Presented at ISEC 2000

A Professional Development Programme That's All-Inclusive

Roger Moltzen and David Mitchell

Inclusive Schools Project, School of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, NEW ZEALAND
email: rim@waikato.ac.nz, dmitch@waikato.ac.nz

Abstract

New Zealand's Special Education 2000 policy includes a national programme of professional development. All teachers and principals in the country have had the opportunity to participate in one of several professional development programmes. This paper outlines one of these programmes, the Inclusive Schools Project (Waikato) which has involved more than 200 hundred schools. This project adopted a school-based approach to professional development, with each participating school receiving an individually-designed programme based on an analysis of their identified needs. Evaluative data has been obtained during the delivery of the programme and each school participates in a formal review upon completion of it. This feedback has provided a strong endorsement of this approach to professional development, but also gives a clear indication what teachers and principals see as the critical issues in creating inclusive schools.

In 1995-1996, a new policy, Special Education 2000 was introduced in New Zealand. The main aim of this policy was "to achieve, over the next decade, a world class inclusive education system that provides learning opportunities of equal quality to all students" (Ministry of Education, 1996, p.5).

The specific objectives are for children special education needs to (a) achieve better learning outcomes; (b) be welcome at their local school; (c) benefit from schools having more flexibility in the provision of programmes; (d) receive equitable levels of resourcing according to level of need, whatever their learning environment; and (e) be able to attend the type of facility of their family's choice, where there are enough enrolments.

Special Education 2000 introduced a new approach to resourcing students with special education needs in the school sector. This comprised individually-targeted resourcing for the 3% of students deemed to have high or very high needs for support and school-based resourcing for the 4-6% of students with moderate needs. Those with high or very high needs would continue to have access to special facilities (including special schools), as well as to regular schools. As the resource transferred with the child it was predicted that there would be greater demand than previously for placement in regular schools and regular classes. The second group is largely educated in regular classes, with some being placed in "attached units" (i.e., special classes).

The notion that schools should become more inclusive, then, permeates the new policy. For this to eventuate, Government recognised that teachers, principals and boards of trustees would have to be given opportunities to gain a better understanding of their legal and professional responsibilities towards students with special education needs. The point was reflected in a set of Special Education Policy Guidelines, one of the precursors of Special Education 2000. Two of the seven guidelines are of particular relevance. Firstly, it was stated that "Learners with special education needs have the same rights, freedoms, and responsibilities as people of the same age who do not have special education needs". Secondly, the primary focus of special education was described as being "to meet the individual learning and developmental needs of the learner". It was noted that this principle required that professional development be provided for regular and special educators, teachers aides and boards of trustees.

From 1998 to 2000, professional development programmes have been made available to all schools in New Zealand. These programmes are aimed at supporting boards of trustees, principals and teachers to (a) meet their legal and professional responsibilities with respect to students with special education needs, (b) understand the principles and main provisions of Special Education 2000, and (c) develop effective school policies and procedures to enhance the learning outcomes of such students. The Ministry of Education funded a total of 12 professional development programmes to cover the 2,700 schools throughout the country.

This paper outlines the aim and objectives, approach to professional development, processes, content, impact and outcomes of one such programme - the Inclusive Schools Project (Waikato) (hereafter referred to as the Project). This Project was delivered in 203 schools in the Waikato district during the period from July 1998 to June 2000. (The writers are involved as directors of a second, similar-size project, offering professional development to principals and teachers in the South Auckland education district. This project ends in December 2000.)

Aim and Objectives
The general aim of the Project was to offer a programme of professional development to principals and teachers in the Waikato education district to enable them to develop skills in planning and implementing appropriate learning programmes for students with special education needs. The project worked within the framework of the new policy, Special Education 2000, and the New Zealand Curriculum.

The specific objectives of the Project were to:

• assist schools to review, develop and implement appropriate policies, plans, programmes and classroom practices for children with special education needs;
• help schools to set up effective management systems and processes and to ensure that these provisions are regularly monitored and evaluated;
• facilitate professional development for teachers based on their identified needs and current level of knowledge, so that they gain increased confidence in their ability to support students with special educational needs.

