04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Social Justice Leadership in Irish Schools: Conceptualisations, Supports and Barriers in Building Inclusive Schools in an Age of Uncertainty
Joseph Travers, Fiona King, Jean McGowan
Dublin City University
Presenting Author: Travers, Joseph;
King, Fiona
Social justice leadership internationally is gaining increased attention as issues of equity, equality, inclusion, and diversity inform policies (Torrance, Forde, King and Razzaq, 2021a). This research is situated within the work of the International School Leadership Development Network’s (ISLDN) research project studying social justice school leadership. The network was formed in 2010 under the sponsorship of the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS) and the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA). There are representatives from over 20 countries collaborating in this area. The research developed to form two strands (a) preparing and developing leaders who advocate for social justice and (b) preparing and developing leaders for high-need, low-performing schools. This research resides within the first strand. The team developed a shared research protocol around two key issues: how school leaders “make sense” and “do” social justice (Torrance and Angelle, 2019). Within the Irish context, these questions were situated within an adaptation of Bronfennbrenner’s ecological framework allowing exploration of leadership for social justice at the micro, meso, and macro levels with the principal at the centre (King and Travers, 2017). This paper reports on the Irish findings concerning conceptualisations of social justice leadership, whether school leaders identify as such and the factors that support or hinder such leadership in developing inclusive schools.
Several researchers highlight the links between educational leadership and social justice. Chunoo, Beatty & Gruver (2019) argue that social justice is at the heart of leadership with a bias for action and advocacy. Meanwhile Sarid (2021) argues for connecting adaptive leadership and social justice educational leadership around four principles pertinent to each: being disruptive, dilemmatic, collaborative and context-emergent. Cochran-Smith (1999) also connects educational leadership and social justice in the context of the entrenched inequities in the social, economic, and educational systems. This necessitates a values and political orientation.
Slater (2017) identified three concepts underpinning the understanding of social justice leadership among the ISLDN team of 33 researchers across 14 countries at the time. The first concept was around providing equitable treatment regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. This could also be seen as the absence of any discrimination. The second concept concerned critiquing policies, practices, roles, and relationships in relation to how they marginalise certain groups. This could be interpreted as being proactive in preventing exclusion occurring in the first place. The third concept entailed collective action to include those who have been excluded. This could be interpreted as positive discrimination in addressing barriers and challenges to inclusion in schools.
Artiles et al. (2006) argue that an underlying assumption of inclusion is that it serves social justice goals. They map discourses of inclusion identified by Dyson (1999) onto different views of social justice. The discourse of justification is based on a distributive view of social justice emphasising individual access to additional resources and underpins special and compensatory education (Rawls, 1971). In contrast, they argue that the implementation discourse draws mostly from a communitarian model of social justice, with an emphasis on social cohesion and shared values and beliefs. Artiles et al (2006) argue that the process of increasing social justice for marginalised/ diverse groups will not occur unless the identity of the dominant group also changes. This requires a transformative change involving participation, deliberation and critique on local and wider forces leading to a more inclusive social community and a more just distribution of resources in which all can flourish.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe following research questions underpinned this study: How do Irish school leaders conceptualise social justice? What do social justice leaders perceive as the supports and barriers to social justice practices? An online questionnaire was constructed based on the themes identified in interviews with social justice-oriented leaders as part of the work of the International School Leadership Development Network. In analysis by network members Angelle and Flood (2021), ninety initial codes were identified as factors supporting social justice leadership in schools across 12 countries (Costa Rica, England (2), Ireland, Israel (2), Jamaica, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Turkey (2), and the United States (4)) arising from 18 interviews with principals conducted according to an agreed protocol. These were then categorised to 21 variables which were further classified as seven themes: Principal Behaviours, School Culture, Teacher Characteristics, Community Involvement, Teacher Student Interface, Policy, and Resources. These themes formed the basis for the factors included in the questionnaire where participants were asked to rank their importance as supports to the work of social justice leaders in schools. A definition for each was given in the preamble to the question, for example:
Teacher characteristics: Demographics such as experience, faculty degrees, university preparation programs, teacher beliefs, values, and behaviours; may also include teaching principals.
Principal behaviours: The translation of principal's values and beliefs into their behaviours and practices.
A similar grounded theory approach was adopted for the barriers resulting in six themes: Student’s Family Situation, Perceptions of the School, Lack of Resources, Policy, Politics, Staff Variables, and Organisational Culture. These formed the basis for the questions in the barriers section on the questionnaire where participants were also asked to rank their importance as barriers to the work of social justice leaders in schools. Definitions were also given for the themes. Biographical data relating to gender, leading in a disadvantaged context, or having a professional qualification in leadership was also collected.
