teketel kassaye obola.pdf - hru-ir home
Post on 26-Apr-2023
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
i
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE
PRINCIPALS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS OF JIGJIGA
CITY ADMINISTRATION
MA Thesis
By
Teketel Kassaye Obola
JUN, 2019
Haramaya University
ii
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE
PRINCIPALS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS OF JIGJIGA
CITY ADMINISTRATION
A Thesis Submitted to the College of Education and Behavioral
Sciences, Department of Special Needs and Inclusive Education
Postgraduate Program Directorate
Haramaya University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Arts in Special Needs and Inclusive Education
By
Teketel Kassaye Obola
JUN, 2019
Haramaya University
iii
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
As thesis research advisor, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared under my guidance by Teketel Kassaye Obola entitled as Principals‘ Attitude
towards Inclusive Education in Government Schools of Jigjiga City Administration. We
recommend that it can be submitted as fulfilling the thesis requirements.
Dawit Negassa (PhD) __________________________
__________________
Major Advisor Signature Date
Tadesse Hailu (Asst. professor)________________________ __________________
Co-Advisor Signature Date
As members of the Board of Examiners of the M.A. thesis open defense examination, we
certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Teketel Kassaye Obola and
examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Special Needs and Inclusive Education.
________________________ ____________________ _________________
Chairperson Signature Date
________________________ ____________________ _________________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
________________________ ____________________ _________________
External Examiner Signature Date
Final acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final copy to the
Council of Graduated Studies (SGS) through the candidates department or school
graduate committee (DGC or SGC)
iv
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have
followed all ethical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data
analyses and completion of this thesis. All scholarly matter that is included in the thesis
has been given recognition through citation. I affirm that I have cited and referenced all
sources used in this document. An effort has been made to avoid any plagiarism in the
preparation of this thesis.
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Arts in Special Needs and Inclusive Education from the school of graduate studies at
Haramaya University. The thesis is deposited in the Haramaya University Library and is
made available to borrowers under the rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this
thesis has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma or certificate.
Brief quotations from this thesis may be used without special permission provided that
accurate and complete acknowledgements of the source are made. Requests for
permission for extended quotations from, or reproduction of, this thesis in whole or in
part may be granted by the Head of the School or Department or the Dean of the School
of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the
interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from
the author of the thesis.
Name: Teketel Kassaye Signature:
Date: May 2019 __________________
Department: Special Need Inclusive Education
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I take this opportunity to thank God for giving me the ability to bring my work to
completion. My profound gratitude goes to my supervisors, Dawit Negassa (PhD) and co-
advisor Tadesse Hailu (Asst.Prof) for their valuable professional assistance, commitment
and academic support as well as giving their constructive advice all along my research
work. My appreciation also extends to Ato Fekadu G/meskel, for his precious time to
read my paper and offering his expertise in improving my paper.
I would like to foreword my appreciation to my wife w/o Adanech Seambo and all my
sons and daughters including my brothers, sisters and relatives who gave me support in
my study directly and indirectly to proceed smoothly.
Furthermore, I sincerely thank for the privilege Haramaya University accorded me during
my stay at the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Special
Needs and Inclusive Education, postgraduate program. Directorate; Haramaya
University.
Finally, I also thank various individuals and Jigjiga city administration secondary school
leaders that supported me throughout the program for various assistances they extended
to me during my study.
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATONS
EFA Education For All
ESRS Ethiopian Somali Regional State
IDEA Individual with Disabilities Education Act
LRE Least Restrictive Environment
MoE Ministry of Education
SNE Special Needs Education
UNESCO United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENTOFTHEAUTHOR iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LISTOFACRONYMS v
TTABLEOFCONTENS vi
LISTOFTABLE ix
ABSTRACT x
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background of the Study 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem 4
1.3. Research Questions 5
1.4. Objectives of the Study 6
1.4.1. General objective 6
1.4.2. Specific objective 6
1.5. Significance of the Study 6
1.6. Delimitation of the Study 7
1.7. Limitation of the study 7
1.8. Operational Definition of key Terms 7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9
2.1. Concept of Inclusive Education 9
2.2. World Initiatives for Inclusive Education 10
2.3. Legal Foundation of Inclusion 12
2.4. Inclusive Education and Children with Disabilities in Ethiopia 13
2.5. The Current Status of Education for Inclusive Children in Ethiopia 13
2.6. Barriers to Inclusion in Mainstream Classrooms 15
2.7. Instructional Leadership and Collaboration 19
2.8. Theoretical Framework on the Current Inclusive Educational
Problem 20
viii
2.9. Roles and Responsibilities of Principal in Inclusive Schools 22
2.10. Common Characteristics of Principals in Inclusive Schools 25
2.11. Principals Attitude towards Inclusive Education 26
2.12. The Need to Empower Principals‘ Attitudes towards in Inclusive
Education 28
2.13. The effect of Principals‘ Attitudes in the Implementation of Inclusive Education
in Schools 31
2.13.1 Positive attitude toward inclusion 31
2.13.2 Negative attitudes toward inclusion 35
2.13.3 Uncertain about Inclusion 38
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 41
3.1. Description of the Study Area 41
3.2. Research Design 41
3.3. Sources of Data 42
3.3.1. Primary sources of data 42
3.3.2. Secondary sources of data 42
3.4. Tools for Data Collection 42
3.4.1. Questionnaire 42
3.4.2. Interview 43
3.4.3. Observation 44
3.5. Target Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique 44
3.6. Methods of Data Analysis 46
3.7. Ethical Consideration 46
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48
4.1. Background of the Respondents 48
4.2. Special Needs Category in Targeted Schools 51
4.3. Learners with Disabilities Enrolled In Government Primary
and Secondary Schools 52
ix
4.4. Principals Views on Inclusive Education 53
4.5. Principals Attitude towards Including the Inclusive Learners with
Normal Students in the Schools 54
Table: 7 Principals‘ response on inclusive learners with normal students
in the schools 54
4.6. School Principals Opinions on the Implementation of Inclusion
Education in the School 55
4.7. Principals‘ Major Attitudinal Problem towards the Success of Inclusive
Education in the Schools 58
4.8. Attributes of Principals Attitude for Inclusive Education to Be Fully
Implemented In the Schools 61
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 66
5.1. Summary 66
5.2. Conclusion 67
5.3. Recommendation 69
REFERANCES
APPENDICES
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table1: Sample and Sampling Technique 44
Table 2: Gender, age and educational qualification of the respondents 47
Table 3: Principals’ years of service in general education and attitude
towards inclusive education
49
Table 4: Students with special needs category in the sampled schools 50
Table5: Presence of learners with disabilities enrolled in government primary
and secondary schools
51
Table 6 Responses on views of inclusive education 52
Table 7: Principals‘ response on inclusive learners with normal students in
the schools
53
Table 8: Principals‘ responses in supporting inclusive education
implementation in schools
54
Table 9: Factors in implementing inclusive education for special needs
students
57
Table 10: Needs to inclusive education to be fully implemented 60
1
Principals’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education in Government Schools of Jigjiga
City Administration
By Teketel Kassaye Obola
ABSTRACT
This study was aimed at assessing principals’ attitudes towards inclusive education in
Government Primary and Secondary Schools of Jigjiga City Administration. For this
study descriptive survey design was adopted. The sample size of participants were forty
five school principals and vice principals and 10 elementary and secondary schools of
Jigjiga city Administration. This study used purposive sampling technique to select
principals and deputy principals of elementary and secondary schools. The researcher
used questionnaire, interview and observation check list to collect quantitative and
qualitative data. Data collect were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as
percentage, frequency, standard deviation, and tables. While, data collected using
qualitative data was analyzed using explanatory way. The major finding revealed that
variation numbers of special needs students’ categories in schools were not given
significant positive attitude, the tendency for the school support and parental involvement
and display of less recognition, lack of creating positive image for all students and
unaware of the mechanisms to serve their needs. Conclusion indicated that principals’
personal belief, unpreparedness/lack of collective work on the implementation of
inclusive education, lack of training as it related to their experience and school related
existing challenges face were not in ensuring the success of inclusive practices. On the
basis of this findings, it was recommended needs of principals willingness and a positive
attitude when confronting special needs students, continuous training, creating
relationships with teachers, staff, parents, and students and parental involvement and the
physical layout of the schools should be conducive for the inclusive education. Moreover,
the local government should provide further guidance of how this can be achieved and
others nearby non-governmental organizations. Finally, the ESRS education bureau
would also need to monitor the progress of such a practice in order to ensure smooth
transition from partial inclusion towards full inclusion and additional research works
need to be done for final recommendations.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Inclusion is a practice of educating students with and without disabilities in the same
learning environment. Researchers have indicated that principals play a key role in
implementing successful and effective inclusive programs. However, there remains a gap
in the literature regarding the attitudes of principals toward disabilities students with
normal class at school levels. Therefore, the finding of this research was indicated based
on the government primary and secondary schools principals‘ leaders attitudes toward the
inclusion were significant predictors of favorable attitudes toward inclusion.
1.1.Background of the Study
The global move towards inclusion of children with special educational needs into
regular classrooms rather than educating them in an isolated environment has been a
main concern raising issues and interest for educators policy makers and researchers
currently (Ainscow and Hopskinsins, 2002). Inclusion is generating thoughts and
attention global as a new approach in the provision of services for learners with
special educational needs. International Organizations such as UNESCO (1994) now
see inclusive schooling as an effective approach in the education of this class of
learners (Sebba and Ainscow, 2006; Riehl, 2000).
The Salamanca Declaration of 1994 provided the needed international and theoretical
frames for inclusive education. In the declaration, the point made was that the task of
the future is to identify ways in which the school, as part of the social environment can
create better learning opportunities for all children and by this means, address the
challenge that the most Pervasive source of learning difficulties is the school system
itself. The declaration further describes inclusion as the most effective means of
combating discriminatory attitude, creating welcoming communities, building an
inclusive society and achieving education for all; additionally it provides an effective
education for the majority of children (UNESCO, 1994).
2
Inclusive education is based on the assumption that an appropriate place for the child
with special educational needs is in the regular classroom, Therefore, no condition
should been allowed to remove him\her from that environment; all children have the
right to learn and play together (Ainscow and Hopskins; 2002), Inclusion is thus a
fundamental human right denying opportunity for children to learn under the same
roof with other children. Devaluing and discriminatory attitudes and exclusion is
inhuman and indefensible (Lispky and Gartner, 2006). Inclusion enhances the
attainment of the objectives of Education for ALL (EFA), Education cannot be for all
and should therefore give way to one that is accommodating all. It has been argued
that a system that serves only a minority of children while denying attention to a
majority of others that equally need special assistance need not prosper in the 21st
century (UNESCO, 1994).
The Ministry of Education has designed a strategy for Special Needs Education; the
first three Education Sector Development Programs did not pay much attention to the
education of children with disabilities. This changed with ESDP IV which gave due
consideration to the expansion of educational opportunities for children with special
educational needs in order to achieve the EFA goals. To reduce the existing gap and to
actualize Education for All, the final goal of which is to ensure access and quality
education for marginalized children and students with special educational needs
(ESDP IV, 2010/2011 – 2014/2015).
This being the case however, the focus of the movement to include students with
special educational needs into general education has recently shifted from viewing
inclusion as an innovation within special education towards viewing it within the\
broader context of school restructuring (Sebba and Ainsco, 2006; Riehl, 2000). The
mandate to establish inclusive policies and practices related to inclusive education is
regarded as a major requirement for implementing change in schools. In this regard,
Borich (2008) stated that one of the key figures concerning any educational change in
school system is the school principal.
3
The school principal, who serves as an educational leader in school life, plays a major
function in implementing change. Fullan (2002) in his research review on school
improvement suggests that a school principal is a primary agent of change and a key
figure in promoting or blocking change. More than anyone else is the school
principal who can bring successful school improvement into sharp focus (Fullan and
Siegelbauer, 2001). Serving in the role of a change agent requires awareness of the
essentials of the process involved as well as involvement in mobilizing
implementation. Principals‘ actions serve to legitimate whether or not a change is to
be taken seriously and to support teachers both psychologically and with resources.
As a leader in the school, the principal directly influences resource allocating, staffing,
structures, information flows, and operating processes that determine what shall and
shall not be done by the organization (Nanus, 2002). Due to their leadership position,
principals‘ knowledge and attitudes regarding inclusion could result in either increased
opportunities for students to be served in general education or in limited efforts to
reduce the segregated nature of special education services. Therefore for inclusion to
be successful, first and for most the school principal must display a positive attitude
and commitment (Sebba and Ainscow.2006; Rieh, 2000). Today, as school experience
great change, knowledge and attitudes of principals regarding educational changes
must continue to be examined and described.
Despite the importance of the principal in initiating and maintaining support for
change and the recognition that mainstreaming is one of the more complex changes on
the current educational scene. Only few empirical studies have been reported on
principals‘ knowledge and attitudes regarding inclusive education and literature
revealed that researchers have paid relatively little attention to the principal‘s role in
inclusive education particularly in developing countries like Ethiopia (Fullan and
Miles, 2002; Sergivanni, 2005).
The main intention of this study is, therefore, to investigate government primary and
secondary schools principals‘ attitudes regarding inclusive education in Jigjiga city
4
administration. This study has implications for positive social change for students with
disabilities by examining the attitudes of the principals who have the authority to place
them inclusively. The fact that those acceptances from principals for inclusion play a key
role in implementing successful and effective inclusive programs in schools levels.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Inclusive education is an educational improvement that changes the way educational
systems tackle exclusion. It is an approach to education that allows all children to be
educated in schools in their neighborhood, alongside their friends and peers, regardless of
their challenges special needs and inclusive education, 2015). Such modifications should
remove every barrier and in addition provide reasonable atmosphere that will enable all
learners to gainfully participate in everyday activities.
Many barriers have been identified to hinder effective implementation of inclusive
policies in many nations despite important legislations on the issue. Successful advocacy
for inclusion does not guarantee that the policy will be favorably accepted by those
responsible for its implementation. One major obstacle to inclusion is negative attitude of
stakeholders towards inclusion, including important stakeholders such as school
administrators, teachers, students, family members and general societal attitudes on
inclusion 15
. Attitude of stake holders according to play a major role towards successful
integration of children with exceptionality into regular schools
Researchers have shown that school leaders‘ attitudes are crucial in improving the
inclusive academic environment and outcomes of students with disabilities (Avissar,
Reiter, & Leyser, 2003; Horrocks, White, & Roberts, 2008; Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, &
McGhie-Richmond, 2010). Principals‘ positive attitudes toward inclusion are essential in
the organization and implementation of inclusive programs and practices in their schools.
Avissar (2003) identify principals as change agents who have the ability to promote
permanent fundamental change to the structural framework of the school syste for
children with disabilities.
5
The results for principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion were inconsistent. Most of the recent
studies on inclusion focus on the attitudes of general and special educators (Cook, 2004;
Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2004; Weisel & Dror, 2006). Findings from some of the studies
have revealed that some principals have negative attitudes toward inclusion. Particularly,
Sharma and Chow (2008) found that the principals in their study had negative attitudes
toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom.
Principals strongly opposed including students with disabilities because they perceived
that inclusion would negatively affect the general education students (Sharma & Chow).
The role of principal in inclusive education is paramount and has been cited as the single
most important factors in creating school culture and climate (Ainscow and Hopskins,
2002). The role of the principal is to build a shared vision within an inclusive school and
this is one of the key factors in implementing inclusive education successfully. Leading
and managing an inclusive school require the principal belief that all children can learn.
This will result the provision of quality education and equal access for the children in an
integrated curriculum (Lispky and Gartner, 2006).
Current studies have been limited to focusing on only one school level of primarily
elementary schools. However, inclusive programs are implemented in primary and high
secondary schools as well. Although inclusion is a primary focus in Jigjiga city
administration schools, some principals have little experience with special education or
inclusion. Therefore, the examination of principals‘ attitudes toward the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the schools may provide the first step in determining how to
best assist administrators in implementing inclusion effectively. Therefore, the focus of
this study was to determine the attitudes of principals toward inclusion in public schools
in a Jigjiga city administration.