Approach to Professional Development
The approach to professional development employed in the Inclusive Schools Project is based on a shared theoretical perspective and a shared set of values.

Theoretical Perspective
The key points which arise from the international literature on professional development and our own experiences may be summarised as follows:

1. Shifts in professional development practices have been summarised by writers such as Fullan (1991), Sparks (1995) and in the United States Department of Education Initiative on Teaching (nd) as taking the following directions:

• From one-shot, fragmented and piecemeal efforts, to professional development driven by a coherent strategic plan for the education system as a whole and for each school.
• From topics selected by people other than those for whom the programme is provided, to topics in which the participants have significant say.
• From a focus on individual development, to a focus on both individual and organisational development.
• From rare or negligible follow-up support for ideas and practices introduced during professional development programmes, to thorough follow-up and evaluation.
• From programmes that are imposed from outside and that rarely address the individual needs and concerns of participants, to programmes that are jointly planned with the participants.
• From 'tips for teachers', to programmes that are based on research and systematic analyses of best practices.
• From training away from the job, to 'job-embedded' learning.
• From deficit models, in which teachers need to be 'fixed', to a growth model that builds on teachers' knowledge and skills.
• From transmission models in which 'experts' deliver a body of content, to participatory models in which participants actively reflect on their own practices.
• From programmes that pay little attention to the differential impact of positive and negative factors within the settings to which the participants must return, to those that are customised to the school's character and context.
• From programmes directed mainly or exclusively at teachers to ones directed at all people who affect student learning - principals, paraprofessionals, resource teachers, board members and parents.
• From a profound lack of any conceptual basis in the planning and implementation of the programmes, to a carefully constructed rationale and delivery procedures aimed at ensuring their effectiveness.
• From a professional development programmes being viewed as a peripheral activity that is low on schools' priorities, to them being seen as an integral part of teachers' and others' continuous improvement as professionals.

The model of professional development in the Inclusive Schools Project is designed to move in the direction of all of the above trends.

2. According to Ainscow and his colleagues (Ainscow, 1994; Ainscow, 1995; Ainscow & Hart, 1992), there are three main approaches to bringing about change:

• The first involves the idea of adding on to existing knowledge and understanding through new ideas which can be implemented in the school context. In this model, principals and teachers are seen as receivers of knowledge that they will translate into their practices, and outside consultants are expected to provide the necessary knowledge.
• The second seeks to adapt existing arrangements by examining them in the light of new ideas. Thus, the focus is on reviewing policies and practices prior to considering what alternatives might be available. Principals and teachers are seen as having a much more active role in this process of development, specifically in reviewing existing practices. Outside consultants are expected to provide a range of possible ideas and to help with the introduction of those felt to be most appropriate.
• The third sees change arising from a process of reflection upon existing procedures in order to make sense of the underlying ideas that have led to the creation of these ways of working. The role of principals and teachers is extended considerably to include responsibility for investigating existing practices and formulating appropriate responses. In this context, the role of outside consultants is to support the processes of enquiry and then to contribute to an explanation of findings and the formulation of possible responses. (Ainscow & Hart, 1992)

3. Changes resulting from professional development should be consistent with the beliefs and expectations of the stakeholders. Several studies show that 'working knowledge' derived from personal experiences, beliefs, values and goals can be critical factors in determining whether change takes place. The affective component of dealing with new material should not be underestimated - even more reason for involving teachers as much as possible at all stages of the professional development process.

The team recognised that their task was as much one of shifting attitudes as it was of conveying information and assisting in the development of skills. Unfortunately, to some principals and teachers special education carries negative connotations. It would have been naive to deny that such feelings existed and needed to be challenged. On the other hand, we believed that the majority of New Zealand principals and teachers held positive and inclusive attitudes towards educating students with special needs. The team was aware that its approach to working in schools would have to take account, not only of teachers' and principals' current knowledge and skills, but also of their existing attitudes.