Conscious of the importance of local context and cultural factors influencing understanding of social justice (Angelle, 2017; King, Travers, and McGowan, 2021) we included qualitative questions on definitions of social justice leadership, words to describe social justice leadership and examples of social justice practice and whether the leaders identified themselves as social justice school leaders.
The questionnaire was sent by email to all schools in the Republic of Ireland and promoted on social media accounts.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThere were 89 completed questionnaires. Responses indicate a lack of ethnic and cultural diversity in school leadership in Ireland. Only one of the respondents was other than White Irish but was still from another White background. While 46% of schools had an almost distinct White Irish student enrolment, the remainder had a more diverse enrolment with almost 25% having a minority of white Irish students.
Defining Social Justice
When asked to list up to five key words they would include in any definition of social justice, 68.5% of respondents included equality, while 65.1% included fairness, inclusion, opportunity, justice, respect, rights, diversity and being open-minded were frequently listed. These words feature in several macro policy documents. On the other hand, gender, ethnicity, race, and advocacy were each listed once, while religion, social class and disability were not included.
When considering their key influences 30% of respondents credited their own parents and upbringing as the main influence on their social justice leadership: “values instilled in me by my parents” or “reared in a family where social justice was spoken about and emulated.” Twenty per cent of participants said that their own education had inculcated social justice values in their perspectives, while 36% said that their experience since they commenced a teaching career had influenced their social justice awareness.
While 75% of participants identified as a social justice leader, a small minority of three said they were not. The 19 respondents, who stated they were unsure whether they identified as social justice leaders, seem to question the leadership aspect rather than the social justice aspect. Respondents ranked principal behaviours, school culture, teacher characteristics and student-teacher communication highest in providing support to the work of social justice leaders in schools. Discussion and implications for leadership professional learning are outlined.
ReferencesAngelle, Pamela S., and Lee D. Flood. "Measuring the Barriers and Supports to Socially Just Leadership." International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)) 49, no. 3 (2021).
Angelle, Pamela S., ed. A global perspective of social justice leadership for school principals. IAP, 2017.
Artiles, A. J., N., Harris-Murri, and D. Rostenberg. “Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes on discourses, assumptions, and the road ahead.” Theory into Practice, (2006) 45, 260-268.
Bowe, Richard, Stephen J. Ball, and Anne Gold. Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology. Vol. 10. Routledge, 2017.
Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. "Section Two: Practices in Teacher Education: Learning to Teach for Social Justice." Teachers College Record 100, no. 5 (1999): 114-144.
Dyson, Alan. "Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education." In World yearbook of education 1999, pp. 36-53. Routledge, 2013.
Edwards, Graeme, and Juliet Peruma. "Enacting social justice in education through spiritual leadership." Koers 82, no. 3 (2017): 1-14.
Forde, Christine, and Deirdre Torrance. “Social justice and leadership development”, Professional Development in Education (2017) 43:1, 106-120.
Harford, Judith, Brian Fleming, and Áine Hyland. "100 years of inequality?: Irish educational policy since the foundation of the state." Paedagogica Historica (2022): 1-16.
Kavanagh, Anne Marie. "A whole school approach to social justice education." Teaching for social justice and sustainable development across the primary curriculum. London: Routledge, 2021.
King, Fiona, and Joe Travers. "Social justice leadership through the lens of ecological systems theory." A Global Perspective of Social Justice Leadership for School Principals. Information Age Publishing (2017): 147-165.
Rawls, A. "Theories of social justice." (1971).
Slater, Charles L. "Social justice beliefs and the positionality of researchers." A global perspective of social justice leadership for school principals (2017): 3-20. in P.S. Angelle, A Global Perspective of Social Justice Leadership for School Principals. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Theoharis, George. "Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership." Educational administration quarterly 43, no. 2 (2007): 221-258.
Torrance, Deirdre, and Pamela S. Angelle. "The influence of global contexts in the enactment of social justice." Cultures of social justice leadership: An intercultural context of schools (2019): 1-19.
Torrance, Deirdre, Christine Forde, Fiona King & Jamila Razzaq. “What is the problem? A critical review of social justice leadership preparation and development,” Professional Development in Education, 47, no.1 (2021a): 22-35.DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1787198
Young, Iris Marion. "Justice and the Politics of Difference." (1990).
