This article was downloaded by: [Simon Fraser University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 15:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Educational diversity and learningleadership: a proposition, someprinciples and a model of inclusiveleadership?Steve Rayner aa Department of Education , University of Gloucestershire ,Cheltenham, UKPublished online: 17 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Steve Rayner (2009) Educational diversity and learning leadership: aproposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership?, Educational Review, 61:4,433-447, DOI: 10.1080/00131910903404004

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910903404004

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational ReviewVol. 61, No. 4, November 2009, 433–447

ISSN 0013-1911 print/ISSN 1465-3397 online© 2009 Educational ReviewDOI: 10.1080/00131910903404004http://www.informaworld.com

Educational diversity and learning leadership: a proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership?

Steve Rayner*

Department of Education, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UKTaylor and FrancisCEDR_A_440578.sgm10.1080/00131910903404004Educational Review0950-3110 (print)/1473-348X (online)Original Article2009Educational Review614000000February 2009Professor SteveRaynersrayner@glos.ac.uk

This article presents the case for developing a particular form of leadership to meetthe challenge of educational diversity. A model for inclusive leadership isarticulated drawing upon the fields of educational management and leadership,knowledge management, individual differences and educational inclusion. Thearticle begins with a proposition about the nature of professional learning,knowledge management and educational diversity. It develops the notion of a“thinking practitioner” engaged in developing praxis. This is understood todescribe a process of developing and using a mix of theoretical and practicalknowledge specific to an educational context. A set of principles for “learning”leadership and also “learning leadership” are examined in relation to thisproposition. These principles following Aristotelian philosophy are related to theidea of pragmatic virtue and are identified as a basis for the construction of aconceptual model of inclusive leadership. This model is offered, in turn, as aheuristic for use in understanding the systemic and human interaction betweenstructure and agency in actualizing provision for educational diversity in thelearning community. Finally, this conceptual framework is presented as a tool touse in further establishing an integrative management of a personalized and socialapproach to education grounded in an emerging notion of virtuous leadership.

Keywords: learning leadership; educational diversity; praxis; individualdifferences; inclusion

IntroductionTurning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. (William Butler Yeats, 1865–1939)

The aim of this article is to present a personal perspective on learning leadership andeducational diversity. Learning to lead, and leadership in education which enableslearning, are each construed as two distinct parts of a symbiotic relationship forminglearning leadership. Educational diversity is defined as a range of individual differ-ences, comprising a set of social and personal factors, which form a key aspect in anyand every educational setting. The argument presented in this paper is therefore ablending of leadership theory with recent research (Rayner and Gunter 2005; Rayneret al. 2005) and continuing professional development for school management andSpecial Educational Needs education (Lance, Rayner, and Szwed 2007; Rayner 2007).

*Email: srayner@glos.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

434 S. Rayner

The perspective draws upon the fields of educational management and leadership,knowledge management, individual differences and educational inclusion.

A need for new approaches to meet the challenge of diversity in the work-placeand education is difficult not to exaggerate. Lee (2008) makes a case for this viewforcibly in a recent appraisal of educational research in the USA. She concludes that,

… we cannot articulate a generative and robust science of learning and developmentwithout explicit attention to the diversity of the human experience. The NationalScience Foundation and the Institute of Education Sciences, the two largest sources offederal funding for education research, both explicitly call for attention to diversity.(Lee 2008, 272)

The approach adopted here presumes at the outset that a working practitioner ineducation is faced with a social and personal diversity in the learner and is engagedwith and immersed in the work of learning. This perspective, in part, extends Schön’s(1983) concept of the reflective practitioner, to develop the notion of a “thoughtfulpractice”, acquisition of “practitioner wisdom” and the model of a “thinking practitio-ner”. It also includes an expectation that a practitioner by necessity engages in theirown learning and knowledge management when working with colleagues or taking alead in their own professional development.

To this end, the article begins by offering a proposition about the nature of profes-sional learning, knowledge management and educational diversity. This, in turn, linksto the continuing need to develop a particular form of “learning leadership” and“learning to lead” in the management of inclusive education. The proposition is, argu-ably, valid in any educational phase of provision or setting. It is, for example, capturedin Middlehurst’s assertion in a recent overview of leadership theory when applied tohigher education that,

… leadership development needs to be built not upon generic leadership competenceframeworks, but on tailored processes that recognize the contingent, relational and nego-tiated reality of higher education leadership. At the heart of leadership, there is, or shouldbe, a learning process that will deliver both better science and better outcomes for leadersand led in higher education. (Middlehurst 2008, 337)

A set of principles for learning leadership are then examined in relation to aproposition of professional learning, knowledge and the idea of the “thinking practi-tioner” developing praxis. Praxis is taken to be both a pragmatic philosophy and apractical process involving the individual in acquiring and applying theoretical andpractical knowledge (Rayner 2007). The proposition draws upon an exegesis of theAristotelian concept of praxis as an ethical virtue (Aristotle 1985), and its place as astructuring concept in a continuing action of transformative learning (Carr 1995).These principles or actions are also identified as a basis for further enabling an inte-gration of theory (knowledge) and practice (management), in what is essentially apragmatic approach1 to the task of knowing and learning and managing educationaldiversity.

