LEADERSHIP FOR INCLUSIVE

SCHOOLS AND INCLUSIVE

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Cristina Devecchi and Ann Nevin

ABSTRACT

In this chapter the authors explore what it means to be an inclusive schoolleader through a discourse that focuses on ‘‘out of the box’’ approaches inpreparing future school leaders to push the envelope of inclusive leadershippractice. The purpose of this chapter is to (a) define inclusive educationand leadership; (b) describe prevailing theoretical frameworks forleadership in inclusive education and build on emerging theories ofinclusive psychology and inclusive pedagogy; (c) identify promisingpractices for leadership in inclusive education; (d) identify emergingunderstandings of leadership roles in inclusive education; and (e) suggestrecommendations for policy, practice, and leadership preparation. In boththe USA and the UK, contrasting and polarizing discourses that focusleaders’ attention on attainment and performance for pupils and appear tocompete with the leadership role in including (i.e., effectively educating)those students who are known to have achievement gaps (e.g., those withdisabilities). Alternative perspectives are offered that frame leadership forinclusive education in terms of broader concepts such as ‘‘leadership forlearning.’’

Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership Reform: The Development and Preparation of

Leaders of Learning and Learners of Leadership

Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 11, 211–241

Copyright r 2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)0000011014

211

He drew a circle that shut me out – Heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win: We drew a circle that took him in.

– Edwin Markham, Outwitted,

The Shoes of Happiness and Other Poems; 1899

Written at the turn of the 20th century, Edwin Markham’s remarkableideas about how to deal with being marginalized could be a motto for thoseschool leaders who decide to embrace the inclusion of those who havepreviously been denied access to the same curriculum, instructionalresources, pedagogy, evaluation of achievement, and classroom life thatare available to all students. Such school leaders shun the concept ofexclusion no matter what the reason (e.g., differences based on race,ethnicity, languages spoken at home, gender, sexual preferences, ordisability/ability status). In this chapter, we explore what it means to bean inclusive school leader through a discourse that focuses on ‘‘out of thebox’’ approaches in preparing future school leaders to push the envelope ofinclusive leadership practice.

The purpose of this chapter is multifold: (a) to define inclusive educationand leadership; (b) to describe prevailing theoretical frameworks forleadership in inclusive education and build on emerging theories of inclusivepsychology and inclusive pedagogy; (c) to identify promising practices forleadership in inclusive education; (d) to identify emerging understandings ofleadership roles in inclusive education; and (e) to suggest recommendationsfor policy, practice, and leadership preparation. In both the USA and theUK, contrasting and polarizing discourses focus leaders’ attention onattainment and performance for pupils and appear to compete with theleadership role in including (i.e., effectively educating) those studentswho are known to have achievement gaps (e.g., those with disabilities).Alternative perspectives are offered that frame leadership for inclusiveeducation in terms of broader concepts such as ‘‘leadership for learning.’’

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

To locate recently published empirical studies on inclusive leadership,we searched several data bases (e.g., ERIC, PsychLit, Wilson Web, UKsources) using key words such as leadership, inclusive education, students withdisabilities, culturally linguistically diverse students, and professional devel-opment. In addition, we consulted with a panel of experts in the UK andthe USA who suggested exemplary research related to inclusive educationleadership and published from 2006 to 2010.

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN212

National Policies that Govern School Leaders: Context

Como me la toquen bailo.

I will dance to whatever music is played.

– Mexican dichos, Hart (1999)

The constantly changing political contexts in the UK (England) and theUSA that have brought changes in educational policies, rules, and regulationsrequire changes in the management and leadership foci that govern all schooladministrations, especially those who are committed to leadership forinclusive education. In this section, policy background is briefly discussedwithin the framework of the timeline shown in the appendix. As of 2010,with a new Tory government in the UK, educators and administrators(particularly head teachers) are confused about what will happen. Forexample, the idea of the free school is essentially a return to traditionalteaching styles, and so is the movement to increase the number of specialschools; and the stance on children with emotional and behavioral difficultiesthat gives head teachers more autonomy to exclude pupils. All are polaropposites of the spirit of inclusion. Concurrently, in the USA, educators andadministrators alike are speculating about how the new Obama administra-tion (elected into office in 2009) might enact new education legislationreflecting Obama’s campaign platforms (see McNeil & Nevin, in press, foradvice posed by university educators and advocates to President Obama andhis policy makers). To become an inclusive school, we argue, much of whathas been achieved can be attributed to Labor initiatives in the UK andDemocratic Party initiatives in the USA (beginning with the Education forAll Handicapped Children Act of 1975).

As shown in the timeline in the appendix, for almost 30 years in both theUSA and the UK, school leadership for inclusive education has been part ofan agenda for educational change that has had at its core two competingarguments. On the one hand, the provision for an education that cancompete globally has given rise to consideration about standards, schooleffectiveness, and the mercerization of education. On the other hand, schoolleaders must balance excellence with equity, equality, social justice, anddiscrimination resulting in the complexities of inclusive education.

The process of major reforms for the education of children with specialeducation needs (SEN) and disabilities in the UK started in the 1980s. Thefirst important step was the 1981 Education Act (Department for Education[DfE], 1981) following the influential Warnock Report (Department forEducation and Science [DES], 1978) which endorsed the notions ofintegration and mainstreaming, and in removing the medical-based

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 213

classification opened the way for the concept of special educational needs(SEN) and a need-based provision of educational resources. Although notinclusion as we now it, the Act was a fundamental first step in paving theway for an acknowledgement of the rights of all children for a meaningfuland nondiscriminatory educational provision. The most important reform,however, took place with 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA, Departmentfor Education and Skills [DfES], 1988). The act had consequences for therole of school heads, and thus for the nature of school leadership.

Based on demands to improve student achievement, the 1988 EducationReform Act established reforms, such as parental choice, local managementof schools (LMS), the National Curriculum, and most controversially, anational framework for assessing student performance with tests at ages 7,11, 14, and 16. Although the framework was aimed at raising standards andmaking the teachers accountable, Rouse and McLaughlin (2007) emphasizethat ‘‘the involvement of children who experience difficulties in learning wasnot considered’’ (p. 87). Despite this omission, both the idea of a commoncurriculum and national standards were cast within the overall principle thatall children are entitled to a broad, balanced, and relevant curriculum asstated in the Dearing report (Dearing, 1994).

Many changes and developments have transpired between 1997 and 2007when publication of the Green Paper Excellence for All: Meeting SpecialEducational Needs (Department for Education and Employment [DfEE],1997). However, not all of the changes were consistent with an inclusivepolicy (Florian & Rouse, 2001). The peculiar shared characteristic of thesereforms lies in their contradictory nature. In educational terms, the Laborgovernment championed both top-down accountability and a bottom-upsupport for self-reflection, standardization and personalized learning, socialinclusion and collaboration and individualism and competitiveness. Theseseemingly competing agendas require a constant discourse among policymakers, advocates (especially parents), educators, special services personnel(e.g., school psychologists, and social workers), and administrators.