1.3.Research Questions
The following research questions are formulated to be answered at the end of the
study.
6
1. To what extent do elementary and secondary school principals show positive attitude
toward inclusive education and students with special educational needs?
2. Do elementary and secondary school principals‘ biographical factors (gender, teaching
experience, leadership experience, qualification and training) have any relations with
their attitude toward inclusive education and a student with special educational needs?
1.4. Objectives of the Study
1.4.1. General objective
The general objective of this study is to assess the attitude of principals toward
inclusive education with particular reference to government secondary and elementary
schools of Jigjiga city administration
1.4.2. Specific objective
This study intends to:
1. Examine the extent to which principals show positive attitude toward inclusive
education and student with special educational needs.
2. Assess whether principals biographical factors (gender, teaching experience, leadership
experience, qualification and training) have an influence on their attitude towards
inclusive education and students with special education needs.
1.5. Significance of the Study
The finding of this study will help students with special education needs benefited
most out of inclusive education because principals‘ awareness about inclusive
education as well as their attitude towards it can determine the role they play in
managing inclusive education. In addition, this study is intended to enhance the
principals‘ understanding that could be useful to principals as they implement
inclusive education program in their schools.
7
Moreover, it may give more insight for principals‘ on how to best assist inclusive
education in implementing effectively and efficiently in their schools. Further this
study may help universities and teacher education colleges in empowering future
school leaders as they face the challenges of implementing national programs related
to education management and leadership. Finally, it may help as a basis for conducting
further studies in similar area.
1.6. Delimitation of the Study
The following delimitations identified the boundaries of this study. First, the scope of the
study included government elementary and secondary schools of Jigjiga city
administration. Secondly, schools had teaching and administrative teams but this study
only included feedback on principals‘ attitudes regarding inclusive education and
children with special education needs due to investigators area of concern and
competence. In addition, government elementary and secondary schools of Jigjiga city
administration were chosen as a target due to their accessibility for the researcher.
Furthermore, even if the term inclusion goes beyond including children with disabilities
in to regular classrooms; the current study is delimited only to students with different
forms of disabilities in regular government elementary and secondary schools of Jigjiga
city Administration.
1.7. Limitation of the study
This study focused solely on principals and assistant principals in Jigjiga city
administration public schools. Convenience sampling has limited the results. This likely
affected the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the enrollment of the inclusive
education represented in the study was all small number of students. There were no
schools represented with more students, which may limit generalizability to schools with
larger student enrollments. In addition, only public schools were target population in this
study. Private secondary schools are not focusing.
1.8. Operational Definition of key Terms
Attitude: Degree of favorableness or un favorableness of principals towards
inclusive education and a student with special education needs as measured by
attitude scale developed by the researcher.
8
A student with a disability: is a child having mental retardation, hearing impairments
including deafness, speech or language impairments, visual impairments
including blindness, serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments,
autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, specific learning
disabilities, deaf blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who because of
those impairments need special education and related services (U.S.C.
sec.1400[c](2004)
Government secondary and elementary schools: owned by government those have
grade 1 up to 10.
Inclusion: Implies an opportunity to have full membership in the social and learning
contexts of their nondisabled peers.
Inclusive education: For the purpose of this study, it means educating the students
with disabilities in regular classroom with children who do not have such
disabilities or needs
Principal: refers to an educator appointed or acting as the head of particular
government elementary and secondary schools of Jigjiga city administration
Vice-Principal refers to an executive officer ranking immediately below principal
and he/she supports him/her
9
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This section deals with: reviewing relevant literature on concept of inclusive
educations the roles and responsibilities of principals in inclusive schools, common
characteristics of principals in inclusive schools principals; attitudes towards inclusive
education and related research finding; implication of these findings for principals in
inclusive schools, attitudes of principals and teachers towards inclusive education in
Ethiopian and factors that affect attitudes of regular teacher and school principals in
Ethiopia.
2.1. Concept of Inclusive Education
Inclusion is a notion that serves as a philosophical compass, guiding schools in their
journey to create a caring, supportive, and effective learning community. As described
by Stainback and Stainback (2000) an inclusive school is a place where everyone
belongs is accepted, and is supported by his or her peers and other members of the
school community in the course of having his or her educational needs met.
How does such a learning community come to be? Schools have traditionally focused
on the majority of the students those are in the schools. Students revealed that many
schools are lacking the flexibility to accommodate the diverse abilities and interests of
heterogeneous students (Cuban, 2009).
The true essence of inclusive education is based on the premise that all individuals
with disabilities have a right to be included in naturally occurring settings and
activities with their neighborhood peers, sibling and friends. Supporters of inclusive
education use the term to refer to the commitment to educate each child, to the
maximum extent appropriate, in the school and classroom he or she would otherwise
attend. It involves bringing the support services to the child and requires only that the
child will benefit from being in the class rather than having to keep up with the other
students (Chiuho, 2005 Fullan, 2003).
10
An inclusive education program allows daily and /or weekly time in the school
schedule for regular and special educators to collaborate. It seeks to expand the
capacity of regular educators to be able to teach a weirder array of children, including
those with various disabilities, and to expand the roles of special educators as
consultants as well as teachers. The primary responsibility for the education of
students with disabilities in inclusive environments rests with the regular classroom
teacher rather than the special education teacher. This does not however, mean that
special education have no direct involvement in the education of these students. It
simply means that the ultimate responsibility for the education of all students in a
classroom resides with the classroom teacher in charge (Chiuho, 2005).
For inclusion to work, educational practices must be child–centered. This means that
teachers must discover where each of their students are academically, socially, and
culturally to determining how best to facilitate learning. Indeed, child–centered
teachers view their role more as being facilitators of learning rather than simply
transmitters of knowledge. Therefore, skills in curriculum based assessment team
teaching, mastery learning, assessing learning styles (and modifying instruction to
adapt to students learning styles). Other individualized and adaptive learning
approaches, cooperative learning strategies, facilitating peer tutoring and social skills
training are important for teachers and school principals to develop and use in
inclusive classrooms (Cuban 2009; Stainback).
2.2. World Initiatives for Inclusive Education
The principle of inclusion naturally developed out of the normalization, mainstreaming
and integration movements of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s (pettipher, 2000).
Normalizations mean that all citizens, including those with disabilities, should have equal
access to the ways of life and everyday activities of society (Smith, 1998; Greer & Greer,
1995; Bailey & Du Plisses, 1997). The essential principle of nonnalisation is the valuing
of people in society. Both mainstreaming and integration were attempts to apply this
principle in education (pettipher, 2000).
11
In the 1970s changes in liberal, critical and progressive democratic thoughts had a direct
influence on the education system as the traditional practice of segregating learners with
special needs in separate schools was challenged (Enge1brecht & Snyman, 1999).
Education for individuals' with disabilities has received worldwide attention and
commitment, both as a result of United Nations (UN) activities and through global
statements and initiatives endeavoring to bring about 'Education for All' (Smith-Davis,
2002), In the Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons, UN member countries
confirmed their support for human rights, education, integration, full employment, and
conditions of economic and social progress for persons with disabilities (pottas, 2005).
In the 1980s and 1990s different initiatives have been published to promote the rights of
the disabled such as the following:
• The world programmer of action concerning disabled persons (1982)
• The world declaration on education for all (1990).
• Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for person with disabilities (1993)
(Smith-Davis, 2002 in Pottas, 2005).
In June 1994, an international conference, with representatives of 92 governments and 25
international organizations met in Salamanca, Spain, with the purpose of developing an
international policy document on special needs education, and setting up a framework for
action in this regard (UNESCO, 1994: iii; Bothma, Gravett & Swart, 2000; Pottas, 2005:
21). The Salamanca statement reaffirmed the international trend towards inclusive
education, when it proclaimed that " ...regular 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 to the majority of learners and improve the efficiency
and ultimately the cost effectiveness of the entire education system..." (UNESCO, 1994:
ix; Bothma , 2000: 200; Pottas, 2005).
In April 2000 the Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All was adopted at the
World Education Forum in Dakar, with the aim of achieving worldwide education for all
12
by 2015 (Smith-Davis, 2002). Aspects that were emphasized were early childhood
education, literacy, gender equity and education for all-including the disadvantaged and
those with special learning needs (pottas, 2005).
2.3. Legal Foundation of Inclusion
Government laws hold all schools accountable for how students with disabilities access a
free and appropriate education. Inclusion expanded mainstreaming by integrating
students with disabilities with their nondisabled peers and expecting the same outcomes
for all students (Ainscow & Sandhill, 2010). The term inclusion is used to describe the
assignment of students with special needs to regular education classrooms with the
expectation that all students can learn the same curriculum (Stainback & Stainback,
1992).
Various policies were enacted to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities as well
as to enforce fair and equal treatment of individuals with disabilities in inclusive
classroom settings (Bartlett, Etscheidt, & Weisenstein, 2007). Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a Civil Rights statute that ended discrimination against
students with disabilities in public schools (Karten, 2005). Section 504 was implemented
to prevent the discrimination of individuals with disabilities in federally funded programs
and activities and to ensure that children with disab0ilities have an equal access to
education (Rehabilitation Act, 1973). An individual can qualify for the provisions of
Section 504 if there is a substantial mental or physical impairment that limits, to a
considerable degree, one or more major life activities, such as caring for one‘s self,
performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or
working (Rehabilitation Act, 1973).
As of 2015, students who benefit from a 504 Plan are entitled to documented
accommodations to their educational program to allow them an equal opportunity at
achievement with the general curriculum (Dobson, 2013). Their eligibility is determined
by a multidisciplinary team that includes a school administrator, general education
teacher, special education teacher, school psychologist, therapists, parents, and if age
13
appropriate the student. The team devises a 504 Plan, which is a legal document that
includes instructional accommodations and modifications based on the student‘s
individual needs. Unlike subsequent laws, the 504 only requires that a physical or mental
impairment affect one of the body systems or that a disability be considered a mental or
psychological disorder (Dobson, 2013).
2.4. Inclusive Education and Children with Disabilities in Ethiopia
Ethiopia has an estimated 691,765 disabled children; of these, only about 2,300 are
enrolled in school (Lewis, 2009) with a high risk of dropping out (MoE and UNESCO,
2012). These numbers are concerning in the context of a country which has committed
itself to international proclamations advocating for the rights of children with disabilities
to educational access, included ideals of supporting people with disabilities in its
constitution, and developed national plans for special needs education (International
Labor Organization, 2013). However, when one looks beyond these policies and
declarations and views the realities of primary school classrooms and their surrounding
communities, it becomes clear that achieving Education for All, most specifically
children with disabilities, involves much more than establishing policies and placing
students in classrooms. Achieving true inclusion in Ethiopia will require action that is
rooted in the conviction that inclusive education is not merely about access, but about
changes in society and systems.
2.5. The Current Status of Education for Inclusive Children in Ethiopia
The Ministry of Education has asserted that Ethiopia cannot attain MDG ignoring the
marginalized and those with learning difficulties and impairments‘ (Lewis, 2009: 23).
The connection between poverty and disability is widely acknowledged (Singal, 2009),
with disability being both a cause and a result of poverty (Handicap International, 2013).
Thus, this issue is critical not only to individuals but also to Ethiopia‘s development. It is
therefore urgent that changes are made in the education system and society that allow for
equal participation of people with disabilities in education so they will have the
opportunity to contribute to Ethiopia‘s progress.
14
The education system in which these changes need to be made has challenges in its
structure and founding principles. Educational provision for students with disabilities
offers the following primary school options: fifteen special schools, 285 special units
attached to mainstream schools, and an unknown number of schools offering integration
into mainstream classes (MoE and UNESCO, 2012). Special schools in many developing
countries are characterized by low quality and lack of regulation (Miles and Signal,
2010). The special schools in Ethiopia are not exception to this, and are often crowded,
poorly staffed, under-resourced, and generally concentrated in urban areas (Lewis, 2009).
The following example3 from northern Ethiopia is provided to give a brief glimpse into
the special and mainstream school settings that disabled students‘ experience. This
description begins with a boarding school for vision-impaired students, which, like many
special schools, was founded by a charity organization but is now government-run. The
school‘s poor sanitation, overcrowded housing and inadequate childcare staff reflect the
immense challenges, and the ethical dilemma, of maintaining segregated schools for
disabled students in an already resource-scarce context. The students are not offered
vocational or life skills training and are thus ill-prepared for life in the community;
therefore, the students often must resort to begging after exiting the boarding school,
despite having completed their primary school education. The children rarely see their
families during their eight-year stay at the school and are excluded from community life.
Until very recently, however, this school was one of very few options for disabled
children, and every year, there are more requests for enrollment than the school can
accept.
Beginning in fifth grade, the students from the boarding school are mainstreamed at two
local primary schools. Access itself is dangerous, as students must travel on foot to the
schools without walking canes. Due to teachers‘ inability to read Braille, students are not
expected to complete homework or take notes in class, unlike their sighted peers. They
are also not provided with any textbooks or learning materials. Students must remain
outside of their classroom during subjects that the schools deem unsuitable for blind
students, namely math and science. Exclusion from these classes has a long-term impact
on the students‘ future; without attendance in these classes the students are excluded from
these subjects on the national exams, thus disqualifying them to study or test on these
15
subjects in secondary school. This type of pattern results in the exclusion of many
university students in developing countries from certain departments, such as science,
because of the prerequisites (Chataika et al, 2012).
In light of the shortcomings of these limited educational provisions for children with
disabilities, the Ethiopia government established a special needs strategy focused on the
inclusion of students in mainstream classes close to their homes (MoE, 2006). The
picture of special and mainstream schools provided above supports the urgency of this
strategy, but also suggests a long road ahead. As the experience in mainstream schools
shows, inclusive education is not only about children with disabilities being able to enter
mainstream classrooms. Inclusion requires support, both moral and educational, and
adequate resources, both human and material. The long-standing barriers integrated into
the system affect their access to education and development of life skills to enable them
to survive outside the classroom. Most notable is the stigma attached to disabled students
in this current system.
2.6. Barriers to Inclusion in Mainstream Classrooms
Societal beliefs about people with disabilities have a strong impact on inclusion.
Disability in Ethiopia is often perceived as connected with a person‘s immorality or
curse. Disabled children and parents of disabled children are often stigmatized (Lewis,
2009). Ethiopia‘s Study on Situation of out of School Children (MoE and UNESCO,
2012), states that even though Ethiopia‘s 1994 Education and Training Policy and the
MoE special needs education strategy opened the doors of schools to students with
disabilities, attitudes in society remained unchanged and many children were still kept at
home. These beliefs vary throughout Ethiopia; with 80 ethnic groups and more than 250
languages, it is inevitable that different cultural ideas and linguistic expressions of the
concept of disability and the attitudes towards people with disabilities will develop (MoE
and UNICEF, 2012: Peters, 2009).
In a survey conducted in a cluster of schools with mainstreaming of disabled students in
Ethiopia, 93.5% of the disabled students reported difficulty with gaining support from
their parents, teachers and peers (Dagnew, 2013). As many school-aged children are kept
16
in the confines of their homes rather than brought to schools (MoE and UNESCO, 2012),
working with parents in getting disabled children into classrooms, and providing them
support while there, is important. A number of factors could be involved in their refusal
(or inability) to enroll them in school, including the stigma which is attached to parents of
children with disabilities, lack of community support, inability of mainstream schools to
include them, or distance from schools who offer inclusion for disabled children (Lewis,
2009). Parents might be worried that their children will be a burden to teachers and
negatively impact other children‘s learning, fail to recognize the value of their child being
educated, or simply have no hope for their success (Kangwa, Patrick and Grazyna, 2003).
Until regular schools can offer well-resourced and welcoming settings for disabled
children, and parents become more aware of these options, urban special schools will
likely be perceived as the only option for disabled children. However, the urban location
of most special schools in Ethiopia (Lewis 2009) could limit even this option for parents
even if they want to send their children to school. Also, if parents choose to send their
child to a distant special school with boarding facilities, the possibility of them filling the
important role as advocates for their children‘s education (Chataika et al, 2012) is
diminished.
