Conference Agenda

Introduction

Participative equity in higher education has largely been framed as equality regimes to address some of the consequences of massification (Trow, 1973), high participation (Marginson, 2016) and the neoliberalisation (Rizvi and Lingard, 2011) of higher education (HE). It has become even more critical in pluralistic and postcolonial states like Nigeria, where the need to forge an inclusive community through higher education remains a cardinal function of the universities (Lebeau, 2008). This changing nature of the ‘missions’ of the university has challenged how higher education institutions respond to diversity initiatives and their investment in maintaining or altering institutional cultures (Aguirre, 2020, Ahmed, 2012). With little focus on students' agency, institutional perspectives on why institutions change (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991, Thornton et al., 2012) and become what academics or leaders make of them (Chaffee and Tierney, 1988, Tierney and Lanford, 2018) abound in the literature on the sociology of HEIs. However, students’ demand for the dissociation of the university from its colonial (Bhambra et al., 2018) and capitalist relics (Santos, 2018) to an inclusive and liberating pedagogical space has called for the need to understand students’ agency or roles in institutional transformation. This explains why the post-Salamanca education debates on the meanings of inclusion, who is to be included, into what and how inclusion should be done (e.g. Ainscow et al., 2006, Ainscow et al., 2019) have shown why policies on inclusion and equity in HE must be approached as a holistic policy process; that addresses asymmetrical power relations of access, participation and outcome of underrepresented and underserved communities such as students with disabilities (SWDs), women, forced migrants, persons of colour and young people from low-income families. Inclusive education policy and corpus of work on how education systems can become inclusive, have been critiqued as a ‘neo-colonial project’ (Walton, 2018 p.34 ) developed in the rich countries of the Global North. This has thus given rise to a “second generation of inclusive education countries in the global South” (Artiles et al., 2011) uncritically adopting the theoretical and empirical understanding of disability and inclusive practices developed from the centre.

To interrogate knowledge on the experience of students with disabilities in higher education and practices of inclusive education more broadly, this study explored how the practices of inclusion and participation of students with disabilities in universities are organised. This study’s novel approach situates the analysis of textual and structural relations or the “untidy policy moments” (Svarícek and Pol, 2011) of disability inclusion practice in the HE system of Nigeria within the “colonial matrix of power” (Quijano, 2007) shaping global education agenda. It seeks to explain the everyday experience of students with disabilities by taking a critical perspective on how complex intersections of poverty, gender, religious and cultural beliefs at the local continue to shape the meanings of disability and the practices of inclusive education.

Inclusive education refers to a system where students with disabilities are valued and active participants in regular classrooms in their neighbourhood schools (Porter & Towell, 2017). In 1994, the Salamanca Statement reaffirmed a global and united commitment to making education more inclusive for students with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994). In the decades that followed the Salamanca Statement, much cross country research has been done in the field of inclusive education, creating opportunities for countries to learn from one another. There is overwhelming evidence that including students with disabilities in the regular classrooms has social and academic advantages for students with and without disabilities (Hehir et al., 2016), yet teachers continue to report significant barriers to effectively implementing inclusive education (Sokal & Katz, 2015). For example, teachers commonly perceive a lack of resources and report feeling like their training did not provide them with the skills needed for inclusion (McCrimmon, 2015; Sharma et al., 2007; Sokal & Katz, 2015). Ensuring that teachers are prepared to work effectively in inclusive classrooms and schools is thus an essential focus of research today.

Sharma (2018) proposed the 3H framework as a way to support the development of inclusive teachers. His framework posits that development must target three key areas: (1) knowledge of inclusive practices, (2) beliefs that support inclusion, and (3) skills and confidence to implement inclusive practices. This paper focuses on the development of beliefs that support inclusion. Beliefs are known to influence the way people perceive their world and subsequently guide behaviours and action (Fives & Buehl, 2012; Funkhouserk, 2017). Not surprisingly, research has found that teachers’ beliefs influence their instruction in inclusive classrooms (Jordan, 2018a; Jordan, 2018b). Specific beliefs about the teacher’s role in the classroom, the goal of teaching and learning, and the nature of ability influence the quality of inclusive practices. These beliefs are captured in a 20-item self-report measure called the Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (Glenn, 2018).