With regard to the inclusion of students with SEN, the Labor governmentreiterated its commitment by acknowledging the rights of disabled students toeducation through the antidiscrimination legislation Special Education Needsand Disability Act (SENDA, Department for Education and Skills [DfES],2001a), the rights of all students with learning difficulties to academicachievement as in the report Removing Barriers to Achievement (DfES, 2004).Finally, the publication of Every Child Matters (ECM, DfES, 2003)addressed the issue of integrated support among parents, health and socialservices professionals, and school professionals with the aim of ensuring a

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN214

more holistic notion of student wellbeing. As a consequence of the ECMagenda, the late Labor government also championed a number of programsto facilitate the process of inclusion of students with SEN into regularlyoccurring social interactions of the school and classroom alongside studentswithout SEN (e.g., Sure Start, Connexions, Education Action Zones, andExcellence in the Cities). These programs emphasized the importance of thecollaboration between schools, between schools and other professional andservices, the collaboration between teachers and other adults in theclassroom, and the importance of school leadership (DfES, 2005a, 2005b).Finally, Labor tackled under-achievement by setting up and enforcing theNational Literacy and Numeracy strategies, aimed at supporting all childrento learn the basics in subjects such as Math and English.

The different and markedly contrasting discourses which underlinedthese policies have set boundaries around the implementation ofinclusive practices, and have led to conflicts of interests and practicalethical dilemmas for teachers and school leaders. For example, placingstudents in classrooms by ability, and the constant concern with thenegative effects that the inclusion of children designated with SEN mighthave on the other children, or on the overall achievement of the school(Audit Commission, 2002). We agree with Rouse and Florian (2006)when they argue that the inclusion of children with SEN ‘‘need not beincompatible with the efficient education of other children’’ (p. 11). Yet, thecompatibility principle is still set against the proviso to be found in the 1981Education Act, the SEN Code of Practice (DfES, 2001b) and the SENDAAct (DfES, 2001a) by which the placement of children with special needs inschools with their peers is subject to indicators that such placement willnot negatively impact the education of the other children. Thereforeinclusion, far from having become a norm, is still open to challenges andconflicts of interest.

These reforms based their validity on two related discourses. The first onecentered on blaming teachers for their unprofessional attitude and thesecond used the first to endorse and validate the imperative of changing theway teachers taught and schools were organized, managed, and led (Fullan,1991; Hargreaves, 1994). The discourse of change embeds implications forboth leadership and inclusion. First, the need for change was predicated onthe basis that teachers and school leaders could be blamed for the under-performance. Frustrated and deprofessionalized, many teachers left, thusleading to teacher shortages. With regard to the professionalization of schoolleaders, the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) was establishedin 2001 with the purpose of providing training and research-based knowledge

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 215

on the changing features and objective of the new school leadership team.Simultaneously, the same discourse supported the growth of a different viewof professionalism based on practitioners’ ability to think critically abouttheir practice and carry out their own self-evaluation through individuallybased or action research-based studies.

Historically, special education in the USA paralleled much of the UK’sdevelopment. However, in the USA, the public school movement was firstestablished to empower citizens (i.e., white male landowners) to becomeinformed voters. The separate system emerged wherein special classes orresidential schools were established for children with specific categories ofdisability like mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or sensory impair-ments. Motivations for the separate system ranged from providinghumanitarian treatment of vulnerable children in alleviating or removingthe children who were viewed as interrupting the routines of the generaleducation system.

As seen in the appendix, the USA legislative mandates, such as theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004(Public Law No. 108–446), focused attention on students with increasinglydiverse learning characteristics achieving high academic performance ingeneral education. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (PublicLaw No. 107–110) required school personnel to meet high standardsfor both teacher and student performance. Both mandates are intended tofoster conditions for (a) better instruction and learning for all students,(b) equality of opportunity to learn (especially to gain access to the samecurriculum offered to those who are considered to be skilled enough to earnscores in the middle and upper ranges of the normal distribution), and(c) excellence in performance for all students and their teachers.

In contrast to segregated special education, inclusive education or inclusionis viewed as a process where schools welcome, value, support, and empowerall students in shared environments and experiences for the purpose ofattaining the goals of education (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). However,today’s teachers and administrators agree they are underprepared to teachor manage schools and classrooms attended by an increasingly diversestudent population. They argue they do not know how to teach studentswith SEN or students from diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly thosewho are speakers of languages other than English, or students fromethnically and culturally diverse heritages. In other words, inclusive schoolleaders and their faculty are looking for viable examples of inclusive schoolsas well as professional development opportunities that prepare them to dealwith the complexities they routinely face in their 21st century classrooms

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN216

given the increasing diversity of their learners: racial, ethnic, linguistic, socioeconomic status (or class), and disability/ability.1

Models of Leadership: The Effective School Leader in aTime of Professional and Political Changes

This complex state of affairs described earlier has created a diverse, lively,but also incongruent and complex response to the challenge of buildinginclusive schools and support inclusive teaching practices. Emerging fromrecent research, there is some evidence of new roles and responsibilities forschool leaders who implement inclusive education models and practices(e.g., distributed leadership roles and viewed diversity as a strength asdescribed by Kugelmass & Ainscow, 2004; and social justice roles asdescribed by Jean-Marie, Normore, & Brooks, 2009).

The development of theory and practice of school leadership follows thethree main educational developments highlighted in the previous section.As a consequence, the study of school leadership has identified a variety ofmodels, some taken from management and business, and some replicatingthe traditional view of professional practice. Moreover, the notion of whatschool leadership is, what it should do, and what the features of a goodleader have become entangled with changes in political and socialexpectations. We argue that two main theories have shaped our under-standing and the practice of leadership: school effectiveness and schoolimprovement.

The new Framework for School Self-Evaluation (SSE, Office for Standardsin Education [Ofsted], 2010) clearly identifies leadership as a pivotal factor inpromoting improvement and contributing to the well-being of the childrenand community cohesion by ensuring the quality of education that meets theneeds of range of pupils. Although focusing on raising achievement, effectiveleadership also promotes the spiritual, moral, and social development of thepupils. In complying with the SSE, school leaders must not only prove theirability to manage resources, but also to work collaboratively with parentsand school governors. This means documenting how assessment proceduresensure that all pupils succeed (including those most at risk); evaluatinglearning and teaching; inspecting by direct observation on school sites inclassrooms; assessing how well schools promote equality of opportunity andhow effectively they tackle discrimination; checking schools’ procedures forsafeguarding pupils’ wellbeing.

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 217

Being a school leader who can achieve both high standards and inclusionis a daunting challenge. Beaney (2006, pp. 9–10) suggests that school leaderscan do this by promoting early intervention, removing barriers to learning,raising expectations and achievement by differentiating instruction forchildren with SEN, and improving partnerships. The question arises as tohow school leaders can do this when ‘‘there is no single form of managementand leadership capability that enhances performance in the same way in allsituations, and no single way in which management and leadershipdevelopment creates this capability’’ (Burgoyne, Hirsh, & Williams, 2004,p. 2). Instead, there are many different forms of management and leadershipdevelopment that can generate many different forms of management andleadership capability, which in turn stimulate an increase in teacher andlearner performance in different ways. Questions that school leaders mustresolve within their communities of practitioners include: Do we agree withthose who claim that inclusion is an ideology and a dogma which, in thewords of Mary Warnock (2010), is ‘‘possibly the most disastrous legacy ofthe 1978 Report’’ (p. 19)? How are school leaders and their faculty to answerto the changing demands for accountability? If, there is no single model ofeffective leadership, how can leadership for inclusion be promoted? Andwhat does it mean to lead an inclusive school? The results from dynamicongoing discourse provide inclusive school leaders with an understanding ofthe needs of the community, helping to guide the professional developmentof all involved in implementing reforms.