Teachers are not immune to society‘s belief systems and these beliefs also have the
power to influence their teaching practice (Ocloo and Subbey, 2008). Teachers‘ attitudes,
like those of parents, are extremely important in successful inclusion in schools (Dagnew,
2013). This issue is two-fold, including not only their beliefs about disabled children, but
also their beliefs about themselves. Teachers who participated in an inclusive education
project in Uganda expressed more uncertainty about their own abilities than about the
abilities of the disabled students (Miles, Wapling and Beart, 2011). This is not meant to
diminish the importance of teachers‘ doubts about the abilities of disabled children; it
does however reveal how important it is to also consider teachers‘ visions of themselves
and the ways in which low self-confidence, or even simply lack of understanding about
disabilities (MoE and UNESCO, 2012), may result in rejection of inclusive education
plans.
17
For inclusive education to work, it is critical that teachers believe that all students are
capable of learning (Ocloo and Subbey, 2008). According to the idea of ‗teach ability‘ as
presented by Singal (2008)4 in a study of Indian schools, teachers, informed by their
previous experiences and quality of training, make a distinction between the children who
belong in mainstream classes and those who do not. ‗Teachable‘ students are those who
can learn in a lecture- and test-focused classroom without assistance. In this model,
students who do not fit into this one-size-fits-all learning process are referred to special
education teachers (Singal, 2010). Facilitation of inclusion also relies on teachers
utilizing child-centered teaching methods (UNESCO, 1994). However, in the survey of
Ethiopian mainstream schools (Dagnew, 2013), 81.7% of teachers reported that they did
not consider learners‘ needs in their teaching; furthermore, 83.9% of students with
disabilities said the teachers‘ methods did not match their needs.
The assumptions of the mainstream classroom (listed in the middle of the ‗teach ability‘
chart) illustrate that the teacher was not fully to blame for the inability to implement
inclusive education; factors such as large class size, test-based lessons and an often
inflexible curriculum are issues which stem from the education system—and are
prevalent in Ethiopian schools. It is also possible that inclusion plans were implemented
top-down, without input from teachers (Dagnew, 2013; Chhabra et al, 2010; Singal,
2008), and thus their resistance to inclusion could be a reflection of their frustration at
being excluded from the planning process or not being given adequate training. Teachers
also face shortages of resources: 100% of the teachers included in the survey in Ethiopia
(Dagnew, 2013) said students with disabilities were not provided sufficient instructional
materials and 100% of surveyed disabled students agreed.
This highlights the need for education policy leaders to acknowledge that these systemic
issues that give rise to difficulties for disabled students in the classroom reveal ‗broader
challenges in an education system which is grappling with issues of quality, drop-
out/push out factors for all children‘ (Singal, 2009: 37). This idea echoes the underlying
theme of inclusive education as presented in the Salamanca Statement, and quoted in
Ethiopia‘s special needs education strategy, that inclusion is about meeting the needs of
all students, including—not exclusively for—those who are disabled (MoE, 2006;
18
UNESCO, 1994). This argument can be an effective entry point for garnering political
will for special needs education by locating it under the umbrella of inclusive education
for all students, highlighting the benefit, and cost-effectiveness, of inclusion for society
as a whole (Bines and Lei, 2011). However, as some voices in the education sector point
out, until there is equity in educational resource distribution for students with special
educational needs, there is a need for affirmative action in budgeting for these students.
Otherwise, simply grouping children with special educational needs will likely perpetuate
the ‗fragmented efforts‘ and lack of funding that has characterized special needs
education in Ethiopia thus far (Teklemariam and Ferja, 2011: 132).
A frequent barrier to resource allocation for the education of disabled children in
developing countries is the misconception that adults with disabilities will be a burden on
the system (Elweke and Rodda, 2002; Chataika, 2012). This perception overlooks the
likelihood that those instances in which disabled people completed their education yet
were not able to become economically self-sufficient could be due to the system failing to
provide them with the opportunities education affords an individual: to be empowered to
take part in development efforts and develop one‘s own capabilities (Miles and Singal,
2010).
To counter this, governments also need to enact supporting cross-sector legislation,
which not only supports the children in school, but also in employment, vocational
training and health (Eleweke and Rodda, 2002). To break down barriers of stigma,
disabled children need to be able to exhibit to the community their ability to successfully
complete school, attain gainful employment and become economically independent.
However, with less than 1% of disabled children in Ethiopia enrolled in primary school
(Lewis, 2009), combined with lack of support from vocational training, universities and
other options for educational opportunities, the number of success stories will likely be
too low to make an impact on these negative beliefs. This becomes a vicious circle in
which the means and the end goal are the same—awareness of the potential of people
with disabilities.
19
2.7. Instructional Leadership and Collaboration
Principals as transformational leaders oversee the access to quality instruction and the
climate of equality within their schools (Irvine et al., 2010). Principals and assistant
principals work with general and special education teachers to collaborate on the most
effective and successful ways to educate students with disabilities. Haager and Klingner
(2005) identified collaboration as a key ingredient in maintaining an inclusive
community. Collaboration must take place between the staff, administration, parents, and
the community for successful inclusion of students with disabilities (Carpenter & Dyal,
2007). All stakeholders including general and special education teachers, administrators,
family and friends, instructional aides, therapists, school counselors, school social
workers, and school psychologists must collaborate to make inclusion work (Billingsley,
2005).
Smith and Leonard (2005) interviewed nine teachers and three principals in four schools
to better understand the practitioner perspective of collaboration for inclusion. They
found conflicting views toward school inclusion among the principals, general, and
special educators. Successful collaboration not only involves collaboration between the
special and general education teachers but with the principal as well (Smith & Leonard).
The study found the necessity for ongoing professional development and implementation
of consistent practices by administrators to oversee the strategies to make inclusion work.
In this study, the general educators viewed the special educators as primarily responsible
for educating the students with disabilities in their classrooms.
Inclusive education requires knowledge of the characteristics and effective intervention
of various childhood disorders and a support system to instruct students that require
heterogeneous groupings in the major subject areas. Carpenter and Dyal (2007)
conducted a study to explore instructional strategies that increase student achievement in
secondary inclusion classrooms. Carpenter and Dyal identified several key components
for successful inclusion. First, effective teacher planning time is needed in order for
general and special educators to have an opportunity to prepare for instruction that
20
challenges all students and simultaneously offers required accommodations and
modifications for students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Secondly, the
researchers admonished principals to take a clear leadership role in implementing the
changes that are associated with the consultative model.
Katz and Sugden (2013) examined how one rural high school successfully implemented
inclusive that was facilitated by the school principal. The researchers conducted a mixed-
methods study by using surveys, interviews, and observations at the school for one year.
The findings indicated that collaboration was one of the key components that made
inclusion work in this case study. The teachers who were interviewed stated that
collaboration increased their confidence and made them feel more prepared to provide
(differentiated) instruction to both nondisabled and disabled students. The teachers also
reported that the administrative support and focus on collaboration with the special
education staff created a culture of acceptance and belonging.
Principals are responsible for clearly identifying the expected roles of each staff member
in the inclusion process (Aydin, Sarier, & Uysal, 2013). Furthermore, principals are
needed to provide access to resources for instructional support, planning time, and service
delivery. Principals‘ and assistant principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion influence how
they provide the necessary leadership and support for inclusion
2.8. Theoretical Framework on the Current Inclusive Educational Problem
The theoretical framework for this study is the notion that principals, as organizational
leaders, set the tone for inclusion within their schools by motivating and inspiring the
teachers and other professionals who work within an inclusive setting. Transformational
leadership theory states that a leader has the ability to identify the changes that need to be
implemented within an organization (Beauchamp, Barling, & Morton, 2011).
Transformational leaders influence and inspire their followers to commit to
organizational changes (Beauchamp et al., 2011). The transformational leadership theory
was initially developed by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 and later, expanded upon by
Bernard Bass in 1985. Transformational leadership is measured by the amount of
21
influence that a leader has on the employees within an organization (Bass & Riggio,
2008).
Bass identified four primary components of transformational leadership: 1) intellectual
stimulation; 2) individualized stimulation; 3) inspirational motivation; and 4) idealized
influence (Bass & Riggio, 2008). First, intellectual stimulation is characterized by how
leaders motivate followers to be creative, explorative, and open to new ways of learning.
Secondly, individualized stimulation consists of the one on one support that
transformational leaders provide to each follower as needed. The next tenant is
inspirational motivation, which refers to how leaders motivate and inspire their
organizations. Inspirational motivation is characterized by the leader‘s optimism and
positive energy. The authenticity of the leader‘s passion to reach the organizational goals
is shared by the followers. The last component of transformational leadership is idealized
influence, which refers to the leader‘s high moral standards and efficient use of power
within an organization (Afshari, Bakar, Luan, & Siraj, 2012). The leader is highly
respected and trusted within the organization. The followers respect and emulate the
leader‘s values and ideals (Bass & Riggio, 2008).
Change is often met with resistance in most organizations; however, transformational
leaders have the ability to encourage their followers to see the possibilities and positive
potential created by change within an organization. In some organizations, the leader is
not easily accessible and the lines of communication are poor throughout the
organization, especially when changes are made. However, transformational leaders not
only communicate, but listen to the needs, suggestions, and ideas of other members
within an organization. They are open to making modifications and adjustments and
ensure that the entire organization has a clear understanding of the vision.
According to Bass and Riggio (2008), transformational leaders elicit higher levels of
performance, achievement, and satisfaction from others, which are important
characteristics of a successful inclusion program (Costley, 2013). Therefore, the
transformational theory is the theoretical foundation for this study. Principals are the key
22
organizational leaders in schools and research has shown that the effects of intellectual
stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized
influence produce successful inclusive school environments (Beauchamp, Barling, &
Morton, 2011; Navickaite, 2013).
Two studies have examined how school principals incorporate elements of
transformational leadership in their roles as school leaders. Balyer (2012) identified
transformational leadership as the framework in which school principals shaped their
own attitudes and motivated teachers and staff members in their schools. Not only did
principals identify the individual needs of staff members and students, but they moved
their schools forward as a collective unit (Balyer). This concept is especially critical in an
inclusive program where teachers need to feel effective and students need a sense of
belonging.
In another study, Aydin, Sarier, and Uysal (2013) studied the leadership style of school
principals in Turkey. They found that transformational leadership resulted in higher job
satisfaction and commitment from the teachers in each one of the participating schools. In
comparison to other leadership styles with less involvement and influence from the
principal, transformational leaders were able to gain more support and teamwork from
teachers who were influenced by the attitude and vision of the principal.
2.9. Roles and Responsibilities of Principal in Inclusive Schools
School leaders play an important role in promoting and sustaining change in schools.
Without their efforts schools cannot change or improve to become place where all
students are welcomed and where all students learn essential academic and non
academic lessons in preparation for life in the community, Moving schools from
current practices to inclusive practices requires the collective efforts of key
stakeholders. Principals serve as catalysts for the key stakeholders. Their role is to
guide and support the course of change, drawing together the resources and people
necessary to be successful (Stainback and Stainback, 2000; Fullan and Steigelbaner,
23
2001) as a result understanding more about leadership in effective, inclusive schools
may help parents educators, and community members better support the work of the
school in general and the efforts of the principal in particular.
When schools embark on a plan to improve their practices through becoming more
inclusive, they do so for many reasons. Core to this work are the community values of
both diversity and an inclusive school culture. That is schools that are effectives with
all their students believe that school are enriched when they reflect the diversity of
society and when all learners .be involved IEP process and developed instructional
support services implement professional developments requirements ,coordinate with
special Education Administrator home or hospitality Educational services (www,doe-
mass.ed).
Including those with disabilities and diverse cultural/linguistic needs, become integral
members of the learning community inclusive schools also promote inclusive
decision–making and participation in their school. Creating a variety of avenues for
parents, staff students to become part of the governance structure (Cuban 2009;
Stainback and Stainback, 2000). Values and beliefs about ensuring that every student
belongs and feels membership in school community are essential disposition for the
journey towards inclusive schooling.
These values and beliefs are bolstered by policies that require attention to students
who have been marginal members of many schools; students with disabilities
students who have diverse cultural and ethnic heritages, students who bring rich
experiences to school but may not have been exposed to the learning experiences that
are often presumed in the school curriculum. These laws require schools to monitor
the progress of all students, measure their success by ensuring that all student are
learning and provide additional services and supports to students who may need them
while ensuring that these student continue to learn with their peers in general
education environments (Stainbac and Stainback, 2000).
24
Because of high expectations that cone with both the values and mandates to achieve
inclusive schooling, schools today, more than ever, need highly accomplished
leaders, inclusive schools need principals who are familiar with the research literature
and know that inclusive services and supports produce educational benefits for
students with and without disabilities, teachers and families. These benefits occur in
many areas of academic and non-academic development and tend to be related to
administrative supports, professional knowledge and skills, and the attitudes of
teachers (Chiuho, 2005; Fullan 2003).
Hence, principals know that the implementation of inclusive education requires
collective effort and commitment, establish collaborative teams, bringing together key
stakeholders who represent different perspectives and roles in the school community,
The team provides leadership throughout a continuing cycle of planning,
implementation, and evaluation in the school change process The principal bring
resources and administrative connections to the table to address needed changes in
rules or policies, principals help identify and approve changes that support more
inclusive practices. These changes may focus on organizational resources like
schedules, the use and assignment of personnel strategies used to assign students to
classes, resources available for professional development, and the focus and type of
professional development activities, (Cuban 2009; Stainback and Stainback 2000).
While these technical changes are important to create the condition for change, there
are deeper changes that are required for change to be sustained. At the core of all
change efforts lie the beliefs, attitudes, practices, and characteristics of the school that
define its culture. This deeper aspect of an organization can take longer and are more
difficult to change. Researchers have found that school change is a cyclical process.
Schools can aspect to experience slow, Steady progress, implementation ―dips‖ and
some amount of the two steps forwarded, one step back ‗phenomenon as both surface
and deep changes are underway (Fullan 2003).
While principals in inclusive schools act as mediators coaches, cheerleaders, and
emotional supports to those involved in the process of change it is fundamentally a
25
team effort, parent, community patrons, school staff educators and students themselves
must have a voice in the process (Chiuho 2005).
2.10. Common Characteristics of Principals in Inclusive Schools
There are several characteristic associated with principals who lead inclusive schools
(Stainback and Stainback, 2002). These principals tend to be: - Risk takers: Not afraid
to say, no to something different and tend to be actively engaged pushing for
innovative solution to issues that exclude learners who differ in their abilities culture,
Language and or ethnicity. Act as proponents of inclusive practices within their
schools Collaborative: Effective principal share leadership with staff at all levels of
the organization. They know that teams of people who share the same goals will be
more effective than one administration working alone. These principals create time for
teams to meet plan and teach together.
Invested in relationships principals in inclusive school go the extra mile to work with
staff, parents and community members they work with personnel in their school to
resolve differences and differences and find workable solution these principals work
hard to build trust and promoted. Changes by sharing information honestly with all
involved. Reflective: principals in inclusive schools use information gathered from
reports, teachers, parents, and community members to develop reasoned approaches
for action and help generate new meanings about the changes ahead They mobilize
teams of teachers and parents to inform their decision–making.
Accessible: Effective school leaders are not desk jockeys i.e. they routinely get
involved at the ground level with students, teachers parents and community members
to address issues confronting their school They are gauntly interested in being where
the action is so that they can understand the issues first–hand Intentional: Principals in
inclusive schools have a strong sense of direction and infuse their core values, beliefs,
and attitudes into building an inclusive culture in their school. The pace and number of
changes must be carefully weighed so as not to overwhelm teaching staff.
26
2.11. Principals Attitude towards Inclusive Education
Despite the importance of the principal in initiating and maintaining support for
change and the recognition that mainstreaming is one of the more complex changes on
the current educational scene. Only few empirical studies have been reported on
principals, knowledge and attitudes regarding inclusive education. Overall studies on
principal‘s attitudes regarding inclusion have relieved mixed findings some showed
that they stressed the benefits of inclusion while others revealed a tendency for low
expectation of success of inclusive education.