4. Professional development programmes should take account of what is known about the ways in which adults learn. As identified by Wood & Thompson (1993):

• Adults commit to learning when the goals are important to them and they will learn, retain and use what they perceive to be relevant to their professional needs. Therefore, to commit themselves to the Inclusive Schools Project teachers had to believe that it would have immediate application in the classroom.
• Adult learning is 'ego-involved'. Therefore, the programme should provide support from peers and reduce the fear of being judged during the learning process.
• Adults are more concrete in the way they learn than was formerly thought. Therefore, they should be given plenty of examples and opportunities to apply what they are learning to their classroom settings.
• Adults who learn in small groups are more likely to move their learning beyond understanding to application. Therefore, professional development programmes should include small group activities.
• Adults come to learning with a wide range of experiences, knowledge, interests and beliefs. Therefore, professional development programmes should accommodate to this diversity.
• Adults will resist situations that they perceive to be an attack on their competence. Therefore, professional development programmes have to tread very carefully in introducing ideas that diametrically oppose teachers' current beliefs.

5. From reviews carried out by various writers, several factors have been identified as being indicators of effective schools in general and effective inclusive schools in particular. The following seem to be critical:

Coherent Vision
The major focus of the school is clearly identified as improving the quality of teaching and learning of all its members. The school has a clear sense of purpose and a coherent, internally consistent policy with regard to the rights of children with special education needs to receive a quality education. The school's vision is shown in its actions, as well as in words. It is embedded in everything the school does. The vision is expressed regularly by the school's leaders. It is regularly re-confirmed.

Skills
The school ensures that all its staff members are equipped to deal with the diverse skills and interests in the children they teach and that management practices are in place to ensure that effective programmes for children with special education needs are developed. Ongoing professional development opportunities are provided to staff members to ensure that they keep abreast of current policies and good practices and school renewal programmes are in place.

Incentives/Engagement
Staff members and the broader school community value the school's goals and programmes for children with special education needs. They are actively involved in their formulation. School improvement will remain a marginal activity unless it impacts across all the levels of the school.

Resources
The school ensures that it has accessed sufficient capital and human resources to achieve the tasks required of its vision for children with special education needs and has distributed these appropriately within the school. The school's physical facilities are accessible to all children and their parents/caregivers.

Action Plan/Control Systems
The school has put in place an integrated set of objectives and corresponding evaluation criteria for its work with children with special education needs. Systems are in place to ensure adherence to the school's vision. Regular checks are made by the senior staff to ensure that the vision is being followed at all levels of the school and that staff are frequently reminded of the vision. The school has effective decision-making processes and control systems to monitor and direct day-to-day activities. It has effective reporting systems in place, both to its board of trustees and to the parents of children with special education needs. The school acknowledges and actively supports the work of staff with children with special education needs.

Underlying Values
The Project shared some of the key principles that underpin the special education programmes at the University of Waikato, in which several of the key personnel are involved. In particular, the team accepted and promoted the following core values:

• the importance of recognising the rights and needs of different cultural groups, particularly the special status of Maori;
• the importance of respecting the rights and dignity of persons with special educational needs;
• a recognition that the concept of special needs reflects conditions in the environment and society's perceptions of differences as much as they do factors within the individual;
• an understanding of persons with special educational needs in the context of their families, whanau and community;
• a commitment to promoting the maximum inclusion of persons with special educational needs into educational settings and the community;
• a holistic view of persons with special educational needs which incorporates consideration of their intellectual, emotional, social, physical and vocational needs; and
• an appreciation of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to working with persons with special educational needs and an ability to work within such a framework.

Processes
The programme was delivered in following four phases.

Phase 1: Preliminary
An introductory letter and promotional brochure explaining the Inclusive Schools Project was sent to all schools in the Waikato contract area in September 1998. Principals were invited to register their school's interest in participating in the project. A formal participation agreement outlining the contractual obligations of both parties was then sent to schools that registered an interest. This document was required to be signed by both the principal and the chairperson of the board of trustees.