Paradoxically, the statement by Burgoyne et al. (2004) supports theconceptual understanding of inclusion as an ongoing process which isresponsive to local situations and requirements and which supports thenotion of access and participation. Lewis and Murphy’s (2008) views of thefeatures of successful leadership included key elements such as the ability tomanage change, information and finances, and the capacity to define theculture of the school, developing future leaders, enhancing self-managementand self-development, and sustaining a responsive leadership style.

In a study carried out under the aegis of the NCSL, Chapman et al. (2009)emphasized the important role that local context plays in establishing andsupporting new leadership patterns. They showed how both innovative andtraditional approaches worked in combination rather than in antithesis,although innovative approaches were not always seen as liberating by somestaff. Chapman et al. (2009) thus acknowledged that ‘‘head teachers[principals] have been drawn into significant cross-boundary leadershipactivity, connecting at a strategic level with governors, other services, thewider community and local and national agencies’’ (p. 2).

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN218

Within this changing context, new models of leadership are emerging inresponse to how schools approach the task of ensuring both raisingstandards and providing for inclusion. One of the most visible changes is tobe found in how individual schools work with each other. So, side-by-sidewith the traditional single school model, new models have emerged, such aspartnerships, collaborations, federations, academies, and trusts. The NCSL(2009) acknowledged that ‘‘these organizational models necessitate con-sideration of internal models of leadership such as executive headship,consultant leadership, co-leadership structures, job share and otherapproaches to leadership’’ (p. 5).

Based on the earlier findings, we conclude that the traditional idea ofschools as detached institutions has become an historical artifact. The newleader, in the form of the head teacher of a school (in the USA, principal), isneither a manager, nor the authoritative figure we imagine or rememberfrom our own past experiences in traditional schools. Rather, the schoolleader is the driving visionary force behind the school. He or she takes onmultiple roles, such as (a) facilitator, (b) business person, (c) ambassador forthe school. Frameworks such as distributed leadership, collaborativeleadership, culturally relevant leadership, leadership for social justice, andleadership for inclusive education are blurred, yet central to successfulimplementation of policies and practices and at the same time includestudents who have previously been marginalized and excluded.

Leadership for Inclusive Schools: Thinking Outside of the Box

What is evident from the reports described earlier is that schools in 21stcentury USA and UK do not function in the traditional way. They are nolonger isolated buildings detached from the concerns of parents, remotefrom social battles. Instead, 21st century schools are part of complexnetwork of educational and social services which center on children andtheir families. This new way of operating promotes collaboration amongdifferent services such as health, education, and the social services, functionappropriately. To empower school professionals to function in ways thatfoster collaboration, communication, and develop more flexible andculturally responsive education of their students, teachers and other adultsmust be offered multiple professional development options. The professio-nalization of the school workforce, initiated in full after the NationalWorkload Agreement (DfES, 2003), fits within new models of leadershipwhich stress participation, collaboration, democratic organizational

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 219

structures, and distributive leadership. However, the major question to beresolved here is, in what ways might distributive leadership models reflectideas of inclusive schools when there is no agreement on the meaning(Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003) or positive effects of distributiveleadership (Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, & Hopkins, 2006)?

In 1998, Florian summarized the debate about defining the features ofinclusion and inclusive education by saying that ‘‘to date, none of theproposed definitions have gained currency in the field, suggesting that atruly satisfactory definition has yet to emerge’’ (Florian, 1998, p. 16).Although the debate is still open today, inclusion has been either understoodin terms of the rights of children with special needs and/or disabilities forequal educational opportunities (Bailey, 1998), or more generally applicableto ensuring participation and equal opportunities for all children (Clark,Dyson, & Millward, 1995; Potts, 1997; Rouse & Florian, 1996).

Achieving inclusion requires more than differentiating the curriculum. Itrequires a restructuring, even a transformation of ideas about schooling andlearning in such a way that the staff reaches out for all learners (Ainscow,1999, 2000, 2005; Carrington, 1999; Carrington & Elkin, 2002). Suchrestructuring creates its future by continuously expanding the capacity ofleaders, educators, and staff. Inclusive schools and their leaders, therefore,are valued for their ability to change, to accommodate for diversity, to meetthe learning needs of all members, and to becoming learning organizationsthemselves (a term first described by Senge, 1992). This process requiresschools to develop new teaching responses that can stimulate and supportthe participation of all learners (Ainscow, 1998).

Research on teachers’ perspectives about inclusion highlights a funda-mental dilemma in terms of their views about teaching and their perceptionsof disability (Croll & Moses, 2000; Jordan & Stanovich, 2003). Althoughteachers accept the egalitarian philosophy of inclusion, major obstacles limittheir implementation of inclusive practices such as, managerial barriers thatdiscourage teacher collaboration, evaluating teacher effectiveness in terms ofmeasurable performance on an individual teacher basis rather than on acollaborative teacher team basis, and other techniques that reduce theautonomy and professionalism of teachers who undertake the mastery ofteaching (Florian, 2009a, 2009b; Florian & Kershner, 2009; Jordan &Stanovich, 2003; Robertson, 1996).

Both the notions of well-being and functioning are particularly relevant toan inclusive discourse since inclusion is predicated on the idea that wherechildren learn, that is their placement, is pivotal to their successful learning.Placement in mainstream classes allows children with SEN to learn along

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN220

with their peers. The issue of placement of students with SEN in segregatedspecial education service delivery systems has a long history. Although theOfsted report Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are taught? (Ofsted, 2006)claims that children with difficulties in learning do better in mainstreamschools, parents need special assurances to change their past perceptionsthat special schools are better options. The assumptions that special schoolsand special education are better than inclusive schools rely on the sameinclusive discourse of care and support for the personal well-being of thechild. However, an inclusive school is one that is concerned with theeducation, learning and success of all its children and which, as Hart,Drummond, and McIntyre (2007) suggest, presupposes going beyondassumptions about fixed-abilities and specialized teacher knowledge.Ainscow, Booth, and Dyson (2006, p. 25) characterize inclusive schools asthose which are (a) concerned with all children and young people in theschool; (b) focused on presence, participation, and achievement; and (c)view inclusion as a never-ending process. Building and sustaining inclusiveschools requires them to articulate a response to uncertainty, create acollective capacity for problem-solving, and respond to a wider range ofpupils needs (Leithwood, Jantzik, & Steinbach, 1999).

In a comparative study of inclusive schools in the USA, England, andPortugal conducted by Kugelmass and Ainscow (2004), personnel in inclusiveschools, as supported by external agencies and local authorities or districtcouncils, (a) viewed diversity as a resource, (b) established collaborativeworking interactions as the norm; and (c) relied on a distributed model ofleadership. In putting forward their views about the benefits of distributiveleadership, Kugelmass and Ainscow suggest that distributed leadership relieson: (a) ‘‘uncompromising commitment to inclusive education; (b) clearlydefined roles, responsibilities, and boundaries; (c) collaborative interpersonalstyle; (d) frequent and active use of problem solving and conflict resolutionskills; (e) agreeing to understand and appreciate other people’s expertise; and(f) ensuring supportive relationship with staff’’ (p. 139).