Prisoner (2000), in a doctoral research study, examined elementary school principals;
attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Based upon a survey of 408
elementary school principals from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania prisoner found
that about one in five principals attitudes toward inclusion are positive while the rest
surveyed remained uncertain prisoner also found that principals who had positive
experiences with disabled students and who had exposure to special education
concepts had a more positive attitude toward inclusion Further she found that these
principals with more positive attitudes and /or experiences were more likely to place
disabled students in less restrictive setting. Prison result is limited due to the sample
size consisting of only the state of Pennsylvania.
Another study was conducted by Levy (2009) in his doctoral study in investigating
elementary principals ‗attitudes toward the restructuring for the inclusion of students;
with disabilities. In his study of 124 elementary school principals in the Brooklyn and
queens areas of New York city, Levy found that age was a variable that showed partial
support foe principals attitudes, while gender, teaching experience, years as an
administrator, years of inclusion experience, and/or inclusion training had no
significant relationship top principals; attitudes toward inclusion. Due to the small
sample size and restricted sample area, the results of this study are limited.
27
Geter (2008) conducted his doctoral research on secondary and elementary school
principals, attitudes toward the inclusion of special education students. The study
included 550principals, 200 high schools, and 350 elementary schools from the state
of Georgia. Getter found that there were no significant differences between Georgia
high school and elementary school principals; attitudes toward the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the regular classroom. Also found that there was no
difference between Georgia high school and elementary school principals. Attitude
towards inclusion of special education students with regard to principals, gender and
in-service hours were completed in special education. The results of this study
however are limited due to the sample being taken from only one state.
Another doctoral study was conducted in (1999) by Insane, where he looked at the
attitudes of public school principals in the state of New Jersey towered inclusive
education and educational strategies related to this its practice. This study also aimed
to determine if there was a significant difference in attitudes towards inclusion among
principals groped by years of experience as a principals and school location. The
results of the 167 usable surveys suggested that neither years of experience nor school
location had any effect of principals; attitude towards inclusion. The study also found
that with the exception of students with the most severe disabilities, principals overall
were in favor of including students with disabilities in the general classroom. This
study as well is in limited with its results due to the small size of the sample from
single area.
In 2008 a study by Barnett surveyed 115 randomly selected principals across the state
of Illinois to examine principals; attitudes towered and knowledge of inclusion. The
survey looked at gathering information from principals regarding definitions,
leadership styles, and effectiveness and implementation of educational practices
related to successful inclusion practice. The study found that no clear definition
surfaced, but that most principals viewed inclusion as most appropriate for students
with mild disabilities.
28
The study also concluded that teachers were not sufficiently prepared to implement
inclusive practices. The findings also raise issues concerned with administrations;
understanding of practices that facilitates inclusion and how prepared they are to
implement and support inclusive education.
2.12. The Need to Empower Principals’ Attitudes towards in Inclusive Education
Learning through working with practicing teachers and other professional staff in schools
is a dominant feature of promoting inclusive education. McIntyre argues that whatever is
achieved in the schools and university, the teaching practices and attitudes that student
teaching staffs usually learn to adopt are those currently dominant in the schools‘ (2009).
The nature of the partnerships between inclusive education providers and partners in
schools varies widely (McMahon et al., 2015). The new evidence compiled by Eurydice
and CRELL reveals a trend towards increasing the amount of practical training, including
school-based practice, within school inclusive education programs (European
Commission, 2015d).
The inclusive education 4I project (European Agency, 2011a) notes that school
placements vary across countries: a few member states follow a centralized route (the
ITE provider determines the student teachers‘ placements), while in others the student
teachers choose their own placements. However, placement in a real working
environment typically lasts no more than a few weeks and involves supervision by a
teacher-mentor, with periodic assessment by teacher educators from the training
institution (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015a).
Key elements of school practice include specific coursework, supervision and reflection
activities. Other important elements for an effective school placement include
professional dialogue, joint planning and responsibility, strong leadership and adequate
teaching resources (European Commission, 2014). Echeita stresses that: Traditionally, the
inclusive education partnership with practice schools‘ tends to be rather superficial, with
29
a clear difference in the knowledge status within the discourse in schools and universities.
Therefore, the challenge is to build meaningful joint work among universities and schools
(particularly through school leaders), in addition to a clear conceptual framework to link
theoretical and practical knowledge (2014).
Recent research stresses the importance of a close and positive partnership between
schools and school principals to support student teachers. Such a relationship can benefit
not only the student teachers, but also the schools involved with inclusive education.
Allen (2014) report benefits including: the provision of fresh teaching ideas, CPD
opportunities, extra capacity, financial benefit, and recruitment (the possibility of
employing the trainee upon qualification).
For Inclusive teaching approaches the development of inclusive practice is an essential
feature of professional learning for all school educators. It has been described as an
apprenticeship of the head, hand (skill or doing) and heart (attitudes and values)
(Shulman, 2005; European Agency, 2011a). The values of the wider culture, as well as
those of individual teachers, impact on pedagogy. To be effective, pedagogy must be
inclusive and consider the diverse needs of all learners, as well as matters of student
equity (Husbands and Pearce, 2012). The need for a shift in pedagogical thinking from
an approach that works for most learners, towards one that involves everyone. Shifting
the gaze from most and some learners to everybody requires collective learning
experiences to be taken into account, so that teachers are encouraged to develop
approaches that are appropriate for all children (Allan, 2010; Black-Hawkins, 2012).
Spratt and Florian (2014) provide a useful framework for gathering evidence about the
inclusive practice of beginning teachers, which they have named the ‗Inclusive
Pedagogical Approach in Action‘ framework. This work is an attempt to capture the
process of inclusive pedagogy, based on a set of theoretical principles that can support
teachers, teacher educators and researchers to make informed judgments about pedagogy
in each unique setting.
30
Rytivaara and Kershner, ( 2011) point out that teaching heterogeneous groups is not just
a matter of understanding individual children‘s capabilities and educational needs in
order to integrate them with more typical others of the same age. What is crucial is the
construction of educational difference in different contexts, at different points in time.
This requires fundamental changes in thinking about children, curriculum, and pedagogy
and school organization. While noting the importance of TE in achieving inclusion in the
classroom, state that: it is naïve to think that it can work against a policy framework that
promotes a limited pedagogical understanding of inclusion, where pedagogy and
inclusion are incorporated into a policy discourse characterized by deficit assumptions for
different categories of learners.
To implement inclusive practice, teachers should be equipped not only with competences,
but also with appropriate values and beliefs, to meet diverse learners‘ needs and develop
more equitable education systems (European Agency, 2012; Engelbrecht, 2013). Based
on this framework, the project produced a Profile of Inclusive Teachers to be used as
guide for designing and implementing ITE programs. It identified four core values
relating to teaching and learning as the basis for the work of all teachers, which are
associated with specific areas of teacher competences:
Valuing Learner Diversity – learner difference is considered as a resource and an asset to
education. The areas of competence within this core value relate to: Conceptions of
inclusive education; the teacher‘s view of learner difference.
Supporting All Learners – teachers have high expectations for all learners‘
achievements. The areas of competence within this core value relate to: Promoting the
academic, social and emotional learning of all learners; Effective teaching approaches in
heterogeneous classes.
Working With Others – collaboration and teamwork are essential approaches for all
teachers. The areas of competence within this core value relate to: Working with parents
and families; Working with a range of other educational professionals.
Personal Professional Development – teaching is a learning activity and teachers take
responsibility for their lifelong learning. The areas of competence within this core value
31
relate to: Teachers as reflective practitioners; Initial teacher education as a foundation for
ongoing professional learning and development (European Agency, 2012).
Inclusion is a critical issue for educational leaders. The principals‘ attitude toward
students with disabilities has shown and eventually determined if there were educational
services for all students; therefore, the administrator‘s attitude positive, negative, or
attitudes of uncertainty toward inclusion could determine if inclusion is viable service
option. Educating principals for inclusive education means reconceptualising the roles, attitudes
and competencies of students, principals to prepare them to diversify their administrating
methods, to redefine the relationship between teachers and students and to empower teachers as
co-developers of the curriculum (Washington, 2003).
2.13. The effect of Principals’ Attitudes in the Implementation of Inclusive
Education in Schools
School administrators are a critical resource for teachers, as Littrell, Billingsley, and
Cross (1994) discovered when they examined the effects of principal support on special
and general educators‟ stress, job satisfaction, school commitment, health, and intent to
stay in teaching. Principals fall into three attitudinal categories with regards to the
inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom. These
categories are as follows: (a) a positive attitude toward inclusion, (b) a negative attitude
toward inclusion, and (c) an indifferent attitude or uncertain about the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Using search engines such
as Georgia Library Learning Online (GALILEO), the researcher used search terms such
as inclusion, attitude, principal, and school to locate journal articles and dissertations on
principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion. Therefore, the researcher will review studies of
elementary and middle school principals to provide a context for this study.
2.13.1 Positive attitude toward inclusion
For more than twenty years, researchers (Horne, 1983; Semmel, 1986; Villa, Thousand,
Meyers, & Nevin, 1996) have reinforced the perception that a principal‘s positive attitude
toward inclusion is a critical prerequisite for successful inclusion. To further support a
32
positive attitude toward inclusion principals‘ personal experiences with students with
disabilities becomes a significant factor in the willingness of administrators to consider
an inclusive placement. Consequently, principals‘ personal experiences with students
who have disabilities became evident when discussing their attitudes about inclusion
(Moore, 2006).
According to Brown (2007) investigated the factors influencing principals' attitudes.
Using The School Principals’ Attitude toward Inclusive Education Questionnaire to
collect data from schools administrators. She found a significant difference in attitudes of
respondents toward inclusion of students with disabilities in general education based on
gender, school level assignment, years of experience as an administrator, and general
education teaching experience. Further supporting the positive attitude of administrators
as a salient factor in successful inclusion programs, Horrocks (2006) studied
Pennsylvania principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion. The primary purpose of Horrocks'
study was to identify the attitudes that principals held regarding the inclusion of students
with disabilities, and the relationship between their attitudes and their placement
recommendations for children with autism. The secondary purpose was to identify the
relationship between specific demographic factors and attitudes toward inclusion and
placement recommendations.
Horrocks found that the most significant factor in predicting both a positive attitude
toward inclusion of children with disabilities and higher recommendations of placements
for children with autism was the principal's belief that children with autism could be
included successfully in the general education classroom. Horrocks findings confirmed
that principals who believed that children with autism could be included in general
education classrooms were more likely to recommend higher levels of inclusion for this
population. Overall, Horrocks found the respondents had a positive attitude regarding
inclusion for children with disabilities. She reported the principals‘ length of service in
their current district was negatively correlated with the principals‘ positive attitudes
toward inclusion. While the other variables of professional experience teaching or
supervising children with autism, belief children with autism could be included, and an
overall positive experience with inclusion were positively correlated with positive
33
attitudes toward inclusion. School level, gender, years as a principal, formal training,
professional experience, and belief children with autism could be included were
correlated with placement recommendations with higher placement levels of inclusion.
Fontenot (2005) is favoring principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion examination of the
attitudes of rural, suburban, and urban public elementary school principals in Texas
regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities into the general education classroom.
Further, no significant correlation was found between age and attitudes nor gender and
attitudes of principals toward inclusion of students with disabilities. Fontenot did find a
negative correlation between the attitudes of principals who had experience teaching
general education and the attitudes scores versus a positive correlation between
principals‘ attitudes scores with teaching experience in special education. However,
neither general education teaching experience nor special education teaching experience
was significantly correlated with attitude in the results of this study.
In 2005, Durtschi provided insight of elementary principals‘ involvement in, preparation
for, and attitude toward special education in the state of Wisconsin. Using the
Involvement in Special Education Survey developed for this study, principals responded
positively to the survey of Wisconsin‘s elementary principals‘ attitude toward inclusion
and principals‘ overall confidence in their special education abilities. Results indicated
that principals who felt comfortable in their abilities and who spent a lot of time at their
job and on special education-related activities proportional to the percentage of students
with disabilities in their school encouraged collaboration and inclusion among their
special education and general education teachers and had highly positive attitudes about
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.
Document analysis of the School Improvement Plans provided insight about each
school's mission and vision statements as they related to students with disabilities. Major
findings supported by the data indicated few significant differences between using a very
inclusive model and lesser inclusive model. Perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes data
revealed that the use of co-teaching was limited even in very inclusive schools. This is
significant because training in the co-teaching model was provided for all school faculties
34
and administrators and the co-teaching model was preferred by the Special Education
Department. However, the principals in very inclusive schools supported inclusion
through release time and financial support for professional conferences and promoted co-
teaching as a model for inclusive practices.
Maricle (2001) research study was to investigate the attitudes of New Jersey public
secondary school principals toward inclusive education and educational strategies related
to its practice. The researcher sought to determine whether there was a significant
difference in attitudes toward inclusion among principals based on: the school's
geographical location (urban, suburban, and rural), and the number of years of experience
of the principal. All New Jersey public secondary school principals were surveyed with
the Attitudes toward Inclusive Education survey. Findings supported the previous
research regarding years of principal experience or school geographical location. These
factors did not have a significant effect on secondary principals' attitudes toward
inclusion. Principals appeared to have positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities in all categories surveyed, with the exception of students with the most
severe disabilities (mild to moderate behavior disabilities and learning disabilities with
skills two or more years below grade level).
Finally, all three educational strategies were viewed as effective strategies for inclusion.
There were no significant differences between the public elementary school principals
surveyed suggesting that principals in general support inclusion for students with
disabilities in their schools. Providing an example of the positive attitude of principals
was McLaughlin‟s 2001 study involving whether certain variables affected the attitudes
of North Carolina public school principals toward the inclusion of children with
disabilities into the general classroom. The variables studied were the principals' gender,
race, administration experience, total educational experience, and educational level
attained, and school size, whether the school was elementary, middle, or secondary
school was also considered.
The instrument used in the study was the Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale
(ATIES) (Wilczenski, 1992) which was designed to measure attitudes toward including
35
children with various disabilities in regular classes. The researcher documented five main
findings. First, principals were generally more in favor of inclusion than not. Principals
were very positive about including students with functional and learning disabilities, but
they were very much against including students with behavioral disabilities. Second, the
attitudes of female principals toward integrating students with disabilities into the general
education program differed significantly from the attitudes of male principals. Third, the
attitudes of high school principals and middle school principals toward inclusive
education differed significantly from those of elementary principals. Fourth, principals'
attitudes toward integrating students with disabilities into the general education program
did not vary significantly based on the race of the principal, except in the subcategory of
behavior. Fifth, school size, administration experience, total education experience, and
educational level attained did not significantly affect the attitude of the principal toward
inclusion.
2.13.2 Negative attitudes toward inclusion
When inclusion was being implemented in Georgia in the 1990s many administrators
voiced concerns about students with disabilities being educated in the general education
classroom; these administrators had been trained and worked under a segregated system
of special education. These educators/leaders voiced the same concerns as teacher that
they did not want students with disabilities in the general education classrooms, Scruggs
and Mastropieri (1996). Some of these negative attitudes still prevail today when it comes
to inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, not only in
Georgia but across the country and in other countries.
One might question the effectiveness of a principal who possesses a negative attitude
toward students with disabilities. If, as suggested by (Hannah, 1988) teachers who have
negative attitudes are often reluctant to teach students with disabilities, it seems likely
that principals who have negative attitudes would be reluctant to become involved with
students with disabilities. Professionals who are uncomfortable with students who have
disabilities might avoid contact with those students or neglect opportunities for their
students‘ development. Thus, school administrators who are uncomfortable with students
36
with disabilities might choose to avoid participating in Individualized Educational
Program (IEP) meetings and/or rely on other school personnel to address those students'
academic, career, and personal/social needs. Administrators with fewer years of general
education teaching experience tend to disagree that general education teachers are not
trained adequately to cope with students with disabilities (Hannah, 1988).