In November 1998 a follow-up letter and additional information about the programme was sent to schools who did not respond to the first mailout. As well, each school was contacted by phone to encourage principals to consider participating in the project.

Phase 2: Presentation of Special Education 2000 Policies, Needs Analysis and Action Plan
During this phase, Module 1 Special Education 2000 was presented to all staff members - a requirement in the Project's contract with the Ministry of Education. In the majority of schools, this module was presented to all teachers during their regular staff meeting time after school.

In the course of visiting schools to present this module, a needs analysis was discussed with principals and/or lead teachers. A survey form was left for principals to distribute to staff members (if they chose to do so), along with a summary collation form to help schools identify and develop priorities for the remainder of the professional development programme. From this information an action plan was developed in consultation with the principal and/or lead teachers. The plan involved the selection of a combination of modules that best suited the expressed needs of the school's staff. The action plan also outlined how these modules would be delivered.

Phase 3: In-depth Exploration
This phase involved in-depth workshop sessions, generally delivered on a 'teacher-only' day (although on some occasions it involved two half days or a series of after-school workshops). In many instances, and in almost all primary schools, all a school's staff would be involved. In larger schools these sessions might only involve key staff, who were then expected to disseminate the information to their colleagues.

Phase 4: Review
Some time after the completion phase 3 in a schools, facilitators carried out follow-up visits for the purpose of reviewing the programme, identifying ongoing professional development needs and assisting schools develop a future plan to meet these. Sufficient time was allowed between the two final phases to give teachers time to apply some of the ideas presented in the workshop session/s.

Content
Our work in schools focused on nine modules, the contents of which are summarised below. The way in which the material was presented varied from module to module and from school to school.

Participating schools received a 150 page, loose-leaf folio of written material specially prepared to accompany the modules (Mitchell, 1999).

Module 1: Special Education 2000
In this module, our aim was to outline the main features of Special Education 2000 and how these form a comprehensive, interlocking package of initiatives designed to achieve equity for students with special educational needs. We presented information on such features as the Special Education Grant (SEG), the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS), the role of RTLBs, and the initiatives for students with behaviour difficulties and for those with speech or language difficulties. As well, we reminded staff of their responsibilities towards students with special educational needs as indicated in legislation such as the Education Act and the Human Rights Act and regulations such as the National Education Guidelines and the New Zealand Curriculum.

This module was designed for presentation to whole staff meetings or to large groups of staff.

Module 2: School Management and Organisation
Our aim in this module was to assist schools to work through their roles and responsibilities, as outlined in Module 1. In particular, we facilitated discussion on such matters as how consideration could be given to students with special educational needs in schools' charters and policies, ways of monitoring the effectiveness of whole school programmes for such students, and physical adaptations that may be required for some of them. Also, we assisted schools address the challenge of ways of organising for inclusive education, giving consideration to such matters as special needs committees, the roles of teacher aides, promoting co-operative links between schools, and accessing professional development, training and support.

Module 3: A Curriculum for All
In this module, we assisted schools to address the issue of how to ensure that the delivery of the curriculum meets such criteria as being barrier-free, promoting achievement and success for all students, learner-centred, and needs-based. Above all, we addressed the question of what is an inclusive curriculum? In doing so, we recognised that in adapting to students with special educational needs the New Zealand Curriculum may have to see some modifications, substitutions, and omissions for individual students. In this module, consideration is also given to the growing body of literature on effective schools.

Module 4: Assessment and Individual Education Planning
Under Special Education 2000, all ORS-funded children have Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Many students with special educational needs outside this group are also most appropriately catered for using an individual education plan process. It is therefore important that teachers have a working knowledge of the principles and practices associated with effective individual education planning. A crucial element in this process is the accurate assessment of students' needs, and in this module, a range of information-gathering approaches was explored.