This proposition, and arguably a related notion of pragmatic virtue, is thereforepositioned as a basis for the construction of a model of inclusive leadership. Thismodel is offered, in turn, as a heuristic for describing and understanding the humanand systemic interaction between structure and agency in actualizing provision foreducational diversity in the school community. Finally, this model is presented as atool with which to establish a personalized and social approach to education that is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 435

grounded in a wider framework of virtuous leadership (Ungoed-Thomas 1996),professional learning and tacit knowledge (Senge 1993; McLaughlin 1999). It is assuch viewed as the foundation for an approach capable of securing a transformativeprocess of learning for both the practitioner and others within the learning community(Bowden and Marton 1998; Rayner 2007).

A proposition – learning leadership and the virtue of pragmatism

A great deal of work on organizational learning over the past two to three decadeshas provided a powerful discourse in management literature (Thomas and Allen2006). This has generated a theory constructed around several ideas including knowl-edge management, organizational effectiveness, institutional well-being, life-longlearning and professional development (Argyris and Schön 1978; Olsen and Haslett2002). The notion of a reflective practitioner as introduced by Schön (1983) is widelyestablished and generally associated with the later development of leadership in thelearning organization (see Schein 1985). Such systemic thinking is important, but it isimportant to consider more carefully how learning to manage is embedded in thecontent and process of managing to learn – as a personal and career-long journey –and learning to manage as part of professional practice in leadership and manage-ment. This particular aspect of leadership and career is easy to forget as the modernwork-place increasingly demands instant and continuing success in the form ofperformance accountability.

The rationale for this proposition, then, is that leadership contributes to manage-ment – especially in the educational context – and both activities rely upon a continu-ing process of learning in which practitioners are engaged in a process of managingchange and personal growth associated with professional development and praxis (seeRayner and Ribbins 1999; Rayner and Gunter 2005; Rayner 2007). This approachextends the notion of the “reflective practitioner” to re-present the individual profes-sional educator learning and leading as a “thinking practitioner”. Such a professionalis always engaged in the operational work of problem-solving as well as the strategicplanning that requires creative problem-posing, enquiry and critical evaluation. Thework produces a professional construction of knowledge which may be defined aspraxis, and within it, a practical form of knowledge we should recognize as phronesis(practitioner prudence or wisdom). It is important to also realize that both are alwaysdefined within a wider but specific framework of a community ethic.

A thinking practitioner will ideally be supported by their respective institution inthis approach to leadership; thinking of this kind should involve combining a series ofcognitive actions including sense-making, problem-posing, decision-making and crit-ical reflection – that is, thinking through and about their own practice, located withina particular place, structure or system and time. This approach to professional workshould be part of an individual consistently seeking involvement in policy-making,re-shaping practice, and a continuing opportunity to contribute to provision (i.e.,participating in and generating distributed leadership in a learning organization). Thisidea of integrating an inclusive approach to practitioner thinking and knowledgeacquisition is in part influenced by the idea of a “fifth discipline” in organizationalmanagement presented by Senge (1993).

In Senge’s approach, the corporate or communal mind-set is established, albeitdependent upon leadership forces as described by Cheng (2002) which are always atplay within the organization (more of this later). The fifth discipline is nurtured by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

436 S. Rayner

way in which the institution formally values critical reflection and organizationalreflexivity as principles in a collective notion of organizational learning and knowl-edge production. The relevance and utility of such a systems approach to managementand leadership in a learning organization, however, must reside in actualizing apresumption that every member of the institution has a part to play in its work (seeThomas and Allen 2006). This, in turn, means both recognizing the challenge andenabling the potential of diversity as a basic resource for and feature of educationalleadership in the school context (Bartlett Merton 2000; Rayner and Gunter 2007).

The proposition presented here is, therefore, that educational leadership, per se, isan exercise in developing practice and comprises a linkage of theory (knowledge)with provision (practice), producing what is essentially an applied or pragmatictheory (praxis). In doing this work, a learning process can be construed as producingnew knowledge as well as contributing to a personal phronesis made up of experi-ence, tacit knowledge and practitioner wisdom, forming the bed-rock of an individ-ual’s educational professionality. It is a learning process. It is also both an individualand a social activity reflecting interplay between agency and structures found in theeducational setting. The intellectual virtues of leadership as defined by Aristotle alsomean that praxis as it is defined here must be part of an established ethic or knowl-edge that is twinned with phronesis and importantly, as argued by Kristjannson(2005), is understood to be shaped and driven by the idea of eudemonia (specificallya state of human good to which the individual and society must aspire to realizehappiness and fulfilment). The crucial significance of this point is that praxis is valueladen, it is moral, but it is not only the idea that is generally presented as empower-ment in what Kristjannson (2005) critically labels the school of “praxis-phronesisperspective”, and which is more generally associated with critical theory. Neverthe-less, the notion of praxis and phronesis forming a pragmatic virtue is an extremelyuseful idea in any re-construction or application of a knowledge-based educationalleadership and pedagogy (Oser 1992).