Davis and Maheady (1991) found that some principals believed that inclusion would have
a negative effect on the academic achievement of other students in an inclusive setting,
specifically students who were not disabled. For students with severe disabilities,
Livingston, Reed and Good (2001) found that many rural principals supported the
traditional, segregated placement of students with disabilities in self-contained
classrooms. Further, rural principals were more likely to favor self-contained classrooms
as the most appropriate placement for students with disabilities. After three decades of
landmark special education legislation that held so much promise, special education is
just that a promise, Schwarz, (2006). The American school system and society have
earned failing grades for educating and supporting students with disabilities to live, work,
and play in the community. Schwarz, (2006) special education is a service, not a place,
and the purpose of the service is support learners in successfully achieving a general
education. No educator should draw a line between who will and who will not learn in
the general education classroom. Therefore, principals have to embrace a whole new
model for success of students with disabilities. The new model for success, inclusion,
must be internationally received and practical for administrators to make educational
services work for all students.
Internationally, Choi (2008), found general and special education in South Korea are at
an important juncture. A significant trend in the reform of South Korean education is
expanding the inclusion of students with disabilities. Among various school
professionals, principals have been considered the most significant players for creating
successful inclusive schools. Choi‘s study surveyed South Korean elementary school
principals, examining their definition of inclusion, level of knowledge of legislation,
attitudes toward inclusion, and perceptions about supports and resource needs for
37
successful inclusive practices. The results of this research demonstrated that South
Korean elementary principals agreed with important inclusion concepts and generally
have positive attitudes toward inclusive education. However, principals still considered
special education schools to be more appropriate educational placements for students
with disabilities. Also, principals reported that students with disabilities were not
provided with instruction and curriculum adapted to their educational needs. In addition,
principals‘ believed that their schools did not have adequate staff, administration, or
supports for implementing inclusive education. Several variables, which could have
influenced perceptions, attitudes, or school practices also, were found. In particular,
principals' knowledge of legislation, and the extent to which they received in-service
training, was strongly related to perceptions, attitudes, or school practice.
Bailey (2004) furthered the understanding of principals‟ attitudes through the exploration
of their perceptions of the most persistent barriers to inclusive practices. Bailey found
principals viewed the lack of resources, particularly funding, as the most debilitating to
implementing inclusion. Interestingly, they viewed training as an important barrier to
inclusion but low on the scale of importance. Recognizing these attitudinal tones of the
principals for implementation of inclusion and the priority set by perceived barriers was
most important for creating an inclusive school environment. In a study of Alabama
principals, Dyal, Flynt, and Bennett-Walker (1996) summarized their findings by stating
principals did not favor full inclusion, noting this perception possibly came as a result of
principals feeling more comfortable with the existing service delivery models, namely,
special education pullout programs. Additionally, possible resistance to change may be
attributed to the mixed messages in research findings and interpretation (Livingston,
Reed, & Good, 2001).
In recent years, principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion entered the phase of uncertainty.
Operating an inclusionary program without the commitment of the administrators who
implement the program is a major concern. Studies revealed that administrators and
teachers were uncertain of or disagreed with the benefits of inclusion. It is possible that
the administrators who did not acknowledge the importance of inclusion may be facing
negative experiences with the inclusive classrooms that are in operation. This is a concern
38
since an unsuccessful program would only strengthen negative attitudes or uncertainty
regarding inclusion and its benefits.
2.13.3 Uncertain about Inclusion
Between the two camps of pro-inclusion and anti-inclusion are large groups of educators
and parents who are confused by the concept of inclusion. They wonder whether
inclusion is legally required and wonder what is best for children. They also question
what it is that schools and school personnel must do to meet the needs of children with
disabilities. As is true in other areas of school restructuring, change must be based on
research and broadly shared beliefs and philosophies. The recommendations that
researched based training in inclusion can help districts or building administrators in
designing a positive education and more inclusive environment. A doctoral research
study by Geter (1997) provided documentation of the state of flux created by
administrators‘ attitudes toward inclusion based on gender, race, principal education
experiences, student population, educational training, special education classes completed
and students served through special education. The researcher also used an Attitude
toward Inclusion Scale to determine significant differences between high school and
elementary school principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion of special education students.
Geter discovered two major findings: (a) there were no significant differences between
the Georgia high school and elementary school principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion of
students with disabilities in regular classrooms and (b) there were no significant
differences between principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion with regard to principal gender
and number of in-service hour completed in special education.
Hunter (2006) found that inclusion of students with disabilities in general education has
changed the roles of secondary principals and their relationship to special education.
Hunter‘s research suggests that the principal acts as a leader and is important to the
successful implementation of inclusion. The attitudes of principals can have either a
positive or negative impact upon the integration of students with disabilities. Hunter
investigated the current attitudes of secondary school principals in a large urban school
district and examined the relationship between attitude and various associations between
39
attitude, experience, and placement were conducted. Principals were also asked to rate
their experiences with students with disabilities and to provide hypothetical placements
for each disability category. These results suggest that effective inclusion practices that
will ensure that principals have positive experiences with students with disabilities are an
important factor in the successful inclusion. Further investigations are needed to help
refine the variables associated with positive attitudes and experiences, as well as to
explore the basis for differences between disabilities categories.
Adding to the uncertainty, Hesselbart (2005) surveyed principals and assistant principals
in rural northwest Ohio to investigate relationships regarding attitudes toward inclusion
with other variables such as teaching experience, both in special education and general
education, experience with students with disabilities, and placement preferences. His
results indicated that just under half of the principals surveyed has a positive attitude
toward inclusion, whereas the same percentage were uncertain. Further, his statistical
analysis indicated that the only strong correlation with attitude was preferred placement.
Hesselbart‘s results concluded that colleges and universities need to do more in preparing
administrators to work with students with disabilities.
Hof (1994) conducted a doctoral research study to assess the perceptions of elementary
school principals from four mid-western states regarding the inclusion of students with
disabilities in the general education classroom how these perceptions differed in regard to
chosen demographic variables and what information contributed to the development of
these perceptions. Further, Hof also investigated the actual inclusion practices in use by
these principals and connected the actual practices with perceptions of principals and
selected demographic variables. Factors such as the employment of a Director of Special
Education, degree attainment, number of students with disabilities, and size of the district
were shown to impact a principals‘ perception of inclusion while gender, age, and
experience did not. Also, the level of inclusion achieved by a school was improved by the
principal having a specific personal goal regarding inclusion. Finally, college coursework
did not transfer to a principals‘ knowledge base about inclusion. The principals‘
information came largely from attending professional conferences and in-service
opportunities.
40
Results were determined based upon a survey received from principals established that
principals who reported positive attitudes toward mainstreaming were more likely to
offer opportunities for students with disabilities to remain in regular classes. Also, the
accessibility of support services increased the likelihood of student placement in regular
classes. Principals with more experience were less likely to mainstream students with
disabilities. The results indicated that principal attitudes impact placement decisions. The
general idea of this study, however, was restricted by its small sample from a single area.
The outcomes were also weakened by the study‘s use of the concept of mainstreaming
instead of the more current inclusion terminology.
41
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology and procedures that will be followed to
accomplish the study. Therefore, design of the study, target population, sample and
sampling technique, methods of data collection and data analysis will be discussed.
3.1. Description of the Study Area
The Somali regional state occupies large geographical area in the eastern and southern
part of the country. Jigjiga is the capital city of Ethiopian Somali regional state which is
found in the Eastern part of Ethiopia. This study will be carried out in Jigjiga city
administration; primary and secondary schools with inclusive educational needs will be
selected in this study. A total of seventeen schools will be selected and fifty five
principals and vice principals from each school. The schools are located in the same
region in the Jigjiga city administration.
3.2. Research Design
The descriptive study included a survey that assessed Jigjiga city administration with
particular references to government primary and secondary schools principals‘ attitudes
of inclusion. A descriptive study is non-experimental research design. For this study the
survey method was used for descriptive design. Descriptive survey design is preferable
because survey is used to collect original data for describing application too large to
observe directly (Moaton 1996), and a survey to series of questions posed by the
investigator (Polity and Hungler 1993).
Accordingly, this study employed both qualitative and quantitative methods of data
collection. Data were collected using questionnaire, direct observation and key informant
interviews. Data gathered with this survey was used to determine the current perceptions
of primary and secondary school principals as it related to their experience, attitude, and
impact toward inclusion in Jigjiga city administration. Additionally, the researcher
collected demographic information.
42
The survey design was used to collect descriptive data about principals‘ and assistant
principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion at the primary and secondary school levels. Thus,
by a quantitative method numerical and statistical data are performed to answer study
research questions. While by semi-structured qualitative questions interviewed regarding
principals conceptions about inclusive education were explained in more detail to
produce summary report
3.3. Sources of Data
The study was using both quantitative and qualitative data to capture information on the
principals‘ attitudes towards inclusive education. Hence, relevant data were derived from
both primary and secondary data sources.
3.3.1. Primary sources of data
The primary sources of data was the primary and secondary schools principals and
vice principals.
3.3.2. Secondary sources of data
Secondary data sources were provided basic information regarding inclusive education
situations in the study area that was focused particularly on the school principals‘
attitudes. However, in a way researcher observed the schools support toward the
inclusive education conditions as schools settings as they related to the this culture and
climate of the students with disabilities. So students‘ with disabilities statistical data,
their school enrollment and schools reports concerning such students secondary data
sources were important source of information in the accomplishment of the study.
3.4. Tools for Data Collection
3.4.1. Questionnaire
The questionnaire approach to gathering data is the most commonly used method of
inquiry. Questionnaires were used to gather quantitative data for the study. It was
based on a five point Likert scale. That is 5 will for strongly agree, 4 will for agree, 3
43
will for sometimes, 2 will for disagree and one (I) will for strongly disagree (Norman,
2010). Then, both closed-ended and open-ended questionnaire was design for the
respondents selected from government schools principals and Teachers
The close ended questions were prepared for respondents, because it helps the
researcher to know respondent‘s feeling. It also helps the respondents to choose one
option from the given scales that best aligns with their views. In addition to this, open
ended questionnaires were employed in order to give opportunity to express their
feelings, perceptions, problems and intensions related to the inclusive education.
The questionnaire consists of two sections. The first section (section A) consists of
principals personal particulars. The second (section B) consists of attitude scale. The
reason for including these particulars is that school principals are mixed. There are
males and females, those with relatively less teaching experience and those relatively
more teaching experience there are principals who are heading schools for long years
and those who came to the heading now as well as qualification and training issues,
These differences are anticipated to influence principals attitude regarding inclusive
education. This method basically was helping the researcher to reliably know the
attitudes of the respondents
Finally, the questionnaire was pilot tested. It was distributed to 5 high school
principals in selected secondary and elementary schools of Jigjiga city administration
which are not the part of the study. In pilot test the main concern was to detect
problems which may cause confusion to the respondents. It was also important to
improve the format of the questionnaire to facilitate understanding and content validity
and face validity are used in this study.
3.4.2. Interview
Interviewing is a good way of finding out what the section looks like from other point
of view. In the context of inclusive education, a sample of principals and vice
principals were interviewed frequently. The researcher prepared semi-structured
interview session with selected sampled schools principals using through face-to-face
44
communication. The interview was prepared in English, and the items of the questions
comprised issues on current practice, role, responsibilities, challenges and prospects in
Jigjiga city administration elementary and secondary schools. Five principals and five
deputy principals totaling ten were participated in an interview and the interview was
recorded by tape recorder.
3.4.3. Observation
Observation is a method of data collection in which a particular situation /event is
critically scrutinized for later analysis. Observations at each school site were
conducted to look at the dynamics and content of inclusive school settings as they
related to the culture and climate of the school. Observational data were placed into
the categories of administrative support for vision and change, inclusive strategies, and
inclusive education.
In a way researcher observed the administrative support toward the special needs
students of the 10 elementary and secondary schools and used checklists in the schools
compound. It was focused particularly on the school principals, teachers and
administrative support in promoting inclusive education openness. The information
sought by way of researcher's own direct observation.
3.5. Target Population, Sample Size and Sampling Techniques
The study area of Jigjiga city administration has seventeen public secondary and
elementary schools and 10 were selected purposively. The target population of this
study were principals and vice principals who are serving in government secondary in
Jigjiga city Administration. The total population are 55 and from those populations 45
principals were selected who working currently in their school. Because of similar
characters in their school, the researcher has taken 45 principals which are 81.8% of
the total principals for the sample size to represent the remaining total schools.
Table 1: Sample and Sampling Technique
45
Name of Schools Number
of
Schools
Selected
school as
sample
Number of
pr/vices
principals
Sampling
Techniques
Jigjiga secondary and preparatory 1 1 5
Pu
rposi
ve
Sam
pli
ng
ShakAbdisalne secondary & preparatory 1 1 5
Ahmed Gurae secondary and elementary 1 1 5
Modal secondary school s 1 1 4
Boarding secondary and elementary 1 1 5
Wono secondary and elementary 1 1 4
Hussen geray secondary and elementary 1 1 5
Shek Nur Isse secondary and elementary 1 1 4
Shek Musse primary school 1 1 4
Gobele primary school 1 1 4
Total 10 10 45
Source: Jigjiga city Administration 2016
3.6.Data Collection Procedure
After the researcher obtained a letter of cooperation permission from the Postgraduate
Program Directorate of Haramaya University to conduct this study, the following
procedures were used to collect data for my research. At the start of the study, I visited
each school to present a letter explaining the study to each school director and asking for
their permission to present my questionnaire to them and inquire about interest in being
interviewed. All the school directors agreed and signed the letters and I was granted
permission to conduct the study. In the first stage I presented and explained a
questionnaire to all principals at each of the Jigjiga city administration schools in the city.
I informed all principals that if they wanted to participate they could fill the questionnaire
without indicating their name and then return it to me and I distributed to all principals in
each school.
In the second stage I returned to schools to conduct interviews with principals. I asked
each principals if they might be interested in participating in interviews with me for this
research, I provided a separate form to be interviewed would require at least one hour
outside of school time to explore their perspectives on the current situation for inclusive
education in the schools and any evidence of principals attitudes toward inclusion they
46
have witnessed. Finally, after the researcher administered the questionnaire and employed
the interview for the selected samples of schools and all selected schools‘ principals, the
researcher collected, tallied, organized and compiled all data within the suggested time
scheduled on the proposal.
3.7. Methods of Data Analysis
The analysis of data involved both descriptive (means, percentages, standard deviation)
and inferential statistics (multiple regression) in order to assess the attitudes of principals
regarding inclusive educations of government secondary and elementary schools of
Jigjiga city administration. Descriptive statistic such as mean and percentage were used
for summarization. Finally, conclusions were drawn and possible recommendations were
forwarded from the finding of the study.
The data that was collected from the school principals via the qualitative technique would
help to derive unbiased opinions from the samples and has added to the study‘s
credibility and generated a variety of data. Thus open ended questions were provided an
opportunity for respondents to express their perceptions which would further allow
insights into their attitude of such perceptions. This enriched the quality of the data
obtained through the interview questionnaires in order to recognize and understand
school principals' attitudes and perceptions towards inclusion. Finally, the researcher
constructed the relationships with explanatory presentation by organizing thematically.
3.8. Ethical Consideration
The researcher was directing to the rules and regulations as laid down by the ethical
procedures of Haramaya University. The following ethical measures were applied.
Participation by respondents were voluntary and informal
A permission form was signed before conducting focus group discussion and
questionnaires
Participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality
The benefits of participants were clearly stated
47
Participants were protected against harm and were given an opportunity to
withdraw from research at any time without penalty
They could not participate if they did not provide consent. In the consent
form, participants were informed that they could choose to be out of the study
even after providing consent. They had the option to not answer questions that
they did not wish to answer.
Furthermore, the researcher provided contact information in case if any of the
participants have any questions about the study.
48
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data collected
from ten public secondary and elementary schools. Respondents were head principals and
vice principals currently working in the sampled schools.
Data collected using questionnaires, key informant interview, field observation and
official facts and figures obtained from document review was incorporated in the body of
the analysis and interpretation to make the discussion more credible. Based on the data
collection instruments, the presentation and interpretation of the data are presented in the
subsequent sections.
4.1. Background of the Respondents
Table: 2 Gender, age and educational qualification of the respondents
Variable Population Frequency %
Gender
Male 37 82
Female 8 18
Total 45 100
Age
30-50 years old 31 68.8
>50 14 31.2
Total 45 100
Qualification of principals
Certificate 0 0
Diploma 2 44.4
First degree 15 40
2nd
degree 7 15.6
Total 45 100
Professional experience
0 - 5 10 22.2
6 – 10 15 33.3
11 – 15 8 17.8
Above 16 12 26.7
Total 45 100
49
As shown in Table 2, 82% (37) respondents were male while 18 % (8) respondents were
females. The findings show that there are more males principals than females‘ principals.