Module 5: Matching Teaching Strategies to Children's Needs
The starting point of this module was our belief that there are few 'special methods' involved in teaching students with special educational needs. Rather, what is required is the systematic application of a wide range of effective teaching strategies - day-by-day, minute-by-minute - in our classrooms. This module offered opportunities for teachers to explore a range of these strategies. It comprised the largest of all the modules, with some 13 sub-modules:

5A	Peer tutoring
5B	Reciprocal teaching, interactive teaching
5C	Parent tutoring
5D	Co-operative group teaching
5E	Pause-prompt-praise programme
5F	Assistive technology
5G	Catering for different learning styles
5H	Cognitive strategies
5I	Behavioural strategies
5J	Motivational strategies
5K	Social skills training
5L	Activity-based teaching
5M	Effective teaching

Given the broad range of material in this module, and the likelihood that some of it might be quite familiar to many teachers, schools were asked to prioritise the sub-modules they would like to opt into.

Module 6: Working with Maori and other Cultural Groups
We accepted the importance of recognising the special status of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi and the rights and needs of different cultural groups. In this module, we gave consideration to the way in which Special Education 2000 recognises the needs of Maori children and of children from other cultural groups. As well, we considered the implications for teaching Maori students and students from other cultural groups who have special needs.

Module 7: Working with Other Agencies
Very often, students with special educational needs and their parents and extended families are involved with a variety of government agencies and community organisations. In this module, we considered the functions of a range of such agencies and how these can best be accessed.

Module 8: Developing Effective Partnerships with Parents, Families and Communities
Students with special educational needs live in families who in turn live in communities. If we are to ensure the best quality of education for such children, it is vital that the support and assistance of families and community members be enlisted. In terms of working with parents/caregivers, this means addressing ways in which meaningful partnerships can be forged between homes and the school. It also means taking account of the needs some parents/caregivers have for emotional and practical support.

Module 9: Behaviour Difficulties
This module was developed as a result of many requests from schools. We believed that effective programming for children with behaviour difficulties involved consideration of all the other modules, especially Module 1A Initiatives for Children with Behaviour Difficulties, Module 4 Assessment and Individual Programme Planning, and Module 5 Teaching Strategies. However, we also saw merit in complementing these modules with one that specifically focused on children with behaviour difficulties. This module considered such issues as the definition of children with behaviour difficulties, their characteristics, their impact on teachers, preventative strategies and effective school and classroom responses to such children.

Delivery
In the period September 1998 - June 2000 the Project team delivered professional development programmes to 203 Waikato schools (see Table 1). This represents 76.6 percent of the 265 schools who were offered the opportunity to be involved.

Table 1:
Participating Schools Data

A total of 1116 modules were delivered to 6112 staff from the 203 participating schools. Module 1 (the generic material about Special Education 2000) was presented to 2114 principals, teachers and support staff in 202 schools (see Table 2). The Project team also facilitated 503 in-depth workshops, covering 914 modules, to a total of 4008 staff in 197 schools (see Table 3).

Table 2:
Module 1 Presentations

Table 3:
In-Depth Workshops

Who opted in?
Our original aim was to have 80 percent of the district's schools take up the offer of this professional development programme. We considered our final figure of 76.6 percent a very satisfactory outcome. It must be remembered that Special Education 2000 has not enjoyed universal support amongst educators. In fact, in the early part of this Project our facilitators encountered quite vociferous opposition on occasions. This response was not widespread and only rarely was it school-wide. However, some schools definitely chose not to participate because of their negative feelings towards the policy changes. It is interesting to note that, while some principals and teachers continued to voice their concern about certain aspects of the policy throughout the period of the Project, general opposition to the changes seemed to dissipate over time.

A breakdown of the participating schools by type reveals a proportionately low up-take rate by secondary schools. From this it would seem that secondary school teachers do not consider professional development in this area of education as important or as relevant as their counterparts in primary schools. While nearly 80 percent of primary schools opted to participate, only 56 percent of secondary schools became involved. The Project facilitators reported that working in secondary schools was much more of a challenge than it was in primary schools. They felt secondary teachers' commitment to inclusive policies and practices was generally weaker.

What modules were selected?
All schools were required to include Module 1 in their professional development programme. Module 2 School Management and Organisation was also compulsory, although a small number schools claimed an exemption on the basis that they had recently undergone comprehensive development in this area. In addition to these two modules, schools were asked to select topics that would meet the needs identified from information obtained from their needs analysis survey.