Teachers with inclusive scores on the Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire tend to use more cognitively engaging instruction (e.g., back-and-forth question and answer periods) and scaffolding with individual students and small groups. They are also more likely to take responsibility for meeting the learning needs of students with disabilities. Teachers with low inclusive scores tends to spend less time engaging their students in academic talk and more time managing behaviours and clarifying routines and instructions. These teachers are more likely to place the responsibility of educating students with disabilities with special education teachers (Glenn, 2018; Jordan, 2018a; Jordan, 2018b).

A recent analysis of Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire data from 396 Canadian beginning teachers revealed three distinct trajectories for the development of beliefs from the time pre-service teachers were in their education program through to the early years of their careers. Most notably, one fifth of the sample became less inclusive in their beliefs after graduating from their education program (Specht, Delorey & Puka, 2022). Past research has identified broad experiences that contribute to the development of beliefs; however, there is a gap in our understanding of how these experiences influence beliefs at different stages of teacher development. The present study aims to contribute novel information to further the field’s understanding of how various experiences influence the development of beliefs from initial teacher education through the first two years of teaching.

Legislative texts and recommendations are representing both legally fixed rights and duties and an overview of the changes in mindset and the terminology of concepts (Bowen, 2009; Prøitz, 2015). School leaders are obliged to follow the law and justify their decisions based on the Education Act (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). These documents serve furthermore “as reference points for government discourse and are viewed as important sources for analyzing dominant trends and shifts in discursive patterns” (Stenersen & Prøitz, 2022, p. 198). One of these shifts is the powerful movement towards an inclusive school for all. However, the “fuzzy concept of inclusion” has to be included and transferred into practice in different historically developed education systems. Stakeholders of these systems have to interpret the regulations which led to many variations not just internationally, but also in a national frame (Badstieber & Moldenhauer, 2016). Findings have shown that especially school principals play a significant role in the implementation of reforms in general (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2019; Moos et al., 2016) but it is just assumed that they are important actors in the context of inclusive schooling (Badstieber, 2021). This is in conformity with a foregone study, where preliminary results are indicating clearly formulated task allocations for school authorities, while school leaders’ tasks are formulated more accurate just after the year 2001 (Dahle, 2023). Their tasks are furthermore influenced by accountability (Brauckmann & Schwarz, 2012; Moos et al., 2016). However, how these policies are admitted by school principals over time is still a blind spot. On that account, the study asks: How is the discourse of school principals’ leadership autonomy discussed in school leaders’ professional journals in Germany and Norway, regarding the implementation of inclusion policies since 1994?

Leadership autonomy is thereby understood as decision-making, control, and associated responsibilities (Wermke et al., 2022). A study has furthermore shown that a certain amount of autonomy in education is needed to quickly react to different educational needs: “Professionals in public education need a certain scope of action to formulate their decisions in interactions on the reactions of students in their educational day-to-day life” (Wermke et al., 2022, p. 5). Combining these aspects of leadership autonomy with the results of a foregone study about school leaders’ task allocations mentioned in policy documents (Dahle, 2023) will present the groundwork for the discourse analyzed in this study.

The fact of inclusion and its implementation is especially significant for this analysis. Inclusion shall improve the well-being of all people, which is associated with many risks and potential errors on the part of school principals. Taking risks, making mistakes and dealing with the results are topics crucial for the analysis of leadership autonomy (Wermke & Forsberg, 2017).

Since 92 countries agreed on a school for all children during an UNESCO-conference in Salamanca, the year 1994 is chosen as a starting point for the analysis. The conference led to extensive changes not just in schools in general but also in leadership autonomy.

Germany and Norway are interesting to compare due to many similarities in later education reforms with significant impact on educational leadership. However, these reforms are embedded in different educational traditions. Both countries differ in their education system, a bureaucratized tracked in Germany and a comprehensive approach in Norway but resemble each other in their method of system regulation (Wermke & Prøitz, 2021). Comparing these two countries with their different educational traditions, similarities in later education reforms, and an almost contrary approach to inclusive education will lead to a more nuanced picture about leadership autonomy from a comparative perspective.