Devecchi (2007) and Devecchi and Rouse (2010) used an ethnographicapproach to document collaboration between teachers and teachingassistants. Inclusion as implemented in their classrooms worked becauseteachers and their assistants crossed professional boundaries and respondedflexibly to the instructional and disciplinary needs of the children. Theresults can motivate inclusive leaders to practice a willingness to actcollaboratively in response to challenges and problems and to implement adistributed leadership approach at all levels of the organization. Everymember of the school who has a direct or indirect impact on the children’s

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 221

learning and well-being becomes empowered to practice a leadership role. Incontrast, Raffo and Gunter (2008) consider policy development to be thefocus of inclusive leadership, especially in relation to tackling socialinjustices, inequalities, and marginalization of those who are different fromthe norm. The discourse of efficiency conforms to the policy of remodelingand modernizing the school workforce through the rationalization of rolesand responsibilities and the erosion of professional authority (Gunter,2007).

However, this instrumental understanding of leadership is not exhaustiveof the complexity of ways in which school leaders are expected to work.Thus, school leaders must respond to local situations. In fostering the newlocalism (Raffo & Gunter, 2008), school leaders must acquire and use‘‘detailed knowledge of the school and its communities [in order to] reducebarriers to learning that emanate from outside school and that may requiremulti-agency [interactions] with other professionals and communityorganizations’’ (p. 405). In turn, this localized response can be effectiveonly when school leaders elicit opinions and ideas from people whopreviously have not participated in decision making processes.

According to Rayner (2009), inclusive leadership is predicated on thedynamic interplay of action principles (e.g., integrative, relational, andfunctional) aimed at integrating and synthesizing the knowledge required tosustain inclusive schools. Along similar lines, Devecchi (2007) conceptua-lized the inclusive school as one that is person-centered, that is the one thatdoes not view staff and children as instrument to the achievement of externalgoals, but rather values their well-being as being a goal. McMurray’sdistinction between functional and personal dimensions and Fielding’s(2000) comment that the functional aspect should be instrumental to thedevelopment of personal relations emphasize how school cultures can becreated in to that leadership functions are not only distributed but activelydiffused across all levels of the organizational structure.

It is in this fluid context that research conducted for the National Councilof School Leadership defined effective leadership in terms of distributedleadership; sustainable leadership; democratic structures; collaboration andreciprocal participation; and values which are conducive to breaking downbarriers and accepting diversity. This bring us to conceptualize leadership forinclusion as not just residing in the features of the school leader (i.e., theheadteacher or principal or superintendent) and his or her ability to managepeople and knowledge, budgets and mandates, and so on. Rather, in aninclusive school, every member of staff must practice being a leader. This isparticularly important with regard to the role of teachers, and indirectly to

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN222

the role of other adults supporting teachers and children, despite argumentsraised by Leithwood et al. (2006) that, if everyone is considered a leader,‘‘the concept loses all unique meaning and significance’’ (p. 10). Suchredefinitions of leadership are required to make it possible to respond tochanges demanded by past and current educational policies in England andthe USA.

Inclusive school leaders in Villa and Thousand (2005), Salisbury (2006),and Shepherd (2006) employed a distributed functions theory to createinclusive schooling experiences for a K-12 population while simultaneouslyimplementing effective teaching and collaborative learning practices thathave been field tested in K-12 schools in the USA and Canada. Villa andThousand show how school leaders, working with their communities,embraced an inclusive schooling approach, changed the teaching culturefrom solely competitive learning to include cooperative learning, encour-aged collaborative teaming among divergent professionals, implementedmulti-age grouping for students to learn from peers of varying ages, ensuredculturally responsive communication and instruction derived from multi-cultural education experts, explicitly taught the social skills necessary for allstudents to engage in meaningful discourse, and applied educationaltechnology to differentiate instructional options. These experiences canencourage inclusive school leaders elsewhere to realize that the ‘‘how to doit’’ side of the inclusive education debate is being resolved community bycommunity.

Thus, for purposes of this chapter, therefore, we agree with Florian andRouse (2001) who describe inclusive schools as ‘‘those that meet the dualcriteria of enrolling a diverse student population and improving academicstandards for all pupils’’ (p. 410). Moreover, their definition resonates withVilla and Thousand (2005) who wrote that inclusive education ‘‘is anattitude or belief system, not an action or set of actions. Inclusion is a way oflife, a way of living together based on a belief that each individual is valuedand dos belong’’ (p. v). In other words, our working definition of leadershipfor inclusive education implies that inclusive school leaders can actualizeinclusive schooling within their local communities and schools.

In summary, we have reflected on the political changes that have definedand shaped the present educational system in England and the USA. We havepointed out not only how policies are simultaneously supporting inclusionbut also hindering it. Leaders are asked to confront changes by establishingintegrated and multiprofessional teams which are related and deeply locatedwithin professional and geographical communities. In doing this, leaders donot relinquish their authority, but redefine it in terms of broadening the

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 223

participation of teachers and other adults in taking charge of their teaching.In this sense, the philosophy of inclusion has had a major impact on theevolution of leadership. Yet, there are still challenges ahead. The resurgenceof a standards-based model of education and the mounting criticismof inclusion, mainly in terms of mainstreaming, beg a number of questions.How can school leaders cope with the demands of contrasting policies? Willthe new policies change leadership models from participatory and democraticones to more traditional autocratic ones? Will school leaders still view theinclusion of children with SEN as a priority, or will they concentrate on theeducation of those students who can add value to their school exam results?Is there a future for inclusion? And what will the future look like?

A FUTURE WITHOUT INCLUSION, OR,

A FUTURE FOR INCLUSION?

To frame the issue of leadership for inclusive education in the new politicalrealities, in addition to engaging in discourse to resolve the seeminglycontradictory mandates that dominate individual national discourses (asdescribed earlier), there is a more global awareness to consider. Inclusiveeducation leaders can focus on implementing the rights of ALL children asexpressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations,1948) were endorsed by 100% of UN members including the UK and theUSA while the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) which extends thoserights to citizens (and children) with disabilities. As noted in the section onthe US policies, civil rights movement of the 1960s yielded sweeping changesthat resulted in desegregation-based race or ethnicity. Affirming that separateeducation is not equal education for students with disabilities, the USgovernment established the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in1975; most recently reauthorized in the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Improvement Act of 1997. The Salamanca Statement was adoptedthat same year by governments in over 94 nations and over 20 nongovern-mental organizations. In October 1997, the UK Government endorse theSalamanca statement in Excellence for All.

We note that the Salamanca Statement can effectively guide inclusiveschool leaders and their respective constituencies (e.g., teachers, teacherassistants and specialists, staff, parents, community members, and thevoting citizenry) toward becoming an inclusive school.

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN224

(a) Every child has a fundamental right to education and must be given the opportunity

to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of learning; (b) Every child has unique

characteristics, interests, abilities and learning needs; (c) Education systems

should be design and educational programs implemented to take into account the wide

diversity of these characteristics and needs; (d) Those with special educational needs must

have access to mainstream schools which should accommodate them within a child-

centered pedagogy capable of meeting these needs; and (e) Mainstream schools with this

inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes,

creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education

for all. Moreover, they provide an effective education for the majority (without special

needs) and improve the efficiency and ultimately the cost-effectiveness of the entire

education system.

