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