In this respect, the approach described here offers a strong framework for devel-oping notions of distributed leadership. It allows for a personal as well as a sociallydistributed resource, a democratic virtue, and ultimately a code of ethics or worth(what it is that should be valued in educational leadership). This approach, in turn,points to the need for an integration of Aristotelian concepts related to praxis andphronesis as key organizers for the knowledge underpinning a wider educationalprofessionality. The important point here is that leadership is understood to contributeto good management in a continuing process of learning. Practitioners in educationshould always be engaged in managing change and securing personal growth associ-ated with pedagogy and professional development. Research and scholarship formimportant actions in this integrative process; so too do critical theory and socialempowerment as applied to an organizational culture.2 Purpose and function, further-more, remain key elements in this approach and should not be lost in the day-to-daywork of management nor in a complex abstraction of theory or the political contest ofvested interests associated with diversity.

Learning leadership: pedagogy and principles in praxis

Pedagogy is identified by several educationists as an important form of professionalknowledge conspicuous in its virtual absence from the mainstream of educationalliterature and teacher education in the UK (Alexander 2001, 2004a; Coffield et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 437

2004). Pedagogy is the act and discourse of teaching, and is variously described as ascience, a craft and an art form (Mortimore 1999). Indeed, Galton et al. (1999) followWilliam James’ original assertion,3 and claim that pedagogy is literally a “science ofart”. Alexander (2001) argues further that the term applies to the European traditionof bringing together the act of teaching and a body of knowledge, argument andevidence in which it is embedded and by which particular classroom practices arejustified. This means, according to Alexander, that pedagogy is characterized as anintegration of distinctive conceptual foci including:

● children: their characteristics, development and upbringing;● learning: how it can best be motivated, achieved, identified, assessed and

developed;● teaching/instruction: its planning, execution and evaluation; and● curriculum: the various ways of knowing, understanding, doing, creating, inves-

tigating and making sense desirable for children to encounter, and how these aremost appropriately translated and structured for teaching.

Alexander’s argument in developing a greater reference to and understanding ofpedagogy is apposite in dealing with educational diversity, as is his suggestion thatpedagogy generally might also be conceived as comprising several distinctive peda-gogies, and how these might contribute to a teacher’s professional development. Heuses the example of “dialogic teaching” aimed at:

… incorporating evidence about the nature and advancement of human learning, and tothe conditions for education in a democracy, in which the values of individualism,community and collectivism stand in a complex and sometimes tense contrapuntal rela-tionship. (Alexander 2004b, 13)

The implications are that there exist or might be constructed different forms ofpedagogy, a combination of which educationists will need to acquire as they developtheir own professional pedagogic expertise. It is proposed here that one such crucialaspect of a personal pedagogy is inclusive leadership. It is associated with the notionof “learning leadership” and is bound up in the concept of professional praxis.

A knowledge framework for inclusive leadership

As argued elsewhere (Rayner 2007), a framework which might be used to structure“learning leadership” exists in Classical philosophy. In Aristotelian terms, praxis is aspecific form of knowledge that reflects a practical theory (techne), the representationof this theory (eidos), and the shaping of a practitioner’s craft (phronesis), to produceeffective teaching and learning as a purpose and an outcome (telos). Furthermore,underpinning this process of knowledge management is a universal drive towardrealizing eudemonia (the good). Put simply, the action, formation and product in asynthesis of professional learning and knowledge, is praxis. In this respect, praxis isboth process and knowledge and is a combination of theory and practice.

A powerful example of this kind of learning is given by Bernstein, who arguedthat in praxis there can be no prior knowledge of the right means by which we real-ize the end in a particular situation as this is only finally specified in deliberatingabout the means appropriate to a particular situation (Bernstein 1983, 147). As

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

438 S. Rayner

argued, in turn, by Rayner (2008), more complexity unfolds as we think about whatwe want to achieve, and we alter the way we might achieve it. There is, regardlessof whether we acknowledge it or not, a continual interplay between ends and means,between thought and action. There is no easy solution or template even if one isclaimed, and then conveniently called best practice. It is true that we can and shouldavoid “re-creating the wheel”, and learning from other practice is extremely useful,but it is also crucial we recognize how we cannot avoid the necessary work, asBernstein argues, of making “the wheel run for us”. In doing this work, a learningprocess can be construed as producing new knowledge as well as contributing to apersonal praxis empowering an individual’s educational professionality. It is likelythat any example of “learning leadership” as a process is largely comprised of infor-mation-gathering, direction-finding and sense-making and is literally the work ofknowledge management. It is an action utilizing the past, both in terms of local andglobal history, synthesizing new knowledge, and applying ideas in strategic form.For policy-makers, as well as practitioners, deliberately developing praxis can assistin the management of diversity by producing a particular form of leadership forinclusion located in the wider framework of a functional and integrative manage-ment (see Rayner 2007).