An Emerging Model for Inclusive Pedagogy

In inclusive schools, teachers realize they must set aside their prior theoriesof learning and teaching that marginalize and classify their students. Newways of conceptualizing pedagogy can help them teach in more responsiveways. Florian and Kershner (2009) suggest that an inclusive pedagogy isresponsive to the student’s progress and needs. They argue that teachersneed a different way of thinking about causality and blame as well as a moreflexible understanding of the relationship between the various pedagogicalelements involved. When teaching is inclusive of all learners (i.e., inclusivepedagogy), teachers do not deny individual differences among students.Instead the differences are not construed as problems inherent withinlearners. Problems are framed as instructional design or pedagogy that lieswithin the expertise of classroom teachers to resolve Florian and Black-Hawkins (in press) suggest that inclusive pedagogy goes beyond the notionof fixed ability and normal distributions. Instead, inclusive pedagogystresses the notion of learning without limits. Florian and Linkletter (inpress) argue that, to meet this high standard, teachers must frame teachingand learning as the task of developing a rich learning community wheremultiple and different learning opportunities are sufficiently made availablefor everyone. This would ensure that all learners are able to participate inclassroom life.

Research on the Emerging Theory of Positive Psychology

School psychologists and clinical psychologists who work with children(especially those with emotional and behavioral disabilities) and their parents

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 225

and families are also changing their conceptual frameworks. For example,concepts from positive psychology suggest a theoretical mechanism behindthe success of collaboration among school personnel with differingprofessional disciplines and perspectives (Conoley & Conoley, 2010). Toencourage school personnel to think and act differently, Nevin, Smith, andMcNeil (2008) synthesized the core concepts from critical pedagogy (Freire,1972), disability studies (Linton, 1998; Gabel, 2005), critical psychology (Fox& Prilleltensky, 1997), and self-determination (Palmer & Wehmeyer, 2003).Specifically, school personnel can move from the traditional deficit-basedtreatment model for understanding the development of students with SEN toan emerging strengths-based, person-centered supportive model. The capabilityapproach emerging in the UK has been explicated by Florian, Dee, andDevecchi (2008). The capability approach recognizes that every individualwith disabilities is a person and that society has the duty and responsibility toacknowledge the person’s right to contribute meaningfully to society and thecommunity he or she lives in. In other words, inclusive school leaders whoembrace concepts from positive psychology can encourage school psychol-ogists and social workers who consult with educators and families to shift thefocus away from what the students can not do toward how the students’ wellbeing and happiness might be enhanced.

Emerging Role: Leadership for Social Justice

In a comprehensive review of literature published over the past 30 years, Jean-Marie et al. (2009) explored and extended themes in contemporary educationalresearch related to leadership preparation that is focused on social justice.They emphasize the importance of preparing leaders who can advocate andwork toward correction or amelioration of socially unjust schoolingpractices, administrative rules and regulations that require school leaders toact in morally unjust ways, and mandates that prevent school personnelfrom participating in their role of social justice leaders. Owing tocultural transformations and shifts in demographics toward increasedpopulation diversity, social injustices have become more prominent(e.g., over representation of blacks and minorities in special educationclasses). In other words, inclusive school leaders must become ‘‘committedadvocates for educational change that makes a meaningful and positivechange in the education and lives of traditionally marginalized and oppressedstudents’’ (p. 4).

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN226

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

People seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy.

– Oliver Goldsmith, 1728–1774

People improve when they have other models, as Oliver Goldsmith advisedthree centuries ago! After reviewing the extant literature on emerging roles forinclusive school leaders, we feel encouraged that a future with inclusiveeducation is achievable: inclusive school leaders can motivate and inspireothers to work toward implementing inclusive school practices in their localcommunities. As a way to emphasize the salient features of our review andcritique of the literature, we pose implications for policy, practice, andleadership preparation. A future with inclusion can become our reality if allschool leaders, but especially those who are committed to actualizing andcreating inclusive schools, consider the following implications for theirprofessional lives.

Implications for Policy, Practice, and Leadership Preparation

From a policy perspective, inclusive school leaders become active in localand state politics to ensure legislative support for inclusion of marginalizedpopulations. Students with SEN can act as an advisory group who providecritical feedback on what it feels like to be included.

From the perspective of leadership preparation and practice a strongimplication to be drawn from the research is that inclusive school leadersmust surround themselves with professional development activities relatedto their leadership skills, their constituencies knowledge and skills, andmeaningful discourse with students with SEN as an advisory group whoprovide critical feedback on what it feels like to be included. Leaderscan develop their awareness of ‘‘otherness’’ such as how people becomestigmatized or stereotyped on the basis of ability/disability. Such anawareness might be an important factor in leadership for inclusive educationgiven most people’s reluctance to speak about individual differences.Professors and graduate students in leadership preparation program mustmake special efforts to showcase inclusive school leaders as part of theirinstructional team (as co-professors, as supervisors of administrative interns,etc.). Aspiring and practicing inclusive school leaders are more likely to besuccessful in their reform efforts when they are aware of how difficult it is tosustain school wide inclusive reforms (as per Ryndak, Reardon, Benner, &Ward, 2007; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006).

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 227

The inclusive school leader must balance the evidence that inclusiveschools are those where leadership actions are distributed and diffusedacross the whole school and in which every member of staff is responsiblefor leading his or her practice. However, the inclusive school leader mustalso balance the evidence that individual schools are now working incollaboration with other schools in their locality or with other agencies andprofessionals. Consequently, the traditional view of practice as eitherlocated only in the classroom, or only in the hands of the school principalor head teacher should be replaced with the notion of extended andmultiprofessional practice.

NOTES

1. A note about school populations in the USA: The demographics of America’sclassrooms reflect increasing diversity along multiple dimensions (race, culture,ethnicity, heritages that reflect multiple cultures, gender preferences and sexualorientation, religious practices, and so on). There is an increase of students fromculturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) heritages in classrooms all over the USA.In addition to the presence of African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, ethnicityitself has become increasingly diverse with the advent of immigrants from SoutheastAsia, Haiti, and other areas of the globe. As cited by Paige (2004), 4.1 millionstudents (8.5%) were English Language Learners. By the year 2010 according toSchwartz and Exeter (1989), immigration, migration, and fertility patterns indicatethat about 38% of people under the age of 18 in the USA will be African, Asian, orHispanic-American. By 2010, more than half of the children will be from minorityand ethnically diverse heritage in Hawaii (80%), New Mexico (77%), California(57%), Texas (57%), New York (53%), Florida (53%), Louisiana (50%), and theDistrict of Columbia (93%). In an additional 19 states, children from African,Hispanic, Native, or Asian American heritage will make up 25% of the population.Add to this the notion that students with SEN and disabilities from culturally andlinguistically diverse families increased from 33% in 1992 to 46.7% in 2001 (U.S.Department of Education, 2001). Paige (2004) emphasized these demographics whenciting the 6.4 million students (13.4%) who are served in federally supportedprograms for students with disabilities. In other words, we can say with confidencethat diversity in America’s classrooms is here to stay.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful for the contributions from our panel of experts: Lani Florianand Martyn Rouse (University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK),Cap Peck (professor and former director school of education, University of

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN228

Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Lynne Cook (professor, former dean,School of Education California State University, Dominguez Hills), MichaelWehmeyer (professor, University of Kansas, former Remedial And SpecialEducation editor), Katie Shepherd (professor, University of Vermont, andco-author of Shepherd and Hasazi (2007), in the Sage Handbook of SpecialEducation), Herb Rieth (professor, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA),Len Burrello (professor, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA), andRichard Rose (professor, Center for Special Needs Education and Research,University of Northampton, UK).