This reveals that male teachers dominate positions of administration.
A high proportion of the respondents comprised of 68.8% were in the age group of 30 to
50 years, 31.2% were grouped above 50years. The mean age of the sample clients was
46.8 years. This implies that majority school principals were in middle age and capable to
undertake schools principal‘s role activities. This in turn, the age of a person is usually a
factor that could actively participate to implement and improve their best trends and have
the power to work in bringing a change in the area of their local schools
The same table indicates that 20 (44.4%) educators have diploma, 15 (40%) have first
degrees while 7(15.6%) has a Master level qualification in their career. It is interesting to
note that most educators are in possession of teaching qualifications at required level.
Most educators have degrees while a few have master level. This scenario indicated that
it is encouraging for the Education department since most educators are well qualified
and can therefore perform their instructional duties effectively.
Regarding years have principals spent as a teacher and as an administrator, respondent 25
(55.5%) years he/she spent as a teacher while 20 (44.5%) spent as a school principals.
This indicates they have more years of teaching experience. From this, it can be drawn
that there are more experienced educators in the secondary schools of the Jigjiga City
Administration. This implies that, the education department must consider inclusive
education training on educators in instructional leadership to prepare them as future
instructional leaders and elementary and secondary administrators have an opportunity to
understand the importance of their role in establishing an environment that is conducive
to successful inclusive practices. Likewise, the result also indicates that 72% of the
schools from which respondents asked belong to primary and 28% from secondary
schools.
In line with this most responses as primary and secondary school principals interviewee
on principals‘ years of service in their schools and attitude towards inclusive education
was pointed a high level of experienced as a teacher or administrator in their schools.
50
Table: 3 Principals’ years of service in general education and attitude towards
inclusive education
Years of experience N Mean SD t-cal df P
Less than 15 years 33 22.2 2.10 1.1 44 0.6
More than 15 years 12 11.9 1.23
T-test results on the scores of principals with short years of service in general education
system (m = 22.1, SD = 2.10) and long length of service in general education setting (m =
11.9, SD = 1.23), df (44) t= 1.1, P = 0.60 was not significant. P=0.6>=0.05. This result
suggests that principals with short years of service do not have better attitude of
principals towards inclusive education than those with long years of service.
Therefore, the role of the principal is to build a shared vision within an inclusive
education in schools is one of the key factors in successfully implementing inclusive
education for special needs students. The school principal, who serves as an educational
leader in school life, plays a major function in implementing change. Researcher
observation also confirm that principals are expected to provide major support to
educators and other staff members in implementing inclusive practices in the school.
51
4.2. Special Needs Category in Targeted Schools
Table: 4 Students with special needs category in the sampled schools
No. Students with special needs category
in your school
Sex
M F Total %
1 Physical disability 28 20 48 19%
2 Visual impairment 3 5 8 3.2%
3 Hearing impairment 20 19 39 15.4%
4 Autism spectrum disorder 11 6 17 6.7%
5 Intellectual disability 3 7 10 4%
6 Learning disability 25 34 59 23.3%
7 Speech and language disorder 26 23 49 19.4%
8 Emotional and behavioral disorder 7 9 16 6.3%
9 Others 4 3 7 2.8%
Total 127 126 253 100
To know students in each targeted schools with special needs category is an imperative to
note that what attitude and provisions are provided for special needs students in their
schools. Accordingly, a majority of the principals have answered that assignment of
students with special needs into the mainstream population were significantly present in
the elementary and secondary schools.
Table 4 above depicts that 59 (23.3%) of students were learning disability, 49 (19.4%)
were speech and language disorder, 48 (19%) were physical disability and 39 (15.4%)
were hearing impairment. The findings of this study indicated that students in elementary
and secondary schools include non-privileged special needs students with more severe
disabilities. On the other hand according to my observation for the time I have been in
these schools students‘ category with Visual impairment, Autism spectrum disorder and
52
Emotional and behavioral disorder are less inclusive placements students in both schools
of Jigjiga city administration
From this findings, from the selected sample of schools learners with high categories
which showed that the children with Learning disability and then children with Speech
and language disorder and children with Physical disability and then children with
Hearing impairment in targeted schools. In line with this, Avramidis (2002) suggested
that, attitudes towards inclusion were strongly influenced by type of disabilities and
educational problems being presented, or both, and to a lesser extent, by professional
background of respondents
To all extent, this result was consistent with the interviewee that, Principals are not
immune to society‘s belief systems and these beliefs also have the power to influence
their principal practice. Principals‘ attitudes, like those of parents, are extremely
important in successful inclusion in schools. Efforts will be made to compare the attitudes
of the principals who had experience with students with each of the above mentioned
disability with those who did not exposed to those students
Similarly, on their response interviewee of secondary schools suggest that, the levels of
students‘ disabilities were found in their school to influence principals‘ attitudes towards
inclusion and integration. The more enrolled number the student‘s disability, the more
positive the principals‘ attitude is towards their inclusive education in schools and vice
versa.
4.3. Learners with Disabilities Enrolled In Government Primary and Secondary
Schools
Table 5: Presence of learners with disabilities enrolled in government primary and
secondary schools
Response Frequency Percent
Yes 142 56.1%
No 111 43.9%
Total 253 100%
53
According to the respondents majority 142(56.1%) indicate that they are enrolled
children with special needs in schools. A fairly low percentage of respondents
111(43.9%) responded that there were no learners with special needs children enrolled in
schools
In general, this special needs category in targeted schools indicated that principals have a
key role in implementing successful inclusion programs. This implies a principal as
administrators is an opportunity to voice their concerns regarding special education in
public schools. It should be noted here that the latter variable dealt with the number of
kinds of disabilities that principals had looked in to during the time of their supporting
students with disabilities, not the number of students with disabilities at the time of the
study. Furthermore, this paper demonstrate the significance of principals‘ attitudes and
role in relation to how students with disabilities are placed in classrooms
4.4. Principals Views on Inclusive Education
Table: 6 responses on views of inclusive education
Statement
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
Inclusive education has positive
effect on social and emotional
development of disability students
39(86.7%) 6(13.3% - - -
Inclusive education is beneficial to
both normal and students with
disability
32(71.1%) - 3(6.7%) 10(22.2) -
Inclusive education lowers the
quality of education for all
students
33(73.3) - 7(15.6 % 5(11.1%)
From the information above in Table 6, the respondents had positive attitude towards
Inclusive education. Majority indicated that Inclusive education had a positive effect on
social and emotional development of challenged students as well as bifacial to both
normal and with disability students. A few of the respondents indicated that Inclusive
education lowers the quality of instruction for all students.
54
4.5. Principals Attitude towards Including the Inclusive Learners with Normal
Students in the Schools
Table: 7 Principals‘ response on inclusive learners with normal students in the schools
Statement Yes No
f % f %
Learners with disability enjoy learning together with
learners without disability
28 62.2% 17 37.8%
learners without disability enjoy learning together
with learners with disability
9 20% 36 80%
As shown in Table 7, above majority of the principals 80% stated that the learners
without disability and those with disabilities do not enjoy learning together. The finding
showed that inclusive education implementation in majority of the schools was not fully
affected. Thus, it was important for the study to establish school based factors hindering
effective implementation of inclusive education that included principals‘ attitudes and
physical facilities. The study revealed that most of the students had negative attitude
towards inclusive education as majority of principals preferred teaching normal students
without mixed them with challenged learners.
55
4.6. School Principals Opinions on the Implementation of Inclusion Education in
the School
Table: 8 Principals‘ responses in supporting inclusive education implementation in
schools
Statement
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
Providing principals with special
needs training opportunities
- - 6(13.3% 39(86.7%)
Learners with disabilities benefit
from specialized instructions
provided by school
- - - - 45(100%)
Having awareness and knowledge
as to how to deal with the student
that has special needs
- - 7(15. % 33(73.3) 5(11.1%)
Special education courses offered
at school level
- - - - 45(100%)
Appreciating diversity in the
schools
3(6.7%) 41(91.1%) 1(2.2%) -
Educate learners with disabilities
in a regular school
- 2(4.4%) - 43(96%) -
School appreciate inclusion of
learners with disabilities
- - - 19(42%) 26(58%)
According to Table 8, above, respondents replied that the most responses were similar to
each other as 39 (86.7%) have no provision of appropriate and adequate training,
45(100%) with disabilities do not benefit from specialized instructions. This relates to
providing principals with special needs training opportunities enable them to support a
student with disabilities in an inclusive education. This would improve on principals‘
competencies for inclusive education across their schools in a more sustainable way.
During the researcher‘s interview of secondary school principals confirm that a majority
of respondents during their interviewee in this study indicated that the absence of
specialists in the inclusive program hinder the access to support services in their schools.
This implies it is obvious implications for the Ethiopian Somali regional state education
56
bureau to make the necessary support services available to regular school teachers if they
are to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. The educational
reform in the case of Ethiopian educational system in special education is common about
the availability of support services for the successful implementation of inclusive
education programs (MoE, 2006).
In addition, 33(73.3) to a small extent awareness and knowledge as to how to deal with
the student that has special needs and 41(91.1%) do not educate learners with disabilities
in a regular school. This implies creating opportunities for principals to reach a good
level of preparedness of all aspects of the special needs or inclusive education is as
needed. In line with this interviewed confirms ,these issues were further compounded to
significant extent that secondary school principals did not have access to support students
with special education teachers, specialists in the inclusive program or resources in their
schools. Besides, in their response explained that many regular secondary school teachers
feel unprepared and fearful to work with learners with disabilities. Display frustration,
anger and negative attitude towards inclusive education. Similar view was also observed
that principals pretend to be unpleasant in order to conceal their frustrations and
limitations in handling learners with disabilities.
This implies, having attitude as to how to deal with the student that has special needs, the
school principal is the person act as the catalyst for change at the school level. If he or
she is not confident in meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities, the
likely success of the program may be placed in jeopardy. The results of this study
therefore have important implications for secondary schools principals who are
responsible for their positive attitude of regular school teachers in their schools.
At the same time as, the participants replied 45(%) that the majority of the respondents
disagree and strongly disagree the principals in the school need specialized training to
enable them implement inclusion of learners with disabilities, learners with disabilities do
better in a special school than in the regular school that principals do not appreciate
inclusion of learners with disabilities respectively.
57
In line with statements reflecting inclusive needs in the interview session, it is agreed that
developing professional trainings for principals on instituting inclusive school programs
is significantly associated with positive attitudes toward inclusion and that focuses on
special needs education practices on principals‘ attitudes toward the inclusion of students
in schools
In addition, from the interview in respect to their local assumption and less recognition
principals might be worried that special need children will be a burden to teachers and
negatively impact other students‘ learning, fail to recognize the value of inclusive
students being educated, or simply have no hope for their success. But, they argue that
special needs teachers were utilized as resources and facilitators in trainings and are
capable of working with students with inclusive. This implies of local training and
expertise perpetuates the idea that teaching students with inclusive requires specialized
positive attitude from school principals and local community.
This in turn brings the secondary school environment successful in its efforts as it will
included local people with inclusive education, special needs teachers, and health care
professionals as facilitators. Ethiopia‘s Ministry of Education has called for inclusive
education to become a part of Ethiopia‘s teacher training curriculum in teacher‘s colleges
and regional education bureaus have begun establishing special education needs (MoE,
2012). In line with this, principal practice of inclusion toward on implementation and
promotion of inclusive education who were interviewed explains that ―there is awareness
towards implementation and promotion of inclusive education however, principals had
negative attitude and preferred normal students without mixing them with disabled
learners‖
Changes have constantly occurred in the delivery of special education services and
inclusion has been one of the most fundamental changes. Since examining principals‘
attitudes could reveal how they feel about supporting inclusion programs, current study
such approach. However, evidences indicate that school principals‘ attitudes toward
inclusion influence the success of education students with disabilities in general
58
education classrooms. Principals are considered to have the most significant role in the
implementation of inclusion programs in schools (Taylor, 2011).
A critical need, as indicated by this study, is the necessity to bridge the gap between
principals‘ attitudinal levels and needed to implement effective inclusive education
programs. Regular school principals who are already a part of the work force should be
provided with adequate opportunities for professional development. In this regard,
interview from principals argue that, if within the local context, have the potential to
improve quality of supporting in the long term and would improve on principals
competencies for inclusive education across the Ethiopian Somali regional state in a more
sustainable way but, shot term seminars or workshops would not appear to be the answer.
Literature has indicated that in the theory of transformational leadership, which identifies
the influence and important role that school principals play in the implementation of an
inclusive and supportive school environment and special educators will make inclusion
programs successful; examining principals‘ attitudes as well reveal how they feel about
supporting inclusion programs (Carter & Hughes, 2005; Lohrman & Bambara, 2006;
Smith & Leonard, 2005).
4.7. Principals’ Major Attitudinal Problem towards the Success of Inclusive
Education in the Schools
Table: 9 Factors in implementing inclusive education for special needs students
Possible factors Yes No Partial
Parents' attitudes towards inclusion 37(82.2%) 8(17.8%) -
Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion 26(57.8%) 19(42.2%) -
School administrators' attitude towards inclusion 9(20%) 17(37.8%) 19(42.2%)
Not sufficient funding inclusive program 21(46.7%) 13(28.9%) 11(24.4%)
Teachers' qualification in inclusive education 33(73.3%) 2(4.4%) 10(22.2%)
School setting environment ( only non- disable
centered)
45(100%) - -
59
In Table 9, a majority of the participants 19 (42.2%) placed a partial emphasis on changes
that need to occur at the schools. This indicates specifically the schools administration
needs to make appropriate decisions regarding inclusion of facilities and resources and
hiring adequate staff to meet the needs of the students. Interviewee indicates that poor
attitudes of teachers and their lack of skills also impede the successful implementation of
inclusive education programs. It is necessary for inclusive educational change
implementers to try to ensure that teachers are supportive as fully as possible by their
immediate and wider working environments.
Further participants illustrated through the statements Parents' attitudes 37 (82.2%),
Teachers' attitudes 26(57.8%), and Teachers' qualification 33(73.3%) factors in
implementing full inclusive into Jigjiga city administration Public schools unsuccessfully.
This will shows through the responses stated above, it can understand that the scope of a
schools principals covers various areas of schooling and primarily effective decision
making is required in light of the implementation. Likely, Items, shows, 21(46.7%) of the
respondents agreed that as there is insufficient funding for inclusive program in order to
ensure smooth transition from limited inclusion towards full inclusion.
In addition, as principals questioned in the case of parental attitudes towards inclusive
education supporting for special needs students, it summarized from their responses that
inclusion is still theoretically accepted but when it comes to a direct down to earth
implementation, and a lack of readiness is obvious. This concurs with Green and Shinn
(1995) where the vague understanding of the purpose and benefits of inclusion from the
side of the parents can be a main reason for the negative attitude. This circumstance also
leads and confirms to conclude that Principals do not have to say that they are less
prepared to support students with special need students. He/she can cooperate with other
experienced staffs or follow a course in special education
This implies a key factor of success to inclusion in the targeted schools is to have more
awareness and acceptance of school and community towards special needs students in
particular and inclusive education in general. Thus it is possible to infer that, principals
60
look into developing students‘ special needs and level of confidence through leadership
roles taken at school.
This idea coincides with principal interviewee that, by well aware parents that is under
the strong leadership of the school principal collaboration will able to communicate their
role in contributing towards a successful inclusion at their school. In addition, the
researcher observed that, principals and community as they may eventually take on the
role of team effort, a special needs educational need always needs additional assistance
within the targeted schools environment.
On the other hand, as principals on their interviewee pointed out about secondary schools
administrative perceptions of inclusion in public schools, the researcher has attempted to
gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon by asking public school principals views
on inclusion. A majority of the participants responded with a poor administrative
preparedness that hindering full inclusion in their public schools. However they argue
that, the fact that school administrators can make the decisions that eventually affect the
day to day functioning of the school, their contribution and attitude matters significantly.