Action principles in an inclusive leadership

The approach argued here asserts the need for a pragmatic base and an applied designin any theorizing of the implications for educational leadership in provision for diver-sity, difference, difficulty and disability. To this end, it is useful to think of inclusiveleadership as an integrating process framing an interactive management of diversityand difference in the school community (Rayner 2007, 2008). It is work that is alwaysgrounded in and shaped by the three principles set out in Figure 1.Figure 1. Inclusive leadership: action principles (adapted from Rayner 2008).

Figure 1. Inclusive leadership: action principles (adapted from Rayner 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 439

Outlined in Figure 1 is an integral structure of leadership which as a process isconstrued as a dynamic interplay between three super-ordinate principles (see Rayner2008). These principles are:

(1) An integrative principle of leadership facilitating the collection, synthesis anduse of knowledge acquisition and management.

(2) A relational principle of leadership interacting as mediation between structureand agency. This reflects activity focused upon ways and means and is alwayssituated in contexts defined by purpose, people and evolving praxis.

(3) A functional principle of leadership. As a process, leadership requirescontinuous learning, adaptation, instrumental application and management ofknowledge as part of its operation.

These principles are interactive and inter-dependent aspects of a strategic processtied to managing practice. The model is inclusive in its structure and design. It isinvolving and involved. It works on the basis of a rational and intellectual activityaimed at the synthesis and integration of knowledge. It is learning centred. This is aform of “leadership learning” which more particularly combines an awareness ofcognition with affect (morale, motivation and attitude). It seeks a balance in learningand leadership that shapes as well as reflects culture, ethos and milieu. It is arguably,when used deliberately, an extremely powerful tool for shaping purpose, managingagency and ensuring understanding when determining effective learning in a success-ful school community. It is for example reflected in the work of an individual practi-tioner or professional group working with a particular task in the school context. Theprofessional task might be an intervention at the case-work level with an individualstudent, or institutional change management working with issues in the schoolcommunity, or even policy development in a regional or national forum. Each of thesetasks when managed well will reflect a synergy generated by deliberately exercisingthese action principles to achieve a desired process or outcome in the provision oflearning, teaching and education.

Inclusive leadership therefore should be understood to be a distinctive form ofpedagogy or “learning leadership” for use in the educational setting. It may also becharacterized as a form of distributed leadership that again is also by definition a formof continuing professional learning. At its most direct, inclusive leadership involvesevery member of the learning community in some form of “learning leadership”. It is,lastly, a means to directing resource and activity for ensuring an effective functioningof provision at any level in a learning organization or learning community. As previ-ously argued, central to this definition is the action of sense making and knowledgeacquisition (see Simkins 2005). It is perceived in particular as contributing to an inte-grative management (see Rayner 2007). Finally and perhaps most importantly,implicit in the learning of inclusive leadership as a developing pedagogy is the growthof personal and collective praxis and the valuing of a professional ethic grounded ina notion of the professional learning community.

Managing differences and diversity in education

An increasingly wide range of social and personal diversity, if not already acknowl-edged by most teachers in the classroom, will soon become a paramount concern forthe school as we know it (Grossman 2004; Goddard and Hart 2007; Lee 2008). This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

440 S. Rayner

is largely as a result of the drive toward personalizing education taking place in aglobal flattening of the world as well as the widespread impact of rapid and continuingchange in society and education (Fink 2005; Friedman 2006). All of this is fuelled byrecent advances in science and information technology as well as demographic shiftand a trend toward an increasing commodification of knowledge, citizenship andcommunity (Lauder et al. 2006). A need to enable an inclusive education in the formof leadership and pedagogic development is therefore not only desirable as a policyoption or political ideal (Rayner 2007) but is rather more urgently and increasinglyseen as an immediate and practical imperative (see Bennet and Tomblin 2006;Friedman 2006; Department for Education and Skills 2007).

The purpose of this educational endeavour, however, as argued here, is that itshould be aimed at realizing the goal of eudemonia. According to Aristotle, this staterepresents the apex of a hierarchy in human purpose, which is a form of human fulfil-ment as the highest, most inclusive end. In educational terms, this desired state of “thegood” is an outcome that, if it is to be realized, must entail removing barriers to learn-ing, enable access to the curriculum, and a continuing attempt to foster consensus ina community. The latter challenge involves a need to generate social harmony andcoherence of purpose and function that, when put simply and at its most fundamental,is the challenge of securing social justice and equity in an educational context. It isnot, however, possible to achieve this only by means of assimilation or an attempt ateliminating differences or reducing diversity in the learning community. The sugges-tion is, consequently, for a need to actively engage with diversity and complexity inthe educational context (Vincent 2003; Shah 2006; Moses and Chang 2008).Research, to date, would suggest however that, in practical terms, the typical responseto managing educational diversity is one involving a forceful assimilation into a domi-nant national culture (see Bagga-Gupta 2007; Johansson, Davis, and Geijer 2007;Leeman 2007).

