values that may be unable to align with their managerial requirements (such as members to Communist Party). Creating a balance between these two perspectives is a challenge since both imperatives cannot be excluded, avoided, or neglected. Schools need to be managed effectively to survive. One secret system that influences this management is humility. A moral leader would need to balance these requirements with ethical beliefs on what is right and wrong. For instance, the first principle implies justice and equality. A moral school principal would be inclined to follow the right to education principle because justice and equality demonstrates fairness for all students regardless of their special education needs. A moral school leader would implement the second principle by ensuring that every school decision is made after considering the needs of children with disabilities. The right thing to do would be to include representatives of children with disabilities such as special interest groups and parents who can articulate the needs of the children and ensure that school decisions are inclusive. Ethical obligations would require the school principal to ensure a variety of education services are provided to meet the standards stipulated by the school districts and education departments. Finally, the school principal may develop ethical systems that are influenced by international standards or guidelines for inclusion such as the Salamanca Framework for Action on Special-Needs Education established at a United National Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Conference in 1994. The Salamanca Statement stated that regular schools that adopted the inclusive orientation provide an effective mechanism of addressing discriminatory attitudes, creating inclusive society, achieving education and developing welcoming societies (Frederickson & Cline, 2002). School principals could integrate the Framework for Action into their ethical systems to ensure that their schools accommodate every student regardless of linguistic, physical, emotional, social or intellectual differences. The instructional model of leadership is different from other leadership models because the focus of school leaders is to influence the direction of organizational effort. This leadership model works better in decentralized systems such as England, US and Germany where individuals take the initiative to seek leadership positions in schools. This leadership model encourages school principals to focus on student learning, teaching and professional development. Instructional school principals have three common behaviors: conferencing with teachers, encouraging teacher reflection and promoting the professional development of teachers. Instructional leaders in developed countries implement inclusion reforms in schools through self-nomination for available positions in institutions or appointment by school boards in countries such as Ireland and New Zealand. The purpose of these strategies is to monitor and enhance teaching and the learning activities for all students including those with disabilities. Instructional principals would examine the quality of learning activities and teaching strategies to ensure that the principles of inclusion are achieved. In addition, instructional principals would encourage their teaching staff to pursue professional development courses to improve their skills and knowledge on inclusivity to improve pedagogy. A key challenge for school principals is they may not have adequate knowledge on learning and teaching to implement instructional leadership effectively. Five key practices that can help instructional leadership are shaping the vision of the institution, creating a welcoming climate for education, promoting leadership in teaching staff, improving instruction and managing the processes, data and people in the school (Mendels, 2012). In addition, instructional leaders are motivated by the need to develop a cooperative spirit and hospitability to all stakeholders (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom & Anderson, 2010). When principles implement these practices harmoniously, they can make a significant difference in their students and teachers. Overall, instructional leadership is important because it allows school leaders to examine the central activities of their schools as well as learning and teaching. This instructional model has been adopted in decentralized countries such as England because of this focus on teaching and learning. Conclusion Inclusion has both positive and negative influences on the teaching and learning of students in our public schools. School principals can apply the moral and/or instructional leadership models to implement inclusion in their schools. This implementation depends on the nature of the educational system (centralized or decentralized), moral influences, beliefs, and national frameworks for inclusion in public schools. It is important that the leaders consider instructional strategies, resources, psychological behavior, community and certification or training when implementing inclusion strategies in their educational organization. References Bush, T. & Coleman, M. (2000). Leadership and management development in education. London, England: Paul Chapman/SAGE. Chapman, C., Armstrong, P., Harris, A., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., & Sammons, P. (2012). School effectiveness and improvement research, policy and practice: Challenging the orthodoxy? Abingdon, OX: Routledge. Department of Education and Science. (2007). Inclusion of students with special education needs: Post-primary guidelines. Dublin: Stationery Office. Estell, D., Farmer, T., Irvin, M., Crowther, A., Akos, P., & Boudah, D. (2009). Students with exceptionalities and the peer group context of bullying and victimization in late elementary school. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18, 136-150. Frederickson, N., & Cline, T. (2002). Special education needs inclusion and diversity: A textbook. Buckingham, MK: Open University Press. Jerlinder, K., Danermark, B., & Gill, P. (2010). Swedish primary-school teachers’ attitudes to inclusion: The case of PE and pupils with physical disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 45-57. Kell, P., Vialle, W., Konza, D., & Vogl, G. (2008). Learning and the learner: Exploring learning for new times. Australia: University of Wollongong. Kozleski, E., & Smith, A. (2009). The complexities of systems change in creating equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. KU Linn, M. I. (2012). Inclusion in two languages: Special education in Portugal and the United States. The Teachers, Schools and Society Reader, 1-5. Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New York, NY: McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2010). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings. The Journal of Special Education, 20(10), 1-10. McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M., & Westling, D. (2010). Inclusion: Effective practices for all students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal: Five pivotal practices that shape instructional leadership. Leadership, 33(1), 54-58. Odom, S., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 344-356. OECD. (2015). Improving schools in Sweden: An OECD perspective. Retrieved http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/Improving-Schools-in-Sweden.pdf Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 9(3), 188-198. The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (2004). Inclusive education and classroom practice in secondary Education. Retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/inclusive-education-and-effective-classroom-practice_IECP-secondary-Literature-Review.pdf TheWallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.walacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Pages/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.aspx Read More