The data presented in Table 3 shows that Module 5 was the most frequently requested module. Module 5, the teaching strategies module, was made up of 13 sub-modules, including, peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching, interactive teaching, co-operative group teaching, catering for different learning styles, behavioural strategies, etc. It is not too surprising that the module dealing with practical approaches to catering for learners with special education needs was of primary interest to teachers. Catering for Different Learning Styles was the most popular sub-module within this module. While the information and approaches contained in this sub-module are certainly relevant to providing an appropriate learning environment for learners with special education needs, it seems the applicability of these approaches generally made it particularly appealing to teachers. Module 3 A Curriculum for All, Module 4 Assessment and Individual Programme Planning and Module 9 Behaviour Difficulties, were the next most requested modules. Modules 3 and 4 also have a very practical focus, and their popularity reflects the desire of teachers to be better able to identify, plan for, and meet the needs of students with special needs, within the regular classroom and the regular curriculum. The interest in the module dealing with behavior difficulties was not surprising. In all the feedback from teachers, both formal and informal, this was identified as one of their major concerns.

Less predictable were the modules that were less frequently requested. Module 7 Working with Other Agencies was only delivered on 18 occasions - less than 2 percent of the total number of workshops sessions delivered. Module 8 Developing Effective Partnerships with Families and Whanau constituted just over 4 percent of the sessions delivered, and Module 6 Working with Maori and other Cultural Groups a little more than 5 percent. It is unlikely that the low number of schools selecting these modules is due to the fact that educators feel well informed in these areas. It is much more likely to be a reflection of their perceived importance. The low priority accorded to working with parents, families and whanau, and with Maori and other cultural groups, is major concern.

What was the response of teachers to the content and delivery?
After each workshop participants were provided with an evaluation form that asked them to:

A five-point Likert-type scale (with 1=Not Satisfied, and 5=Very Satisfied) was used to obtain a mean satisfaction rating (expressed as a percentage) for each presentation. Table 4 shows the overall mean satisfaction rating obtained from participants' evaluations for both Module 1 and the in-depth workshops.

Table 4:
Satisfaction Ratings

In general, the response to Module 1 was very positive, with an overall mean satisfaction rating of 84.2% (across all school types). The response to the in-depth workshops was also very encouraging, with an overall mean satisfaction rating of 85.8% (across all school types). In particular, the workshops on Peer Tutoring (5A), Reciprocal Teaching (5B), Different Learning Styles (5G) and Behavioural Strategies (5I) were mentioned frequently by teachers as being 'useful' and 'relevant' to their classroom situation.

Although the ratings were slightly higher from primary schools than secondary schools, the difference is small could not be considered to be particularly significant. What does stand out is the very high level of reported satisfaction by Kura Kaupapa staff for the workshop sessions. While the number of participating schools of this type was small, the workshop sessions were obviously well received.

Overall, teachers commented that they appreciated:

• professional development tailored to the nature and needs of their own school;
• all staff being involved;
• Special Education policy explained in person and with the opportunity to ask questions and express concerns;
• the 'workshop' approach to professional development, with the opportunity to be actively involved, interact with the material and apply the strategies;
• that the facilitators were well prepared, used interesting and attractive materials, and were creative and imaginative in their approaches;
• the opportunity to share ideas with colleagues.

The following are examples of the positive comments made:

(The) presenter made herself familiar with 'our' school's … situation.

The practical activities.

Just having an opportunity to discuss our ideas.

I really enjoyed having SE2000 explained simply.

Interesting just to see how the whole system fitted together and to learn more about the criteria.

Being able to discuss concerns, problems, etc.

Interesting lively presentation.

Very useful strategies for helping the ordinary slow learner in the classroom.

Very professional, helpful and informative.

Hearing colleagues contributions.

The responsibility of every teacher to address students special needs.

Presenters knowledge at fingertips.

Generation of thoughtful ideas for the classroom.