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
School Leadership in the Implementation of Inclusive Gifted Education
Denise Hofer, Tamara Katschnig
KPH Wien/Krems, Austria
Presenting Author: Hofer, Denise;
Katschnig, Tamara
Every person has potentials. According to Children's Rights Article 29, education must "fully develop the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child" (UNICEF, 1989). In the context of inclusion, the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994) calls for education in an inclusive setting in order to enable educational equity for all learners: "An inclusive approach to education means that each individual's needs are taken into account and that all learners participate and achieve together. It acknowledges that all children can learn and that every child has unique characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs. Special focus is placed on learners who may be at risk of marginalisation, exclusion or underachievement."
However, it shows that the implementation of inclusive settings in the school context is insufficient in German-speaking countries. One possible reason for this could be the lack of a standardised definition of inclusion (Grosche, 2015; S. 17; Loreman, 2014; Resch et al, 2021). The situation is similar with the term "giftedness", which is associated with giftedness and high performance. These inconsistent definitions of the terms in turn lead to "exclusive" support measures that do not address every learner. The pedagogical attitude that every learner, regardless of their origin, their own physical and psychological learning prerequisites and their ethnic diversity, has potential within them that needs to be discovered and nurtured, is thus hardly done justice by educators (Schrittesser, 2019; 2021). For this reason, the term "inclusive gifted education" was coined. It not only supports pupils who have been able to demonstrate their talents through performance in the classroom, as has long been the case in gifted education. Inclusive gifted education assumes that everyone has potential and that this potential can be developed through suitable, individualised learning opportunities and settings. Support measures that are to be offered inclusively in the classroom should benefit all pupils. It is assumed that all learners have different potentials that become visible through individualised learning opportunities. Recognising and promoting this potential has a positive influence on the personal development of learners.
The realisation and implementation of inclusive gifted education requires systematic and systematic school development processes and the corresponding attitude of all teachers. They must observe their pupils in different learning settings and try to recognise potential at an early stage. The promotion of different potentials must not depend on individual teachers and thus be left to chance. Systemtic and systematic school development that involves the entire school staff is therefore essential (Rolff, 2018).
School management plays a special role in this school development process. They are considered the "driver for change" (Bryk, 2010). In their role of steering school development processes, they need a vision and a clear, uniform understanding of inclusive gifted education, which they live out together with their team at the school site and which they implement in their pedagogical work.
Since 2021, the government of Lower Bavaria, in cooperation with the University of Passau and the Vienna/Krems University of Education, has been developing a certificate in the context of inclusive gifted education. The criteria were based on the Index for Inclusion (Ainsen & Booth, 2017).
In the course of this project, the question of what influence the role of school management has on the implementation and realisation of inclusive gifted education in the classroom will be investigated.
The aim is to further develop the specified criteria for the certificate based on the results of the study so that every learner benefits from the promotion of potential. Research is also being conducted into how science, politics and practice can cooperate successfully in the field of inclusive gifted education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethode
The realisation of the criteria and the implementation processes at the schools are scientifically monitored. This gives those responsible for the project the opportunity to further develop criteria based on evidence. The implementation process is being analysed using a mixed methods study. In April 2022 and 2023, all teachers (N=400) from the participating pilot project schools were asked about their prior knowledge, understanding of terms, their teaching methods and the role of their school management in the context of inclusive gifted education using an online questionnaire (as-is analysis). This was analysed descriptively using SPSS.
Subsequently, expert interviews were conducted with the nine head teachers and two members of the government responsible for the project in July 2022 and 2023. The focus was on the role of school management in the implementation process. They were asked about their understanding of the term, their vision of school and their definition of leadership. They were also asked questions about the school development process at their location, about cooperation within the teaching staff and about their expectations of the school authorities and school development consultants. They were also able to comment on the content and impact of the further education programmes offered by the university and the teacher training college.
The headteachers were supported in the implementation process by teacher training courses organised by the University of Teacher Education, which were held online. Teachers from the participating schools were able to attend this training. These training courses were held for all participants prior to the measurements. The content was further developed based on evidence after the evaluation.
The results of the teacher survey were also presented to the headteachers during the interviews. They were asked to comment on the results. From this, conditions for success and challenges for school development processes in the context of inclusive gifted education were identified.
As the role of headteachers is the focus of the study, the evaluation will examine the question of how inclusive gifted education can be implemented and sustainably realised from the perspective of headteachers.
Finally, in March 2024, a school development consultant and a project manager from the Lower Bavarian government will each be presented with the analysed data and asked about the further course of the project.