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M. (1998). Reaching out to all learners: Opportunities and possibilities. Bradford,

England: Keynote presentation given at the North of England Education Conference.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London, UK: Falmer

Press.

Ainscow, M. (2000). Developing inclusive schools: Implications for leadership. Nottingham,

England: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change?

Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London,

UK: Routledge.

Audit Commission. (2002). Statutory assessment and statements for SEN: In need of a review?

London, UK: Audit Commission.

Bailey, J. G. (1998). Medical and psychological models in special needs education. In: C. Clark,

A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds), Theorising special education. London, UK: Routledge.

Beaney, J. (2006). Reaching out, reaching in. Implications for leaders of mainstream schools and

their support service providers in supporting children with an autistic spectrum disorder.

Nottingham, England: National College for School Leadership.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership. Nottingham,

England: National College for School Leadership.

Burgoyne, J., Hirsh, W., & Williams, S. (2004). The development of management and leadership

capability and its contribution to performance: The evidence, the prospects and the research

need. London, UK: Department for Education and Skills (DfES).

Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 3(3), 257–268.

Carrington, S., & Elkin, J. (2002). Comparison of a traditional and an inclusive culture.

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(1), 1–16.

Chapman, C., Ainscow, M., Bragg, J., Gunter, H., Hull, J., Mongon, D., Mujis, D., & West, M.

(2009). Emerging patterns of school leadership. Current practice and future directions.

Nottingham, England: National College for School Leadership.

Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (1995). Towards inclusive schools: Mapping the field. In:

C. Clark, A. Dyson & A. Millward (Eds), Towards inclusive schools? (pp. 164–178).

London, UK: David Fulton.

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 229

Conoley, J. C., & Conoley, C. W. (2010). Why does collaboration work? Linking positive

psychology and collaboration. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20,

75–82.

Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: Education professionals’ views of

inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1(1), 1–12.

Dearing, R. (1994). The national curriculum and its assessment: Final report. London, UK:

School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA).

Department for Education (DfE). (1981). Education act. London, UK: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1997). Excellence for all children:

Meeting special educational needs. London, UK: HMSO.

Department for Education and Science (DES). (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the

committee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people.

London, UK: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (1988). Education reform act 1988. London, UK:

HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001a). Special Educational Needs and Disability

Act (SENDA). London, UK: HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001b). Special Educational Needs Code of

Practice. London, UK: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). Every child matters. London, UK:

HMSO.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004). Removing barriers to achievement. The

government’s strategy for SEN. London, UK: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005a). Higher standards, better schools for all,

more choice for parents and pupils. Cm 6677. London, UK: HM Government.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005b). Extended schools: Access to opportunities

and services for all. A prospectus. London, UK: DfES.

Devecchi, C. (2007). Teachers and teaching assistants working together: Inclusion, collaboration,

and support in one secondary school. Unpublished PhD thesis. Faculty of Education,

University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Devecchi, C., & Rouse, M. (2010). An exploration of the features of effective collaboration

between teachers and teaching assistants in secondary schools. Support for Learning,

25(2), 91–99.

Fielding, M. (2000). Community, philosophy and education policy: Against effectiveness

ideology and the immiseration of contemporary schooling. Journal of Education Policy,

15(4), 397–415.

Florian, L. (1998). Inclusive practice: What, why and how? In: C. Tilstone, L. Florian &

R. Rose (Eds), Promoting inclusive practice. London, UK: Routledge.

Florian, L. (2009a). Preparing teachers to work in ‘‘schools for all’’. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 25(4), 533–534.

Florian, L. (2009b). Towards inclusive pedagogy. In: P. Hick, R. Kershner, & P. Farrell (Eds),

Towards a psychology of inclusion. London, UK: Routledge/Falmer.

Florian, L., Dee, L., & Devecchi, C. (2008). How can the capability approach contribute to

understanding provision for people with learning difficulties? Prospero, 14(1), 24–33.

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (in press). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational

Research Journal.

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN230

Florian, L., & Kershner, R. (2009). Inclusive pedagogy. In: H. Daniels, J. Porter & H. Lauder

(Eds), Routledge companion in education (pp. 173–183). London, UK: Routledge.

Florian, L., & Linkletter, H. (in press). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: using

inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of

Education.

Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2001). Inclusive practice in English secondary schools: Lessons

learned. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 300–412.

Fox, D., & Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Critical psychology: An introduction. London, UK: Sage

Publications.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teacher College Press.

Gabel, S. (2005). Introduction: Disability studies in education. In: S. L. Gabel (Ed.),

Disability studies in education: Readings in theory and method (pp. 1–20). New York:

Peter Lang.

Gunter, H. (2007). Remodelling the school workforce in England: A study in tyranny.

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(1). Available at http://www.jceps.com/

?pageID ¼ article&articleID ¼ 84. Retrieved on June 16, 2010.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teacher, changing time: Teachers’ work and culture in the

postmodern age. London, UK: Cassell.

Hart, S., Drummond, M. J., & McIntyre, D. (2007). Learning without limits: Constructing a

pedagogy free from determinist beliefs about ability. In: L. Florian (Ed.), Handbook of

special education (pp. 499–514). London, UK: Sage.

Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A., & Brooks, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing

21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership

Education, 4(1), 1–31.

Jordan, A., & Stanovich, P. (2003). Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about students

with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research on

Special Educational Needs, 3(11), Available at http://www.nasen.uk.com/ejournal/

000059_000184.php. Retrieved on June 17, 2010.

Kugelmass, J. W., & Ainscow, M. (2004). Leadership for inclusion: A comparison of inter-

national practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 4(3), 133–141.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.

Buckingham, England, UK: Open University Press.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school

leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. London, UK: DfES.

Lewis, P., & Murphy, R. (2008). Effective leadership. A brief review summarizing selected

literature on the evidence for effective school leadership. Nottingham: National College

for School Leadership.

Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University

Press.

McNeil, M., & Nevin, A. (in press). Dear Mr. President: Please keep hope alive for students

with disabilities. In: L. Monzo, & S. SooHoo (Eds), The hope for audacity – The slippery

slope of multicultural education. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

NCSL (2009). Introduction to Models of Leadership. A brief guide to 21st Century school

leadership and partnerships, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership

(NCSL).

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 231

Nevin, A., Smith, R. S., & McNeil, M. (2008). Shifting attitudes of related service providers:

A disability studies & critical pedagogy approach. International Journal of Whole

Schooling, 4(1), 1–12. Available at http://www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_

Schooling/IJWSIndex.htm. Retrieved on June 13, 2010.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2006). Inclusion: does it matter where pupils are

taught? Provision and outcomes in different settings for pupils with learning difficulties and

disabilities. London, UK: HMSO.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2010). The framework for school inspection.

London, UK: Ofsted.