This present situation points to a growing need to identify, emphasize and integratean awareness of diversity with its value as a potential resource within the practice ofeducational management. Early attempts at this, however, follow a mainstream modelemerging from business and management practice (see Bartlett Merton 2000;Morrison, Lumby, and Sood 2007). This notion of diversity in the work-place hasbeen influenced by a capabilities theory (Gagnon and Cornelius 2000). It has alsoinfluenced the development of so-called diversity management in the business context(Stacey 1992). An over-riding concern in this approach is for the managed exploita-tion of human resources related to the recruitment and retention of the workforce.Showing concern for diversity in both the curriculum and educational management,on the other hand, involves acknowledging that every practitioner in education isinvolved in learning leadership and at any given moment managing some aspect ofprofessional provision.

The nature of this inclusive leadership is construed structurally in a similar way tothat identified as distributed cognition (Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond 2001). It isdifferent in so far as it is bounded by one or more specific contexts, but nonethelessrepresents a new systemic architecture for re-constructing leadership as described byGronn (2000). This kind of distributed leadership will vary from time to time andplace, may be formal, informal, recognized, rewarded or simply taken for granted. Itis therefore important that we recognize its rich diversity and distribution in an actionthat reflects the work of a practitioner (or practitioners) as well as an inclusive featureof good management across boundaries that make up the educational institution. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 441

action at a basic level is shaped by the agency of one or more individuals and includesboth a social and a personal psychology of individual differences, as it contributes toeffective leadership. At the wider social level in the organization, it marks the inter-agency of groups of individuals involved in team-work and community action. Bothneed to form part of a greater whole representing the strategic direction of theinstitution.

A heuristic model of inclusive leadership is represented here in two parts (seeFigures 2 and 3). It illustrates an interactive and dynamic set of parts in a whole(reflecting the need for leadership to operate as a transversal process across bound-aries). It is also in part comprised of leadership forces originally identified by Cheng(2002), as well as other aspects of the school community. According to Cheng, thereare a number of forces which exist in the educational setting that shape leadership.These include:

● human – social and person centred, motivational, work satisfaction, integrity;● structural – policy development, technical support and accountability;● cultural – ethics, ethos, values and codes of practice (professionalism);● political – partnership, collaboration, participation, conflict-resolution; and● educational – expertise and direction in learning and teaching.

Cheng’s description of these forces and the distinctive action of leadership is tradi-tional in so far as it presumes a leader, leadership as impact and subordinate followersseeking a declared purpose and realizing its success. A leader is engaged in naviga-tion, and in an orchestration of resource and talent, in a way that defines this act interms of influencing people and securing goal development. It is in this sense strategicmanagement in play.

While Cheng’s work is useful in so far as it captures the structural mix of factorsin an organizational setting and offers a consideration of some measure of quality asan outcome in leadership, it is not generally inclusive or participatory in itsunderstanding of leadership. On the other hand, the first level of a model of inclusiveleadership (Figure 2) is located within a field shaped by these forces and bounded bythe constant influence of organizational context. It describes, more particularly, ageneral approach to actualizing leadership as an integrated and distributed set offeatures grounded in the churn of day-to-day work in the life of the organizationalcontexts forming the learning community. The churn is like the “gyre” as it is evokedin the poem, “The Second Coming”, written by Yeats, and quoted at the beginning ofthis article. There are two principal dimensions in this figure representing, firstly,agency involved in leading (principles, praxis and people); and secondly, structuresrequired for activating leadership (policy, procedures and provision). A synthesis ofthese dimensions is essential to success, marks the accumulation of practitioner“wisdom” and dictates effective leadership as different aspects of the model mesh toproduce order in the daily mix and practice (gyre) of the working day.Figure 2. Inclusive leadership: organizational contexts (adapted from Rayner 2007).Another set of “plates”, sitting within the first arrangement of this model, portraysa second level to the dimensions of structure and agency at work as they shape and areshaped by social identities, cultural values and the ethos of a learning community (seeFigure 3). At this level, the action of leadership is over-laid across the culture of acommunity. The goal for inclusive leadership is the management of a cultural integrityand a parity of esteem for members of the learning organization/community. The day-to-day work of inclusive leadership in any community may therefore be characterized

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

442 S. Rayner

Figure 2. Inclusive leadership: organizational contexts (adapted from Rayner 2007).