The study will then be continued with a focus on lesson development.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs part of the pilot project, two talent centres are to be established in Lower Bavaria to support schools and, above all, their headteachers in the school development process. The assumption of a pedagogical attitude supporting that potential lies dormant in all learners, regardless of their own resources and prerequisites, and
the willingness to allow all pupils to benefit from support programmes should become a matter of course for teachers at these certified schools. On the one hand, this requires further training programmes that are tailored to the interests and needs of teachers and whose effectiveness and sustainability are evaluated. On the other hand, close cooperation between science, practice and politics is required so that the theory of inclusive gifted education is actually implemented in the classroom by each individual teacher at a certified school and reaches the pupils. Although headteachers are the "drivers for change", the teachers have to go along for the ride. The research project will be continued from 2025 by recording and analysing teaching sequences from teachers at the certified schools. In turn, this will be used to identify "best practice examples" for teacher training programmes to support them in their work.
ReferencesBooth, A., Ainscow, M (2016). Index für Inklusion. Ein Leitfaden für Schulentwicklung. Beltz.
Kiso, C. J., Fränkel, S. (2021): Inklusive Begabungsförderung in den Fachdidaktiken. Diskurse, Forschungslinien und Praxisbeispiele. Klinkhardt.
Meyers, D., Durlak, J.A., Wandersman, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process. American Journal of Community Psychology. 50(3-4), S. 462-480. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x
Resch, K., Lindner, K.-T., Streese, B., Proyer, M., Schwab, S. (2021). Inklusive Schule und Schulentwicklung. Theoretische Grundlagen, empirische Befunde und Praxisbeispiele aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Waxmann.
Rolff, H.G. (2023). Komprehensive Bildungsreform. Wie ein qualitätsorientiertes Gesamtsystem entwickelt werden kann. Beltz Juventa
UNESCO (2023). What do you know about inclusion in education. Verfügbar unter: https://www.unesco.org/en/inclusion-education/need-know (14.01.2024)
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Bridging the Divide: Analyzing Regional Disparities in Implementing Inclusive Education in Germany
Simone Plöger
Mainz University, Germany
Presenting Author: Plöger, Simone
The legal imperative for inclusion, underscored by the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009 (CRPD), mandated German mainstream schools to transition from exclusive to inclusive settings. Despite this formal commitment, challenges persist, evident in stable exclusion rates (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). This discrepancy between the legal mandate and on-the-ground practices prompts an exploration of the practical implications and regional variations in inclusive education.
Educational policy and science recognize that inclusion extends beyond the category of disability, encompassing diverse socially constructed differentiation categories. While inclusive education promises to diminish formal exclusion and discrimination by embracing the diversity of all pupils, the reality portrays a stark contrast. There remains a gap between the legal claim to inclusion and the prevailing distribution of students, indicating a complex landscape that extends beyond disability alone; this discrepancy is evident not only in the context of pupils with disabilities but also applies to newcomer students, for example (Plöger i.V.).
Regional disparities in implementing the normative claim to inclusion reveal substantial differences among German federal states (Katzenbach 2018; Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Urban and rural areas present distinct challenges, with the latter often neglected in the discourse on inclusion (Kuhn 2012). This oversight becomes significant as rural regions may lack the necessary personnel for inclusive education, predominantly found in urban areas around university cities challenge (Ottersbach et al. 2016). However, surveys indicate that regular teachers do not feel adequately prepared for its implementation (Hollenbach-Biele/Klemm 2020). Additionally, there is a shortage of teachers and specialized personnel.
Interestingly, rural regions, despite facing obstacles, offer untapped potential for inclusive education. Institutions promoting exclusive practices, such as special schools and secondary schools, are less prevalent in these areas. Leveraging this potential, however, necessitates educators with specialized expertise, often attributed to special needs teachers (Katzenbach 2018). Recognized for their unique training and skills in handling diversity, special needs teachers play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between the formal claim to inclusion and its practical implementation.
Against this backdrop, recent observations in Rhineland-Palatinate, a state in the South of Germany, raise pertinent questions regarding the practical implications of the formal claim to inclusion at the school level. The notable trend of relocating special needs teachers from rural areas to the Mainz metropolitan region sparks an inquiry into the broader regional dynamics impacting inclusive education (cf. https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinlandpfalz/ludwigshafen/versetzung-foerderschulen-demo-100.html). This case study sheds light on the complexities of translating legal mandates into actionable strategies, especially in regions with distinct educational landscapes.
The presentation aims to unravel the nuances of regional disparities in implementing inclusive education, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies that consider the unique challenges and potential each region presents. Through an in-depth analysis, it seeks to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on inclusive education in the German context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo establish a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and disparities in the implementation of inclusive education in Germany, a thorough literature review was conducted. This review encompassed studies and publications addressing the legal framework of inclusion, regional variations, and the intersectionality of inclusion beyond the disability category.