Paige, R. (2004). A guide to education and no child left behind. Washington, DC: Department of

Education, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs.

Palmer, S. B., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Promoting self-determination in early elementary

school: Teaching self-regulated problem-solving and goal-setting skills. Remedial and

Special Education, 24, 115–126.

Potts, P. (1997, September). Developing a collaborative approach to the study of inclusive

education in more than one country. Paper presented to the European Conference on

Educational Research, Frankfurt am Main.

Raffo, C., & Gunter, H. (2008). Leading schools to promote social inclusion: Developing a

conceptual framework for analyzing research, policy, and practice. Journal of

Educational Policy, 23(4), 397–414.

Rayner, S. (2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: A proposition, some principles

and a model of inclusive pedagogy? Educational Review, 61(4), 433–447.

Robertson, S. L. (1996). Teachers’ work, restructuring and postfordism: Constructing the new

‘‘Professionalism’’. In: I. F. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds), Teachers’ professional lives

(pp. 28–55). London, England, UK: Falmer Press.

Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (1996). Effective inclusive schools: A study in two countries.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 71–85.

Rouse, M., & Florian, L. (2006). Inclusion and achievement: Student achievement in secondary

schools with higher and lower proportions of pupils designated as having special

educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(6), 481–493.

Rouse, M., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2007). Changing perspectives of special education in the

context of educational reform. In: L. Florian (Ed.), The sage handbook of special

education (pp. 85–106). London, UK: Sage.

Ryndak, D. L., Reardon, R., Benner, S. R., & Ward, T. (2007). Transitioning to and sustaining

district-wide inclusive services: A 7-year study of a district’s ongoing journey and its

accompanying complexities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,

32(4), 228–246.

Salisbury, C. (2006). Principals’ perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research and

Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 70–82.

Schwartz, J., & Exeter, T. (1989). All our children. American Demographics, 1(5), 34.

Senge, P. M. (1992). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

London, UK: Century Business.

Shepherd, K. (2006). Supporting all students: The role of principals in expanding general

education capacity through the use of response to intervention teams. Journal of Special

Education Leadership, 19(2), 30–38.

Shepherd, K., & Hasazi, S. (2007). Leadership for social justice and inclusion. In: L. Florian

(Ed.),Handbook of special education (pp. 475–485). London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.

CRISTINA DEVECCHI AND ANN NEVIN232

Sindelar, P., Shearer, D., Yendol-Hoppey, D., & Liebert, T. (2006). The sustainability of

inclusive school reform. Exceptional Children, 72(3), 317–331.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Adopted by United

Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Available at http://www.un.org/

Overview/rights.html and http://www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-udhr.html.

Retrieved on September 18, 2010.

UNESCO Salamanca Statement. (1994, June). Policy on Inclusion of Children with Disabilities.

Salamanca, Spain: World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality.

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Twenty-third annual report to Congress on the

implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Education.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Adopted by United Nations General Assembly

on December 10, 1948. Available at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html and http://

www.hrea.org/feature-events/simplified-udhr.html. Retrieved on June 15, 2010.

Villa, R., & Thousand, J. (2005). Creating an inclusive school (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating

student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Warnock, M. (2010). Special educational needs: A new look. In: M. Warnock, B. Norwich &

L. Terzi (Eds), Special educational needs: A new look (pp. 11–45). London, UK:

Continuum.

Leadership for Inclusive Schools and Inclusive School Leadership 233

APPENDIX. TIMELINE OF KEY UK AND US EDUCATION POLICIES THAT

GOVERN THE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOLS (1948–2010)

Policy Year Summary

The UK: Education Act 1944 1944 Ambitious attempt to regulate education post–WWII. It provided

universal free education, and three distinct types of school based on

children’s age, aptitude and ability. It described 11 categories of

handicap. Local education authorities were responsible for assessment

and provision

The USA 1960 Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of (AN – locate year)

Civil Rights Movement in the USA led to Brown v. Board of Education,

recommending desegregation on the basis of race/ethnicity for all

public schools in the USA. The courts decided that ‘‘separate schools’’

are inherently unequal. Parents and advocates of integrating those

with special education needs and developmental disabilities began to

lobby individual states for the right to send their children to

neighborhood schools with their peers (known as ‘‘mainstreaming.’’)

The US or UK Education of

Handicapped Children Act

1970

1975

Forerunner of the notion of ‘‘education for all’’ thus establishing

statutory guidelines for local authorities to provide education for all

children, including those with severe mental disabilities, who had

previously been the responsibility of the health services

The UK Warnock Report

(Warnock Committee of

Enquiry into the Education of

Handicapped Children and

Young People)

1978 Groundbreaking report with recommendations to:

– remove deficit-laden terminology

– promote more empowering terminology (i.e. learning difficulty and

special educational needs)

– classify children in mild, moderate, and severe learning difficulty

– use less pejorative term such as Special Education Needs (SEN) to

portray both children’s difficulties in learning and their abilities

CRISTIN

ADEVECCHIAND

ANN

NEVIN

234

– educate children with SEN according to teaching practices that meet

their needs, adapt the curriculum, change the climate and ethos of the

school environment, and establish partnerships with parents

– provide support to implement integration where students with SEN

were educated with their peers rather than in segregated settings, later

to become inclusion

Education Act 1981 1981 Major piece of legislation which operationalized the Warnock Report in

five key areas:

1. definition of SEN

2. identification and assessment of SEN

3. provision of education in mainstream settings

4. more powers to parents and local educational authorities

5. establishment of parents’ consultation and annual review of provision

The UK Education Reform Act

(ERA) 1988

1988 Major piece of legislation since the 1944 Education Act. Five main

reform areas:

1. Local management of schools and grant maintained schools were

created. Schools could opt out from being funded by local educational

authorities and be funded by central government. Headteachers and

governors would be responsible for the use of funding

2. The National Curriculum was introduced

3. Key stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 were introduced

4. Parents could choose, albeit with some limitations, a school as their

preferred choice

5. Leagues tables, publishing school exams results, were introduced

Framed within a notion of improvement as a result of free market

competition, the act had mixed impact on the education of children

with SEN. The most drastic result has been a covert reintroduction of

some forms of selection by ability

Leadersh

ipforInclu

siveSchoolsandInclu

siveSchoolLeadersh

ip235

United Nations Convention on

the Rights of the Child

1989 Emphasizes the right of children with disabilities to be educated in

mainstream schools (Article 23) and the right to education should be

applied to all children without discrimination, including

discrimination by disability (Article 2). Articles 3, 6, 12, 28, and 29

further support inclusive education

The UK ratified the Convention in 1991 and it has been a positive

stimulus for legislation that followed it

The UK Children Act 1989 1989 The Act was concerned with the welfare of all children and set out core

principles which formed the basis of much legislation in the first

decade of the 21st century including the revised Children Act 2004. It

put particular emphasis on the welfare of vulnerable children, and in

acknowledging factors such as race, culture, language, and religion. It

also stated that children have a right to know what is happening to

them

The UK Elton Report

(Discipline in Schools)

1989 Comprising 173 recommendations, the report addressed concerns about

‘‘disruptive behavior’’ and provided ideas on how such behavior could

be managed; key recommendations that governed inclusion of

children with SEN (especially those with developmental disabilities

that unfavorably impact their self control and appropriate social

interactions):