Figure 3. Inclusive leadership: cultural forces.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 443

as a problem-based dichotomy, generated by continuing tensions between aspects ofcultural diversity and differences, frequently generating conflict and dilemma. Thecultural features that reflect agency are depicted in a first plate comprising objects orexpressions of the social psychology characterizing community identity and member-ship (assents, affiliation and artefacts). The second plate is comprised of the socialprocesses that reflect an attempt to structure social cohesion (assimilation, accommo-dation and acculturation). Each of these is linked in an uneasy tension that forms aswell as holds together the entire process and structure of an inclusive community.Figure 3. Inclusive leadership: cultural forces.The mobile model is in a constant motion and as such is again reminiscent of theforces evoked by Yeats, describing the blurring motion of the falcon caught up in aprocess of order and potential chaos that is ultimately an interplay of management and,as anarchy is loosed, mismanagement. In contrast to the break-down of synthesis andharmony described by Yeats, an inclusive leadership managed by the successfulpractitioner harnesses the complex forces of the gyre by managing leadership as aninterplay of agency and structure.

A practical illustration of any school demonstrating inclusive leadership may beexamined with an appraisal of its behaviour management policy. A case example is toconsider the way in which a school deals with behaviour as a social issue and a topicfor learning and teaching. For example, a learning community should have a:

● clearly stated and communicated school discipline/behaviour managementpolicy and related protocols giving rules, rights, responsibilities for all membersof the school community;

● a consideration of individual and cultural differences impacting upon sharedvalues, attitudes and approach to conduct and ethos in a learning community; and

● clear procedural statements and supporting protocols describing rewards, penal-ties and a system of sanctions, consequences and support or intervention in thecase of students presenting emotional, behavioural and social difficulties.

To manage issues related to diversity in this way requires an inclusive leadershipand a positive view of success and change (see Abdelnoor 1999; Rayner 2007). Aninclusive learning community will ideally be characterized by a busy array of smalllearning groups or teams engaged in monitoring and renewing identified aspects of thepastoral curriculum. Leadership will be formal and informal, long and short term, theleadership group more tightly or loosely structured, meeting regularly or infrequently,but always cast in the role of sustaining and maintaining a “parity of esteem” through-out the organization. These groups might, for example, be charged with a review ofaspects of the culture and community that reflect a level of integrity and influencewithin the organizational ethos.

There are many possibilities in terms of method for this form of organizationallearning and practice-based research. A first step might be to use the model describedin Figures 2 and 3. A group could seek to unpack the way in which an existing behav-iour management policy is enacted by members of the community. Problem-posingmight include asking questions about how difference is managed as part of the culturalintegrity of the community and include examining:

● Assents – what protocols are publicly agreed for social conduct in terms of inter-personal relationships, rights, responsibilities and rules of membership to thecommunity?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

444 S. Rayner

● Affiliation – what protocols and activities are in place to engender personal iden-tification and involvement in the learning community (governance, membervoice and access to policy and decision-making process)?

● Artefacts – how are rituals, codes and expressions of belief, identity or cultureused to nurture a diversity of individual differences in the school setting?

● Assimilation – what are the cardinal principles or mores forming the institutionalethos and how do these reflect differences and diversity reflected in gender,race, ethnicity, class and religion?

● Accommodation – how are the actual values and attitudes of staff managed inrespect to expectations for conduct and behaviour of members of the learningcommunity?

● Acculturation – how does the school manage the interplay between individualdifferences in cultural and ethnic heritage with the values and ethics of theorganizational culture of the institution?

Further unpacking of each and all of these aspects of culture will provide a seriesof contexts within which to begin re-examining the purpose, function and effect of thebehaviour management policy. The virtues of tolerance, respect and human well-beingshould quickly surface in this work. The drive for eudemonia sits at the very heart ofthis process demonstrating how entwined learning and leadership is as an inclusiveevent. The educational setting will determine the content and eventual focus adoptedby a leadership group on any particular issue such as behaviour management or someother inclusion touchstone issue (see Rayner 2007) such as “bullying”, “alienation”,“exclusion”, “disability and social justice” or even “personalized education” as anissue related to “access and engagement”.

Finally, as previously argued, the principles of action depicted in Figure 1 repre-sent a structural basis for a “virtuous leadership” that is also the basis for thecontinuing renewal of a “professional ethic” that is both learning centred and inclu-sive. The relational principle in an inclusive leadership involves by definition work-ing with people, but it is the functional and integrative action principles whichenable learning. Involvement in leadership groups encourages and sustains engage-ment, gives opportunity for voice and includes all who make up the community. Itis, however, fraught with tension, ambiguity and complexity as a process. It is there-fore continuously challenging in so far as management must hold the “wideninggyre” and leadership provide the basis for navigating the “churn of day-to-daypractice”.