Qualitative insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with principals of schools and teachers across various regions and representatives from the Ministry of Education in Rhineland-Palatinate. These interviews aimed to capture firsthand perspectives on the challenges, successes, and regional nuances in implementing inclusive education. Principals and teachers provided insights into the practical aspects of inclusive education at the school level. For this purpose, principals from schools where special education teachers were withdrawn were selected, as well as principals from schools where these teachers were deployed. Furthermore, the teachers themselves were interviewed. Ministry representatives shed light on policy perspectives, resource allocation, and the overarching strategies guiding the implementation process. Open-ended questions were designed to encourage participants to share their experiences, perceptions, and challenges related to inclusive education. In total, 10 interviews were conducted.
The data obtained from interviews underwent qualitative content analysis, following the approach outlined by Mayring (2010). This method allowed for a systematic and in-depth examination of the interview transcripts. The analysis process involved identifying recurring themes, patterns, and conceptual categories that emerged from the participants' narratives. By adopting a deductive-inductive approach, the analysis both adhered to predefined categories derived from the literature review and allowed for the emergence of new themes grounded in the participants' responses.
The coding process involved multiple iterations, with researchers independently coding the data and then engaging in discussions to ensure consistency and reliability. The identified themes were then organized into a coherent narrative that forms the basis for the findings presented in this research. This qualitative content analysis facilitated a nuanced exploration of the challenges and regional variations in implementing inclusive education, providing a rich foundation for deriving meaningful insights from the collected data.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn examining the implementation of inclusive education in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, the research reveals a persistent gap between the legal mandate and the practical realities on the ground, indicative of a complex educational landscape. Regional disparities, particularly evident in urban and rural areas, pose significant challenges to the successful realization of inclusive education. Despite the untapped potential in rural regions, characterized by fewer exclusive institutions, the shortage of qualified personnel remains a critical hurdle, exacerbated by the relocation of special needs teachers to urban centers like the Mainz metropolitan area.
Insights from interviews with headmasters and ministry representatives provide valuable perspectives on the ground-level challenges and policy considerations. The inadequacy of teacher preparedness, coupled with shortages in educators and specialists, poses significant hurdles to the effective implementation of inclusive education. The withdrawal of special needs teachers from rural areas to address needs in urban centers exacerbates these challenges, highlighting the need for targeted strategies to address regional disparities.
The qualitative content analysis of interview data unveiled nuanced insights into the experiences and perceptions of key stakeholders. Themes such as the role of special needs teachers, regional resource distribution, and the impact of teacher shortages emerged as critical areas requiring attention. The findings call for a more nuanced understanding of the barriers to inclusive education and the development of tailored interventions that consider regional variations.
In conclusion, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse on inclusive education by shedding light on the complexities and regional nuances that shape its implementation in Germany. The results indicate urban inclusion and rural exclusion. Bridging this divide necessitates a collaborative effort among educational policymakers, school administrators, and the wider community. This collective endeavor aims to narrow the gap between the legal mandate for inclusion and its tangible implementation in real-world contexts.
References• Hollenbach-Biele, N. & Klemm, K. (2020): Inklusive Bildung zwischen Licht und Schatten: Eine Bilanz nach zehn Jahren inklusiven Unterrichts. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
• Katzenbach, D. (2018): Inklusion und Heterogenität. In: T. Bohl, J. Budde & M. Rieger-Ladich (Hg.): Umgang mit Heterogenität in Schule und Unterricht. Grundlagentheoretische Beiträge, empirische Befunde und didaktische Reflexionen. 2. aktualisierte Auflage. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt (UTB Schulpädagogik, 4755), S. 123–139.
• Kuhn, A. (2012): Behinderung und Inklusion (im ländlichen Raum). In: S. Debiel et al. (Hrsg.), Soziale Arbeit in ländlichen Räumen, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 301-314. DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-18946-8_24.
• Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Hrsg), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, S. 601-613. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42
• Ottersbach, M., Platte, A. & Rosen, L. (2016): Perspektiven auf inklusive Bildung und soziale Ungleichheiten. In M. Ottersbach, A. Platte & L. Rosen (Hg.): Soziale Ungleichheiten als Herausforderung für inklusive Bildung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 1–14.
• Plöger, S. (i.V.): Zwischen Inklusion und Exklusion: Anforderungen an neu zugewanderte Schüler:innen im integrativen Modell. Zeitschrift für erziehungswissenschaftliche Migrationsforschung.
|