In the same Table 9, as the inclusive education remains with a problem to implement
because of lack of resources and limited funds comprised 21(46.7%). This implies that
the government and donor/NGO donor funds were the most significant backbone towards
the implementation of special needs education. Further interviews also revealed as there
are the presence of slow implementation due to inadequate funding of financial aids
available from the government, donors, and parents to uplift the initiative. It can be
concluding that lacks of resources are always used as a reason for lack of action.
As researcher made observation on the availability and functionality of facilities that
create a barrier environment was sought physical facilities were not suiting special needs
learners towards inclusive education in elementary and secondary schools of Jigjiga City
Administration.
61
4.8. Attributes of Principals Attitude for Inclusive Education to Be Fully
Implemented In the Schools
Table: 10 Needs to inclusive education to be fully implemented
Statement SD D N A SA
The presence of a building constructed
and equipped with all facilities planned
to serve students with special needs
- - -
6(14.3%)
39(86.7%)
Providing all facilities that provide to
all special needs students wants
- - - 40(88.9%) 5(11.1%)
Develop a strategic plan for inclusion
that protects students with special
needs, specifically in a schools that
practices full inclusion
7(15.6%)
20(44.4%)
18(40%)
A need to form a committee composed
of members of schools, community,
school parents, city leaders, students
and others. Those who are well versed
with matters on inclusion and can be
involved in decision making and
recommendations.
-
-
5(11.1%)
15(33.3%)
25(55.6%)
Monitoring and observing/supervision
inclusive practices for further
improvement
-
-
3(6.7%)
30(66.7%)
12(26.7%)
Positive attitudes in successful
inclusion programs and improved
student achievement
- - - 5(11.1%) 40(88.9%)
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Neutral (N), 4 = Agree (A), 5 =
Strongly Agree (SA).
62
These questions were designed to ask the participants for their opinion on what needs to
occur in order for inclusive education to be fully implemented in the public schools of
Jigjiga secondary and elementary schools. Participants responded with various ideas and
concepts as depicted in their statements. This circumstance lead principals interviewee
confirms, providing all facilities that provide to all special needs students wants it is
becoming more apparent that the physical condition of schools can influence student
support.
Further, the finding concur with the study observation from Hawkins (2009) that also
attitudes are not the only factors which account for the teaching and learning they direct
and influence learning considerably . as most of the principals have positive attitude
towards inclusive education can significantly influence its implementation. The
researcher also sought to establish observation checklist in selected schools based
inclusive education problems. For instance adequate, spacious and well located
classroom, open, airy and well situated sanitary facilities, toilets, paths and runways,
learning support and facilities are not well built to implement inclusive education. Thus
due to low facilities that provide to all special needs students‘ development; there was
low level of implementation of inclusive education. This implies, school leaders should
guide for further support these relationships in way that will provide direction in the
design, construction and maintenance of school facilities. This in turn the role physical
surroundings play is affecting schools behavior.
Accordingly, as Table 10 of all Items showed, the respondents were replied strongly
agree and agree with matters on inclusive education needs of full implementation.
Significant number of the principals‘ response was certain of their feelings toward
inclusion mechanisms of students with special needs in the secondary and elementary
schools. On the other hand, In support of this, the opinions from one of the secondary
school principal‘s interview had admitted challenged students in their school in line with the
physical condition of implementation on inclusive education at their local school level.
This circumstance also lead interviewees‘ opinion confirms to conclude that, with
positive attitudes toward inclusion will more likely to place students even in their least
63
restrictive environment. Strong principals also have the ability to motivate and support
teachers in the inclusive classroom.
On the other hand, as indicated in Table 10, comprised 84.4% of the respondents reported
that developing a strategic plan for inclusive education that protects students with special
needs, specifically in secondary schools that implementing fully. This implies that
planning offer each and every student a suitable and relevant inclusive education, the
school aims to ensure that students with special needs are not hidden away. So by
developing strategic plan through responsibility and tolerance, establishing principles of
normalization help students interact and focusing on their way of learning.
In support of this Ministry of Education (MoE) (2012) developing a strategic plan for
inclusion improve the flexibility of the school's systems; the school's way of organizing
its education provision; the relationship with parents and the local community; the extent
to which staff on the integration project are involved in the school's development
planning; and the school staff's attitude to the new challenges and tasks introduced by the
schools
As it is depicted in the Table 10, 88.9% of the respondents replied agreed on the
composition of an integrated team a need to form a committee composed of members of
people have easily will point to the decisions taken about their child's inclusive
education. This implies that team approach is essential to create positive attitudes which
permit the inclusive education of problems and the sharing of solutions and new
approaches.
In line with this principal interviewed confirms, this willingness on the part of the
committee to work in partnership is essential. For example provide information, provide
training for administrators and teachers, answer queries, spread good practice between
the schools, provide a central point of information for any other external organizations
and actively promote the rights of disabled children and influence traditional opinion.
Each school‘s administrative team should demonstrate leadership and offer motivation
that empowers school staff, family, community and all students to create a culture of
64
acceptance and achievement. In schools the school principals are the personnel
responsible for the daily supervision of the special education and placement decisions.
Principals have one of the most important roles in helping schools to develop successful
inclusion programs. It is theorized that school leadership establishes and affects school
culture and teachers‘ attitudes and thereby, has an important role in making inclusion a
successful process (Villa & Thousand, 2005). From this one can infer that, participants
look into developing students‘ special needs and level of confidence through leadership
roles taken at schools.
Concerning positive attitudes in successful inclusive education within the students
according to Table 10, Item 5 shows that the respondents revealed their extent of
agreement by 100%. Likewise, interviewees further said that to raise awareness and
mobilize thereby enabling their friends to be more effective in helping their disabled
students, to establish links between themselves and strengthen friendly of common life
with disabilities enable them to play a role in their schools all opportunities
As indicated in Table 10, comprised 93.7% of all respondents reported that monitoring
and observing/ supervision for inclusive education for further improvement will be a
more sensitization work needs to be done. This implies the supervisors are expected to
identify and assess the needs of secondary schools with inclusive education and assist
families to support their members who have special needs students.
On the other hand observation by the researcher has centered on identification of children
with special needs, classroom management and the involvement of parents and the
community in the inclusive education. But in each observation secessions such
coordination of monitoring and supervision do not exercised the inclusive education as a
joint undertaking, rather than one which is being by an external a comparable degree of
special needs students‘ family involvement
65
This circumstance also lead interviewee opinion confirms effective monitoring and
assessment, and a strengthening of opportunities at community level will, ensure that a
majority of people with special needs students are able to benefit from the services being
provided. This could also enhance interaction between non-disabled children and children
with special needs students by providing an education where they can learn together.
From this one can infer that the coordination of the inclusive education program that all
roles is to inspire, advice and support and not to make one-sided decisions rather
proximity of schools, local community and family for effective monitoring and
evaluation helped to foster a feeling among participants that they were part of a
volunteers partnership.
In the light of the mechanisms that inclusion education will implemented in the targeted
schools, the researcher concludes that secondary schools‘ principals leaders do not fulfill
their administrative leadership tasks very successfully. In this respect, one can speculate
that preparing principals and assistant principals for school leadership to effect social
change can occur through simple acts, such as opening one‘s social group to include
individuals with increasing one‘s positive attitude about inclusive education and taking
coursework and/or training in special education instruction and inclusion practices.
To sum up in reality, no change can happen in a vacuum, especially such complex change
with different dimensions like attitudes. Attitudes towards persons with special needs are
acquired through experience. It can be pointed out that, in the context of changing
schools to welcoming students with inclusive education, school principals, administrators
and teachers should have to start with attitudes. According to ICF (WHO, 2001), attitudes
of school administrators and teachers, who are in positions of authority, would create
hindrances or facilitators for students with special needs depending on their negative or
positive attitudes respectively.
66
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine principals‘ attitude towards inclusive education
in government schools of Jigjiga City Administration. The first research question
examined whether attitudes toward inclusion were significantly predicted by the
demographic variables of age, gender, and having being an elementary or secondary
school teaching or years of administrator experience
The second research question examined if attitudes toward inclusion were significantly
predicted schools‘ principals responded based on various statements reflecting this
concept and main factors that create challenges towards inclusive education practices in
selected government schools.
The results of this study summary have important implications towards, inclusive
education, students with special education needs, and positive attitudes among schools
staff, community and students for secondary schools principals who are responsible for
their positive attitude of special needs students in their schools. Therefore based on the
discussion from the respondents reply summarized;
It is noted that the category dealt with the number and kinds of disabilities that
principals had looked in to during the time of their supporting students with in
targeted schools was found.
The school principal is the person act as the catalyst for change at the school
level. However, principals are not immune to society‘s belief systems and these
beliefs also have the power to influence their principal practice. He or she is not
confident in meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities, the likely
success of the program be placed in jeopardy.
Dealing with the student that has special needs, attitudes towards inclusive
education supporting for special needs students, summarized from their responses
that inclusion is still theoretically accepted by the principals but it comes to a
direct down to earth implementation, and a poor of attitude is observed.
67
The study revealed that principals do not have to say that they are prepared to
support students with special need students and cooperate with other experienced
staffs. This not improved on principals‘ competencies for inclusive education
across their schools in a more sustainable way. Principals had no relationship
between attitudes toward inclusion education with their administrative experience
In the context of changing schools to welcoming with disability students with
inclusive education, school principals have no sensitivity training.
Experience would encourage principals and school staffs that easily to implement
inclusion within and among schools. However, principals‘ working experience is
not related in creating more favorable attitudes toward inclusion.
On the other hand, the number of special needs students in their school enrollment
was shown to be significantly associated with attitudes toward inclusion. In
schools with small enrollment numbers, principals have fewer opportunities to
create relationships with teachers, staff, parents and students. They aren‘t seen as
friends. This was not a planned examination, and yet it contributed less positive
attitude to the special needs students on inclusion.
Likely, the study revealed school principals are not organized in special need
education training. Though principals are trained and have administrative
experience with challenges which might be a barrier in the implementation of
inclusive education
In addition, principals are considered to have the most influential role in the
implementation of inclusion programs. However, in these elementary and
secondary schools principals who participated in this study had unclear attitudes
toward the inclusion of students with special needs. However, this study
concerned the inclusion of students with all special needs.
5.2. Conclusion
The researcher believe that seeing the overall ratings of the sample respondents can help
both describe the current situation and make informed suggestions to put real principals‘
attitude towards inclusive education in government schools of Jigjiga City Administration
68
has led to alter the system in the study areas. In doing so, based on the data collected and
analyzed the following conclusions can be drawn.
Principals' attitude is an important factor when determining the success of an
inclusion program within a school setting. However, in the study areas principals
still remain ill prepared for the task and inclusive practices turn out to be
unsuccessful. Thus, interaction with the students was limited as the principals had
to meet with the demands of the special needs
Principals‘ with more of administrative experience show more acceptances
towards their school administration. In association to this fact, principals with
fewer experience showed a less attitude towards the concept. Principals displayed
a reduced level of attitude and insensitivity towards inclusion as opposed to their
school administration.
Principals lack of an implementation plan of inclusive education in creating more
favorable attitudes toward inclusion within their school. So providing adequate
inclusive education for disability students regardless of inclusion it may very well
be easier to understand than to implement
Schools have not established the necessary foundations of the availability of
resources needed for schools to meet the needs of children with disabilities in the
regular classrooms. School principals clearly accepted a possible ways which
supports inclusion with disability students in regular classes
Principals are not opposed to the philosophy of inclusion and are including children
with disabilities in their schools when these children are enrolled, but they believe
that some children would receive a better education in special schools. They see may
be a separate topic from their belief about what would be best for the education of the
student with a disability
69
Principals have the central role of fostering an inviting and inclusive learning
setting for all students. However, unsatisfactory response on influencing the
tendency for the instructional and support staff members who collaborate to make
inclusion successful for all students
The principals directly express a need for more training, specifically in strategies
to educate children with disabilities in their schools. So principals‘ training is
what would be best for the education of the student with a disability
5.3. Recommendation
Currently, Ethiopia has adopted the inclusion model due to countries mandate on equal
opportunity for all their citizens to be provided with an education and any specialized
instruction required preparing them for full integration into their society including
employment and independent living.
The principal as change agent is an essential component of successful inclusion
programs. Thus, principals need to display willingness and a positive attitude
when confronting special needs students. This in turn will improve student
performances and create a positive image for all.
Ongoing training is necessary to ensure that school principals fosters acceptance
of the inclusive learning for all students in their schools which in turn will allow
them to serve their students‘ needs better
Social change can occur through increasing one‘s attitudes about developmental
disabilities and inclusion practices and then principals have more opportunities to
create relationships with teachers, staff, parents, and students. Indeed, perhaps to
the point that these individuals are seen as friends. Thus, a planned program will
contributed new knowledge to inclusive education
Principals are ultimately responsible for placement decisions of students with
special needs. Ongoing training and professional development is necessary to
70
ensure school leadership fosters acceptance of the diversity and integration that
legally and morally encompasses qualified inclusive specialists for all students.
Teacher preparedness and training, attitudes without disability students and the
appropriate school facilities influence their attitudes and decision making. This in
turn alarming as principals will eventually take on leadership roles within the
education arena and will be making decisions that will affect the future of
students‘ inclusion education
In addition to that, the local city administration would also need to monitor the
progress of principals with positive attitude in handling inclusive education
practice in order to ensure smooth transition from partial inclusion towards full
inclusion.
The school department heads, administration and teachers must capitalize positive
attitude of principals to implement the inclusive education as well ensure the same
level of positive attitude shared by the secondary school members
71
REFERENCES
.
Abate, Lema,2001. Teachers attitude towards the inclusion of children with disability in
regular schools unpublished master‘s Thesis Addis Ababa. A.A. U press.
Abebe Girma 2001. Attitudes in of teachers and students regarding the integration of
Hearing impaired students in to regular classes Unpublished Master‘s Thesis
Addis Ababa AAU press
Ainscow M and Hopkins D 2002 Aboard. The Moving school; Educational Leadership
50 (3)
Ainscow, M., & Sandhill, A. 2010. Developing inclusive education systems: the role of
organizational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 14(4)
Afshari, M., Bakar, K., Luan, W. S., & Siraj, S. 2012. Factors affecting the
transformational leadership role of principals in implementing ICT in schools.
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 164-176. ED524156
Allan, J., 2010. Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 25 (2)
Avissar, G., Reiter, S. & Leyser, Y. 2003. Principals‘ views and practices regarding
inclusion: the case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 18(3)
Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. 2013. The effect of school principals‘ leadership styles
on teachers‘ organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2)
Bailey, J. 2004. The validation of a scale to measure school principals‘ attitudes toward
the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools. Australian
Balyer, 2012 Balyer, A. 2012. Transformational leadership behaviors of school
principals: a qualitative research based on teachers‘ perceptions. International
Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(3)
Bartlett, L. D., Etscheidt, S., & Weisenstein, G. R. 2007. Special education law and
practice in public schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2008. Transformational Leadership. Mahwah, New
72
Jersey: Psychology Press
Beauchamp, M., Barling, R. J., & Morton, K. L. 2011. Transformational teaching and
adolescent self-determined motivation, self-efficacy, and intentions to engage
in leisure time physical. Applied Psychology: Health and well-being, 3(2), 127-
150. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01048
Bernard, A. Education for All and children who are excluded, in thematic studies.
Education for All 2000 Assessment, UNESCO, 2000. Retrieved from 58
http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/efa_2000_assess/thematic_studies.shtm
l on 02/ 02/2010
Barnett C and Monda–Amaya L E 2008. Principal s knowledge of and attitude towered
inclusion Remedial and Special Education 19 (3)
Borch V 2008. Supporting inclusion; Beyond the rhetoric PhiDelta Kappan 77.
Bines, Hazel, and Philippa Lei 2011. ‗Disability and education: The longest road to
inclusion‘, International Journal of Educational Development, vol. 31, no. 5
Cannon G, S;Idol L,,and West J. F. 2002. Educating students with mild handicaps in
genral classroom Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25
Chataika, Tsitsi, Judith Anne Mckenzie, Estelle Swart, and Marcia Lyner-Cleophas 2012.