Conclusion

The challenge of educational leadership is a moral and ethical endeavour seeking toachieve the best outcome in terms of knowledge management, well-being and intel-lectual growth. In this respect, such work requires a constant calibration of purposeand human telos. It involves asserting ethical virtues in concert if it is to attempt tomanage a “golden mean” or “cultural integrity” in the form of balance and integration(Aristotle 1985). It is not simply about realizing a value-free and objective scienceaimed at the instrumental delivery of measurable output and quantifiable account. Noris it simply instruction, training, information or didactic transmission of knowledge.Education is process as well as content, and as argued by Grundy (1987), curriculumis praxis as well as product. Inclusive leadership is action that presumes an existing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 445

set of functional limitations and potential set of capabilities for those experiencinglearning difficulties in the school context.

In its most advanced or effective form, an inclusive leader aims to facilitate thetransforming and transformative effect of learning in the work of making provision forthe most vulnerable in the learning community. This is also, furthermore, the work ofany teacher. It is described by Grundy as a combination of professional knowledge,action and reflection. She insists that:

This is a reflexive process rather than a linear process, with the transformation displayingitself in increasing moments of emancipatory praxis rather than developmentallyimproved practice. The process of professionalisation is a pedagogical process, not adevelopmental one. (Grundy 1987, 191)

Inclusive leadership is in this respect a professional form of learning that is perti-nent to every level of provision in a learning organization. It is “learning leadership”that is concerned with educational theory, professional knowledge and a personalgrowth of and contribution to praxis.

The challenge presented by management of diversity in education will alwaysbring this aspect of the educational mission into sharp focus. It is about welcomingdifferences, working with the abilities and strengths of individuals, and providingsupport for their participating in the work of “learning leadership” and/or learning“leadership”. It is a continuing challenge and pursuit steeped with intrinsic reward.The satisfaction of knowing and making a difference in the education of people bothmanaging and learning to manage their own journey is often a teacher’s first and finalmotivation. This reward is even more intense when the learning is restorative as wellas empowering. It is perhaps what makes special the work of managing special andinclusive education. It is about enabling choice and change in the lives of the “hard toteach”. It is equally, a process of “learning leadership” that is concerned with people,systems and context. It is, however, ultimately, a mode of action that enables accessto learning at every level of provision and provides a basis for dealing directly indiversity and difference.

Notes1. The philosophy of pragmatism as articulated by Charles Sanders Pierce and William James

provides one foundation for further developing an approach to theory that requires anapplied and contextual application to thought that is to be found in action. For an introduc-tion to this intellectual movement, see Menaud (2002). A second useful source is Kuklick(2001).

2. This notion is perhaps not too far removed from Freire’s argument that praxis is an impor-tant aspect of learning as defined in the political empowerment of the disadvantaged oroppressed (see Freire 1972).

3. William James presented a series of seminal lectures inaugurating the field of EducationalPsychology in 1892 at Harvard (Talks to Teachers on Psychology and Life).

ReferencesAbdelnoor, A. 1999. Preventing exclusions. Oxford: Heinemann.Alexander, R.J. 2001. Border crossings: Towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative

Education 37, no. 4: 507–23.Alexander, R.J. 2004a. Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary

education. Cambridge Journal of Education 34, no. 1: 7–33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

446 S. Rayner

Alexander, R.J. 2004b. Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York, UK:Dialogos.

Argyris, C., and D. Schön. 1978. Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective.Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Aristotle. 1985. Nicomachean ethics. Ed. W. Kaufman. Mineola, NY: Dover Thrift.Bagga-Gupta, S. 2007. Aspects of diversity, inclusion and democracy within education and

research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 51, no. 1: 1–22.Bartlett Merton. 2000. Diversity: Missing the opportunity in 21st-century resourcing. London:

Bartlett Merton/Kingshill.Bennet, A., and M.S. Tomblin. 2006. A learning network framework for modern

organizations. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 3, no.3: 289–303.

Bernstein, R.J. 1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Bowden, J., and F. Marton. 1998. The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence

in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Carr, W. 1995. For education: Towards critical educational inquiry. Buckingham, UK: Open

Univ. Press.Cheng, T.C. 2002. Leadership and strategy. In The principles and practice of educational

management, ed. T. Bush and L. Bell, 51–69. London: Sage.Coffield, F.C., D.V.M. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclestone. 2004. Learning styles and

pedagogy in post-16 learning: Findings of a systematic and critical review of learningstyles models. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Department for Education and Skills. 2007. Diversity and citizenship curriculum review.Nottingham, UK: DfES.

Fink, D. 2005. Growing into it. In Leading personalized learning in schools, ed. NationalCollege for School Leadership, 13–22. Nottingham, UK: NCSL.

Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin.Friedman, T.L. 2006. The world is flat: The globalized world in the 21st century. 2nd ed.