– advocated a whole school approach

– supported the idea of a set of principles shared by all in the school

(corporate responsibility and school-wide ethos)

– focused on development (i.e., teaching) socially acceptable behavior

instead of just punishing inappropriate behavior

– made a link between learning and the quality of teaching and social

interaction behaviors

– recommended a focus on learning how to manage social interaction

behavior (appropriate and inappropriate) in initial teacher training

US School Wide Positive

Behavior Supports

APPENDIX. (Continued)

Policy Year SummaryCRISTIN

ADEVECCHIAND

ANN

NEVIN

236

The UN Salamanca Statement 1994 The statement called for the inclusion of all disabled children in

education and proposed a framework for action for inclusive

education. Some of the vital points made are:

– make inclusion is budgetary priority to ensure that all children have

access to education

– enshrine inclusive education as a matter of law of policy

– ensure the involvement of parents, disabled people’s organization in

planning and decision making

– ensure that initial teacher training and in-service training addresses the

issue of inclusive education

The US Reauthorization of EHA

(P.L. 94–142) as Individuals

with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA)

1994

The UK Code of Practice 1994; 2001 Current document which sets out practical guidance for school governing

bodies, headteachers, teachers, and other professional in setting up,

monitoring, and assessing the provision for children with SEN. It is

valid for mainstream and special schools. The Code recommends that

schools adopt a ‘‘graduated approach’’ in meeting the needs of

children with SEN which includes the notions of ‘‘School Action,’’

‘‘School Action Plus,’’ and ‘‘Statementing.’’ The SEN Code 2001

stressed the importance of involving both parents and their children in

the process

The UK Disability

Discrimination Act 1995

1995 The core concepts in the DDA 1995 are:

� less favorable treatment for a reason related to a disabled person’s

disability

� failure to make a ‘‘reasonable adjustment’’

The UK Education Act 1996 1996 It synthesized past legislation on SEN. The most important features of

the Act are:

– a separate Cod of practice (see Code of Practice, 2001)

– a limit of 26 weeks to complete the process of statementing (a UK

term that means identifying and assessing the child to make sure the

child qualifies as SEN and thus becomes eligible for specialized

instruction and other support services)

Leadersh

ipforInclu

siveSchoolsandInclu

siveSchoolLeadersh

ip237

– right of parents and children with SEN to choose a school

– parents’ right to appeal and establishment of independent SEN

Tribunal

The UK Green Paper Excellence

for all Children

1997 Major policy stressing the notion of inclusion by emphasizing the right to

mainstream education, class teacher’s role and the need for early

interventionThe US Reauthorization if

IDEA (1994) as the

Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act

1997

The UK National Literacy and

Numeracy Strategies

1997 The strategies are mainly aimed at addressing underachievement in

English and Math for children with a variety of SEN needs. They

focused on intervention in primary education. The strategies had

implications also for the deployment of teaching assistants and were

part of the future changes to the school workforce

1998

The UK Meeting Special

Educational needs: A

Program for Action

1998 Subsequent to the Green paper, the Labour government set rules and

regulations for implementing inclusion in five key areas:

1. working with parents and involving children in the consultation

process

2. improving SEN framework (including SEN tribunal and revised Code

of Practice)

3. developing inclusive systems (LEA to publish inclusion arrangements,

links between special and mainstream schools, fair treatment in

admission process, financial support for inclusion projects)

APPENDIX. (Continued)

Policy Year Summary

CRISTIN

ADEVECCHIAND

ANN

NEVIN

238

4. developing knowledge and skills (teacher training, publication of

‘‘good practice guides,’’ future role of educational psychologists,

professional development for teachers working with SEN pupils)

5. working in partnership

The UK Inclusive Schooling:

Children with Special

Educational Needs

2001 Statutory guidelines for the practical operation of the statutory

framework contained in the Education Act 1996. including a core set

of principles such as:

– most children with SEN can be included in mainstream schools

– inclusive education should offer excellence and choice

– LEA should actively seek to remove barriers to learning and

participation

– Mainstream will not always be appropriate for all children

– Emphasis on working in partnership

The US No Child Left Behind

(Bush Administration)

2001 The notion that the education of children with SEN should be

compatible with the education of other children is by some viewed as a

limitation of the document

The UK Special Educational

Needs and Disability Act

(SENDA)

2003 The act affects all children provision and has important implication for

the education of children with disabilities. It further re-states major

previous legislation

The UK National Workload

Agreement

2003 Major document signed by government and teacher trade unions which

redefines the roles and responsibilities of teachers in order to establish

a more effective work-life balance. The document removed 23 tasks

from teachers’ working conditions and allocated many of them to

other adults in the school. The document is part of a set of policies

aimed at remodeling the school workforce by modernizing and

rationalizing it. As a result, the document leads to the establishment of

the role of Higher Level Teaching Assistants and clearer career

progression for adults working alongside teachers

Leadersh

ipforInclu

siveSchoolsandInclu

siveSchoolLeadersh

ip239

The UK National Standards for

Headteachers

2004 Informative guidelines that describe the roles and standards of effective

school leadership and management, emphasizing six competency

areas: Shaping the Future, Leading Learning and Teaching,

Developing Self and Working with Others, Managing the

Organization. Securing Accountability, Strengthening Community.

Headteachers’ responsibility are defined in this way:

The headteacher, working with others, is responsible for evaluating the

school’s performance to identify the priorities for continuous

improvement and raising standards; ensuring equality of opportunity

for all; developing policies and practices; ensuring that resources are

efficiently and effectively used to achieve the school’s aims and

objectives and for the day-to-day management, organization and

administration of the school (4).

The UK Every Child Matters 2004 Major legislation aimed at improving services provided to children and

families, using a child-centered process which integrated services,

encouraged multidisciplinary professional collaboration, required

school partnerships and partnerships with parents and children; five

core principles include: being healthy, staying safe, enjoying and

achieving, making a positive contribution, and economic well-being

The legislation has had a great impact on the way teachers and other

professional work together, on how school should provide for the

education and welfare of the children, and for the training and

professional development of the increased school and young people

workforce

APPENDIX. (Continued)

Policy Year Summary

CRISTIN

ADEVECCHIAND

ANN

NEVIN

240

The UK Children Plan 2007 A 10-year strategy, The Children’s Plan: Building Brighter Futures,

includes the following:

– strengthening support for families and especially in early years

– reviewing the child and mental health service provision

– ensuring nursery places for disadvantage areas

– provision of free childcare

– ensuring that parents receive up-to-date information about their

children’s progress, attendance and behavior

– commitment to improve initial teacher education

– a review of SEN framework for OFSTED inspection

The UK 2020 Children and

Young People’s Workforce

Strategy

2008

The UK Bercow Report 2008 Major review of services for children with SEN in the areas of speech and

communication needs. The report makes 40 recommendations

gathered around the crucial importance of communication,

importance of early identification and intervention, the need for a

continuum of services, multi-agency working relationships, removing

the present variable and unequal system of provision

The UK Children, Schools and

Families Act

2010 A consolidation Act which re-states the need for a framework for school

inspection in relation to effective SEN provision, and the right of

parents to appeal. It also reviews legislation with regard to the

establishment of new schools and academies

Leadersh

ipforInclu

siveSchoolsandInclu

siveSchoolLeadersh

ip241