‗Access to education in Africa: Responding to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities‘, Disability & Society,
vol. 27, no. 3
Chhabra, Simmi, Rama Srivastava, and Ishaan Srivastava 2010. ‗Inclusive education in
Botswana: The perceptions of school teachers‘, Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, vol. 20, no. 4
Chiuho, S O. 2005. Principals, attitude towards inclusive education
http;//66.218.69.11/ ssearch/cache? ei=UfF-8 and P= principals %27+
Attitudes +T.
Choi, J. 2008. Attitudes and perceptions of South Korean elementary school principals
toward inclusion of students with disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois, 2008)
73
Connors-Gilmore M. 2007. Teachers perspectives on inclusion in an urban district;A
formative evaluation (Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh 1997)
Cook, B. 2004. Inclusive teachers‘ attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A
replication and extension. The Elementary School Journal, 307-320. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3202944
Costley, 2013. Costley, K. 2013. Ongoing professional development: The prerequisite for
continuation of successful inclusion meeting the needs of special students in
public schools. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Cuban.L.2009. A F undamental puzzle of school reform.Phi Delta Kappan,70 (5)
Dagnew, Asrat (2013) Factors affecting the implementation of inclusive education in
primary schools of Bahir Dar town administration‘, Education Research
Journal, vol. 3, no.3
Davis, J.C. & Maheady, L. 1991. The regular education initiative: What do three groups
of education professionals think? Teacher Education and Special Education,
14.
Dobson, B. A. 2013. Section 504--The 1973 Law Still Makes a Difference. Odyssey:
New Directions In Deaf Education, 14
Dyal, A., Flynt, S. W., & Bennett-Walker 1996. Schools and inclusion: Principal‘s
perceptions. Clearing House, 70 (2)
Eleweke, C. Jonah, and Michael Rodda 2002. ‗The challenge of enhancing inclusive
education in developing countries‘, International Journal of Inclusive
Education, vol. 6, no. 2
Eleweke, C. Jonah, and Michael Rodda 2002. ‗The challenge of enhancing inclusive
education in developing countries‘, International Journal of Inclusive
Education, vol. 6, no. 2
Etenesh Abebe, 2001. Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV) 2010/2011
– 2014/2015. Program Action Plan Situational Analysis of Ethiopia,
unpublished report
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2011a. Teacher
Education for Inclusion across Europe – Challenges and Opportunities.
Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education
74
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2012. Teacher
Education for Inclusion: Profile of Inclusive Teachers. Odense, Denmark:
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015a. The Teaching Profession in Europe:
Practices, Perceptions and Policies
European Commission, 2015d. Strengthening teaching in Europe. New evidence from
teachers compiled by Eurydice and CRELL, June 2015. Brussels: European
Commission
European Doctorate in Teacher Education (EDiTE), 2014. Teacher Education and
Teacher Education Policies in the European Union. Issues
European Commission, 2014. Initial teacher education in Europe: an overview of policy
issues. Brussels: European Commission
Fullan M, and Stiegelbauer, S, 2001. The new meaning of educational changes NewYork;
Teachers challenge press. Columbia University
Geter, A. G. 1998. Secondary and elementary school principals‟ attitudes toward
inclusion of special education students (Doctoral dissertation, South Carolina
State University, 1998). ProQuest Digital Dissertations, (UMI No. 3038682)
Handicap International 2013. Disability Rights, [Online], Available:
http://www.handicap-international.us/disability_rights [26 Oct 2013].
Hannah, M. E. (1988). Teacher attitudes toward children with disabilities: An ecological
analysis. Attitudes toward Persons with Disabilities. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.
Hesselbart, F. 2005. A study of principals‘ attitudes toward inclusion; The impact of
administrator preparation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo, 2005).
Pro Quest Digital Dissertations, (UMI No.3177598).
Hof, C. C. 1994. Inclusion and the elementary principal. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Dakota, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56/04,
1198.
Horne, M.D. 1985. Attitudes Toward Handicapped Peers: Professional Peers, and
Parents Reactions. Hillsdale: Erlbaum
Horrocks, J. L. 2006. Principals' attitudes regarding inclusion of children with autism in
Pennsylvania public schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University, 2006)
75
Hunter, C. D. 2006. Principals' perceptions toward inclusion of students with identified
disabilities in urban secondary schools. (Doctoral Dissertation, Edgewood
College, 2006)
Husbands, C. and Pearce, J., 2012. What makes great pedagogy? Nine claims from
research. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership Jayaram, K.,
Moffit, A. and Scott, D., 2012.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. sec.1400[c](2004)
International Labor Organization 2013. Inclusion of People with Disabilities in
Ethiopia,[ElectronicAvailable: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@e
d_emp/@ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_112299.pdf [17 Oct 2013].
Kangwa, Patrick and Grazyna Bonati 2003. Learning together in the Mpika Inclusive
Education Project [Electronic], Available: http://www.child-to-
child.org/publications/mpika/MIEPFinalReport.pdf [10 Oct 2013]
Karten, T. J. 2005. Inclusion strategies that work! Research-based methods for the
classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press
Lewis, Ingrid 2009. Education for disabled people in Ethiopia and Rwanda,
[Electronic], Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images
/0018/001865/186564e.pdf [1 Oct 2013]
Levy, S N 2009. Attitudes of elementary school principal toward restructuring for
inclusion (Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University 1999) UMI Proquest
Digital Dissertation DAI-A 60/08
Lipsky D K and Gartner, A, 2006. Inclusion, School restructuring and the remaking of
American society Harvard Educational Review 66 (4)
Littrell, P. Billingsley, B. & Cross, L. 1994. The effect of principal support on special and
general educators‟ stress, job, school satisfaction, school commitment, health,
and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 15
Livingston, M. Reed, T. & Good, J. W. 2001. Attitudes of rural school principals toward
inclusive practices and placements for students with severe disabilities. 1-11
Journal of Research for EducationalLeadership.[Online]Availabe:www.uiowa.
edu/~rel/fall01
Maricle, S. L. 2001. Attitudes of New Jersey public secondary school principals toward
inclusive education and educational strategies related to its practice. (Doctoral
dissertation, Seton Hall University, College of Education and Human Services,
2001)
76
McLauchlin, J. A. 2001. Mainstreaming and inclusion: The attitudes of North Carolina
Principals toward integrating special needs students into the regular
classroom. (Doctoral Dissertation, South Carolina State University, 2001)
Ministry of Education 2006. Special needs Education Program Strategy. Emphasizing
inclusive education to meet the UPEC and EFA goals. Addis Ababa
Miles, Susie, and Nidhi Singal 2010. The education for all and inclusive education
debate: Conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of
Inclusive Education vol.14 no.1
Miles, Susie, Lorraine Wapling, and Julia Beart 2011. Including deaf children in primary
schools in Bushenyi, Uganda: A community-based initiative, Third World
Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 8
Ministry of Education (MoE) and UNICEF 2012. Study on situation of out of school
children (OOSC) in Ethiopia, [Electronic], Available:
http://www.unicef.org/ethiopia/OSCStudyReport2012.pdf [25 Oct 2013].
Nanus B, 2002. Visionary Leadership; Creating a compelling sense of directions for your
organization. San Francisco Jossey–Bass
Ocloo, Mark Anthony, and Michael Subbey 2008. Perception of basic education school
teachers towards inclusive education in the Hohoe District of Ghana,
International Journal of Inclusive Education vol. 12, no. 5-6
Pettipher R .2000. Jack of all trade for manager of all Role of the inclusive principal
http//www.Isec 2000 org uk /abstract /paper/p/ pettipher I.htm
Pottas, L.2005. Inclusive education in South Africa; The challenges posed to the teachers
of a child with a hearing loss, Pretoria University of Pretoria.
Praisner .C. 2003. Attitudes of elementary and secondary schools principals toward the
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes (Doctoral
dissertation Lehigh University,2000). UMI Proquest digital Digital
Dissertation. DAI- A61/07
77
Riehl C J 2000. The principals‘ Role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students A
review of normative empirical and critical literature on the practice of
educational administration, Review of educational research 70
Schwarz, P. 2006. From disability to possibility: The power of the inclusive classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sebba J and A, inscow, M, 2006. International development in inclusive Schooling
Mapping the issues, Cambridge Journal of education 26 (1)
Shulman, L. S., 2005. Signature pedagogies in the professions‘ Daedalus, 134 (3)
Singal, Nidhi 2009. Education of Children with Disabilities in India‘, Background paper
prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010,
[Electronic], Available: http://ddp
Spratt, J. and Florian, L., 2014. Developing and Using a Framework for Gauging the Use
of Inclusive Pedagogy by New and Experienced Teachers, in Forlin, C. and
Loreman, T. (eds.) Measuring Inclusive Education (International
Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Volume 3). Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited
Stainback W. and Stainback, S,2000. Collaboration, support networking and community
building In S, Stain back and W Sainback (Eds) Inclusion A guide for
Educators (PP193-2020). Baltimore, Maryland Paul H. Brooks.
Stainback and Stainback, 2002. Stainback, S. & Stainback, W, 1992. Curriculum
considerations in inclusive Classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students.
Baltimore: PaulH.Brookes Publishing
ext.worldbank.org/EdStats/INDgmrpap09a.pdf [18 Oct 2013].
Taylor, K. R. 2011. Inclusion and the law: Two laws--IDEA and Section 504—Support
Inclusion in Schools. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for
Quick Review, 76(9)
Tesfaye Abate.2005. The attitudes of special and regular class teacher towards the
inclusion individuals with mental retardation. Unpublished Master s. Thesis
Addis Ababa AAU press
Teklemariam, Alemayehu and Temesgen Fereja 2011. Special Needs Education in
Ethiopia‘, in Winzer, Margret A., and Kas Mazurek (eds) International
Practices in Special Education. Debates and Challenges
78
Tilahun Tesfaye. 2007. Inclusive education for hearing impairment .Unpublished
master‘s thesis, Addis Ababa A.A.U. press
Tirussew Tefera 2005. Inclusion of children with disabilities in regular schools
challenges and opportunities. The Ethiopia Journal of Education Volume
XIX No1 institute of educational research A.A.U Printing Press
UNESCO 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education, [Electronic], Available: http://www.unesco.org/education
/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF [20 Oct 2013]. Franck 18
UNESCO, 1994. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs
education paris, UNESCO
Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. 2005. Creating an inclusive school (2nd ed.). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
World Bank, 2004. The right to education for persons with disabilities, [Electronic],
Available: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001378/137873e.pdf [20
Oct 2013].
79
APPENDICES
Haramaya University Postgraduate Program Directorate
College of Education and Behavioral Sciences Department
of Special Needs and Inclusive Education
Appendix –A
Questionnaire to Be Filled By School Principals and Vice-Principals
Dear respondents;
My name is Teketel Kassaye and I am conducting a study on Principals’ Attitude
towards Inclusive Education in Government Schools of Jigjiga City Administration for
my MA Thesis at Haramaya University. I am requesting your permission to participate in
my MA research by filling out the questionnaire. Please let me know if you have any
additional questions or concerns. Thank you in advance for helping me by completing the
questionnaire.
Directions: - Please answer the following questions by putting ―x‖ mark in the table or
by writing an appropriate answer. Please check the response that best describes you.
Part I-Personal information
a) Gender: Male Female
b) Age:
c) Job Category Principal Assistant Principal
d) Qualification Certificate Diploma
1st degree 2
nd degree
others____________________________
e) Nationality________________________
f) Your school name _________________________
1) How many years have you served in teaching profession?
a) As a teacher
b) As an administrator
80
2) Where do you work currently?
a) Elementary school
b) Secondary school
Part II- General Information on inclusion
1 How do you define the term inclusive education?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. Have you ever participated in training related to inclusive education?
Yes No
3. Special Education Teaching Experience
None
0 – 5 years
6 – 10 years
11 – 20 years
21 years or more
4. Are there students with special needs in your school?
Yes No
5. If your answer for question No 3 is ―yes‖ please indicate which students for each
category below are available in your school?
Students with special needs category enrolled
in your school
Sex
M F Total
Physical disability
Visual impairment
Hearing impairment
Autism spectrum disorder
Intellectual disability
81
Learning disability
Speech and language disorder
Emotional and behavioral disorder
Others
6. To what extent do you agree with the statements below? Please select the response
that best fits your choice with 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 =
Uncertain (un), 4 = Agree (A), 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).
Statement
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
Inclusive education has positive effect on social
and emotional development of disability students
Inclusive education is beneficial to both normal
and students with disability
Inclusive education lowers the quality of education
for all students
7. What is your attitude towards including the inclusive learners with normal
students in the schools?
Statement Yes No
Learners with disability enjoy learning together with learners without
disability
learners without disability enjoy learning together with learners with disability
82
8. What is your opinion on the implementation of inclusion education in your
school? Please select the response that best fits your choice with 1 = Strongly
Disagree (SD), 2 = Disagree (D), 3 = Uncertain (un), 4 = Agree (A), 5 = Strongly
Agree (SA).
Statement
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
Providing principals with special needs training
opportunities
Learners with disabilities benefit from specialized
instructions provided by school
Having awareness and knowledge as to how to deal with
the student that has special needs
Special education courses offered at school level
Appreciating diversity in the schools
Educate learners with disabilities in a regular school
School appreciate inclusion of learners with disabilities
9. Which of the following principals’ major problems towards the success of
inclusive education in the schools?
Possible factors Yes No Partial
Parents‘ attitudes towards inclusion
Teachers‘ attitudes towards inclusion
School administrators‘ attitude towards inclusion
Not sufficient funding inclusive program
Teachers‘ qualification in inclusive education
Normal students‘ attitudes towards inclusion
School setting environment
If any other support is provided, please specify them
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
83
10. What features of better condition for inclusive education to be fully
implemented in your schools?
Statement
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
The presence of a building constructed and
equipped with all facilities planned to serve
students with special needs
Providing all facilities that provide to all special
needs students wants
Develop a strategic plan for inclusion that protects
students with special needs, specifically in a
schools that practices full inclusion
A need to form a committee composed of members
of schools, community, school parents, city
leaders, students and others. Those who are well
versed with matters on inclusion and can be
involved in decision making and recommendations.
Monitoring and observing/supervision inclusive
practices for further improvement
Positive attitudes in successful inclusion programs
and improved student achievement
11. Do your school staffs attitudes show kindness and respect for students with special
needs?
Yes No
12. If your answer to question number 11 is ―NO‖ Why do you think?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
84
13. What is your support as school principal for inclusive education in your school?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
14. What mechanisms that initiate principal‘s positive attitude towards special education
needs in your school?
Item
Str
ongly
agre
e
Agre
e
Unce
rtai
n
Dis
agre
e
Str
ongly
dis
agre
e
Encouraging normal students to help them
Material and financial support
Guidance and counseling services
Appreciate diversity in the school
Create conducive and welcoming school
environments for disabled students
Presence of specialists in the inclusive program
Mutual work with community in inclusive
education practice
Arrange schools facilities
Promote inclusive education
If any other support is provided, please specify them
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
15. What a situation is/are hampered friend inclusive education needs in your school?
You can tick more than one
A) Lack of concern
B) Limitations of resources
85
C) Lack of awareness
D) Cultural influences
E) Any other_________________________________________________________
86
Appendix B
Interview Guidelines for School Principals and Vice-Principals
1. Do you have training in special education or inclusion with special needs?
2. Which type of disabilities do students have or have had in your school?
3. What is your feeling towards in the presence of students with a special
educational need?
4. Do you believe students with disabilities can learn and do their best?
5. What appropriate conditions school principals are most emphasized to apply
effort in the implementation of inclusive education?
6. Do you think that the presence of students with inclusive will not promote normal
students in the school? Why?
7. Do the students with an Inclusive education will promote his or her social
independence? How?
8. Inclusion will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of the
student with a disability? Why?
9. What is your opinion isolation in a special classroom has a beneficial effect on the
social and emotional development of the student with a disability?
10. What factors can contribute to the inclusion of students with disabilities in your
school?
11. What do you think are the barriers to inclusion of children with disabilities in your
school?
THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR GIVING YOUR TIME
top related