London: Penguin Books.Gagnon, S., and N. Cornelius. 2000. Re-examining workplace equality. The capabilities

approach. Human Resource Management Journal 10, no. 4: 68–87.Galton, M., L. Hargreaves, C. Comber, D. Wall, and A. Pell. 1999. Inside the primary

classroom: 20 years on. London: Routledge.Goddard, J.T., and A.C. Hart. 2007. School leadership and equity: Canadian elements. School

Leadership and Management 27, no. 1: 7–20.Gronn, P. 2000. Distributed properties – A new architecture for leadership. Educational

Management Administration and Leadership 28, no. 3: 317–38.Grossman, H. 2004. Classroom behaviour management for diverse and inclusive schools.

Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Grundy, S. 1987. Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: RoutledgeFalmer.Johansson, O., A. Davis, and L. Geijer. 2007. A perspective on diversity, equality and equity

in Swedish schools. School Leadership and Management 27, no. 1: 21–33.Kristjannson, K. 2005. Smoothing it: Some Aristotelian misgivings about the “phronesis–

praxis” perspective on education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37, no. 4: 455–73.Kuklick, B. 2001. A history of philosophy in America: 1720–2000. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Lance, A., S. Rayner, and C. Szwed. 2007. Challenging and changing role boundaries. In

Modernising schools: People, learning and organisations, ed. G. Butt and H. Gunter,47–60. London: Continuum.

Lauder, H., P. Brown, J. Dillabough, and A.H. Halsey. 2006. Introduction: The prospects foreducation: Individualization, globalization, and social change. In Education, globalizationand social change, ed. H. Lauder, P. Brown, J. Dillabough, and A.H. Halsey, 1–70.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, C.D. 2008. Wallace Foundation Distinguished Lecture. The centrality of culture to thescientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in educationresearch facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher 37: 267–79.

Leeman, Y. 2007. School leadership and equity: Dutch experiences. School Leadership andManagement 27, no. 1: 51–63.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Review 447

McLaughlin, T. 1999. Beyond the reflective teacher. Educational Philosophy and Theory 31,no. 1: 9–25.

Menaud, L. 2002. The metaphysical club. London: HarperCollins.Middlehurst, R. 2008. Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps

between leadership theory and practice. Higher Educational Quarterly 62, no. 4: 322–39.Morrison, M., J. Lumby, and K. Sood. 2007. Diversity and diversity management: Messages

from recent research. Educational Management Administration Leadership 34, no. 3:277–95.

Mortimore, P., ed. 1999. Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. London: PaulChapman.

Moses, S., and M.J. Chang. 2008. Toward a deeper understanding of the diversity rationale.Educational Researcher 35, no. 1: 6–11.

Olsen, J.E., and T. Haslett. 2002. Systemic thinking and the learning organization. WorkingPaper Series 11/02. Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia: Department of Management,Monash University.

Oser, F.K. 1992. Morality in professional action: A discourse approach for teaching. In Effec-tive and responsible teaching: The new synthesis, ed. F.K. Oser, A. Dick, and J.L. Patry,109–25. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rayner, S. 2007. Managing special and inclusive education. London: Sage.Rayner, S. 2008. Complexity, diversity and management: Some reflections on folklore and

learning leadership in education. Management in Education 22, no. 2: 40–6.Rayner, S., and H. Gunter. 2005. Rethinking leadership: Perspectives on remodelling practice.

Special Edition, Educational Review, 57, no. 2: 151–62.Rayner, S., and H. Gunter. 2007. Remodelling leadership: Moving beyond modernising

reform. In Modernising schools: People, learning and organizations, ed. G. Butt and H.Gunter, 75–90. London: Continuum.

Rayner, S., H. Gunter, H. Thomas, G. Butt, and A. Lance. 2005. Transforming the schoolworkforce: Remodelling experiences in the special school. Management in Education 19,no. 5: 22–8.

Rayner, S., and P. Ribbins. 1999. Headteachers and leadership in special education. London:Cassell.

Schein, E. 1985. Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:

Maurice Temple Smith.Senge, P.M. 1993. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

London: Century.Shah, S. 2006. Educational leadership: An Islamic perspective. British Educational Research

Journal 32, no. 3: 363–85.Simkins, T. 2005. Leadership in education: “What works” or “What makes sense”? Educational

Management Administration and Leadership 33, no. 1: 9–26.Spillane, J.P., R. Halverson, and J.B. Diamond. 2001. Investigating school leadership

practice: A distributed perspective. Research News and Comment, EducationalResearcher 30, no. 3: 23–8.

Stacey, R.D. 1992. Managing the unknowable: Strategic and chaos in organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, K., and S. Allen. 2006. The learning organisation: A meta-analysis of themes inliterature. The Learning Organization 13, no. 2: 123–39.

Ungoed-Thomas, J. 1996. Visions, values and virtues. In Values in education and educationin values, ed. J.M. Halstead and M.J. Taylor, 138–55. London: Falmer.

Vincent, C., ed. 2003. Social justice, education, and identity. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sim

on F

rase

r U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

25 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014