While the evaluations were overwhelmingly positive, there were those that were more negative. Many of these comments reflected negative attitudes towards the philosophy of inclusion in general and Special Education 2000 in particular. Some teachers clearly felt that they were still ill-prepared to accommodate students with special needs in their classrooms. The following are some representative comments made in response to being asked what could have been included to improve the programme:

(Nothing) - issue is unsolvable.

I want answers and funding - there isn't any.

On-going training.

More time to discuss such a diverse and broad topic.

More detail.

Some ideas for solutions to these problems.

Include lots and lots of really positive strategies for teachers to use straight away, then we would be more eager to attend.

More sessions so we have more time.

More suggestions on how to implement some of the different teaching approaches to cater for different learning styles.

A number of teachers expressed a desire for opportunities to explore topics in greater depth. Others felt that more sessions over a longer period of time, with opportunities to try out new ideas between sessions would have been more useful. Some teachers felt they would have benefitted from an opportunity to explore strategies to help manage students with 'very' specialised needs.

The final phase of this programme of professional development was the Review Visits. This involved a facilitator meeting with key staff in every school, reviewing the project and then identifying areas of ongoing need and discussing how these might be met. This information was then collated, and developed by the facilitator into a formal report that was presented to the school. The review visit provided Project staff with detailed information about the effectiveness of the programme, as well as an indication of areas that remained a concern for schools. In general, the feedback provided by teachers in the post-workshop evaluations was reiterated in review visit feedback.

How successful was our approach overall?
The process of developing our approach involved searching the relevant literature, adding our own ideas and then identifying a set of core principles of effective professional development. Our experience certainly confirms the efficacy of these principles.

There is no doubt that ongoing contact with the staff of a school generally strengthens the relationship between the provider of the professional development and the staff. Only rarely did schools have a change in facilitator during the period of their professional development programme. This increased the likelihood of an open and honest relationship developing and one where teachers felt safe to share real concerns. It also meant that facilitators became more knowledgeable about the schools they were working in, and could adjust their content and approaches as they became more familiar with a specific situation. Revisiting schools on several occasions also allowed teachers time to reflect on the content of presentations, to trial approaches, strategies and techniques, and then to pursue any issues with the facilitator on a subsequent visit. This commitment over time holds the providers much more accountable for their work as well.

Our school-wide approach to professional development was reported by many participants as a major strength of the programme. In our experience, involving all the staff of a school in a programme increases the likelihood that the commitment will be ongoing, that there will be a greater consistency of policy and practice, and that all staff will feel a sense of ownership. Frequently, when professional development is provided for one or two teachers within a school, those with responsibility for the area in which the professional development is being offered are the ones who are nominated. Very often they are the staff members with the greatest knowledge and the most well-developed skills, and who are least in need of the professional development. This approach relies on these 'representatives' to take the message back to their schools and to disseminate it to staff. All too often this does not occur, or if it does the teacher or teachers suffer from the 'prophet in their own country syndrome', and the full benefits of the professional development fail to permeate throughout the school.

Not only did we offer a programme to all staff, we developed individualised programmes tailored to the identified needs of a school's staff. Although the options we offered were limited, they did cover a wide range of topics. (In fact, when we presented the list of modules available we included the opportunity for schools to nominate topics outside these, which we agreed to consider and include if we felt they were relevant. Very few schools did this.) From the feedback from teachers it is clear that school-based professional development is a preferred approach. The opportunity to focus on local issues and concerns and to develop responses specific to their own situation, was valued by our participants.

Our emphasis on formative evaluation meant we were constantly receiving information on how to improve our practice. Each session was formally evaluated by participants, and this information informed the content and approaches of subsequent sessions. This commitment to programme evaluation proved invaluable for reviewing and refining our work. The Review Phase provided schools the opportunity to evaluate the programme against their own goals and needs, and also to develop a future plan of action. We hope this lessens the likelihood that the professional development is perceived as a one-off provision.

Our facilitators held graduate level qualifications in special education and our programme had a solid theoretical base. At the risk of being criticised by teachers as being too 'academic', we did not avoid presenting content that was more 'theoretical' in nature. Nor did we avoid competing or conflicting approaches or points of view. Contrary to what some might predict, many teachers commented that they valued exposure to the theoretical bases of the practical ideas, and a number expressed a desire to pursue the literature further in some areas.

The 'workshop' approach, with an emphasis on participant involvement was one of the most often cited positive remarks made by teachers about the programme. Not only did this involve participants in practical activities, it provided a forum for teachers to share their successes and concerns, to present scenarios and dilemmas for others to consider, and to learn from each other. Our facilitators were very careful not present themselves as 'experts' but rather they acknowledged the individual and combined expertise of the teachers they worked with. However, a balance needs to be achieved here; it is the balance between recognising the experiences and skills of participants and providing a forum for the sharing of these, yet still meeting teachers' expectations for the programme to contain new information and approaches.

We certainly experienced some limitations with this model, but these were largely logistical in nature. For example, working with the entire staff from a school offers little flexibility in scheduling. Schools were expected to commit one whole day to staff development. We soon found that the number of days that suited any one school was quite limited. We had to accommodate the scheduling requests of 200 schools and divide this between four facilitators and a period of less than two years. It became something of a logistical nightmare at times.

Our model worked well in small to moderate sized schools, but it was less workable in large intermediate (middle) and secondary schools. While the principle of whole staff development may remain the ideal even in these situations, large schools are often resistant to committing their entire staff to a single professional development programme. Sometimes it is argued that this is uneconomic and it is a better use of teachers' time for a small group of key staff to receive the message and then pass it on to others. Working with a large staff in a workshop-type situation tends to be less effective. However, we found this could be overcome by using more than one facilitator and by offering options and/or by rotating groups.

A real challenge when working with the whole staff of a school is to accommodate of the differences between in knowledge and experience. Teachers in a school come to professional development courses in any area of education with a wide range of experience, knowledge and skills, and a variety of attitudes. They can have extremely different expectations and needs. This was certainly the case with this programme. As our facilitators became more experienced they became more confident and competent in accommodating such diversity.

Did we spread ourselves too thinly?
Our contract with the Ministry of Education required us to offer a programme of professional development to every school in the Waikato district and we were expected to actually deliver to 80 percent of this group. A cornerstone of our approach was the one-day, in-depth session, which we believed was preferable to a greater number of sessions of a shorter duration. Our work in schools spanned less than two years, but we tried to complete all phases in each school within six months. This meant there were some opportunities to revisit after staff had had time to introduce some of the principles and practices we had shared, but these were limited. Teachers frequently mentioned their disappointment at not have the opportunity to do more of this. The Government had made a commitment to offering professional development in special education to all principals and teachers in the country, and this was clearly appropriate, but it placed limitations on providers' ability to work intensively with schools. However, we could have offered more flexibility within our approach, allowing us to work in more depth with some schools, and spend less time with others. There were a number of schools involved whose policies and practices in special education were well developed, and who probably only needed an update on the policy changes. In contrast, other schools had barely considered any systematic or coordinated approach in this area, and would have benefitted from a greater number of sessions and with an ongoing focus on school and classroom change. While we were very flexible with respect to programme content, we were relatively fixed in the number of visits we would make and the total amount of time schools were required to commit to.

What should schools be 'required' to include in a programme?
Modules 1 and 2 were the only modules all schools were required to take. On reflection, this was a justified expectation and schools did not object to this. However, we are concerned that so few schools chose to include Module 8 Developing Effective Partnerships with Families and Whanau and Module 6 Working with Maori and other Cultural Groups. We believe it is vital schools explore issues in this area and to re-examine their attitudes and practices. There is certainly a case for requiring schools to include this content in a programme of professional development. While this may not need to be in the form of dedicated modules, it could constitute compulsory sub modules within a larger module and/or schools could chose to undertake this as either a major or minor component. However, there is also an argument that these two elements should be included in all modules. To some extend we did do this, but not as systematically as we would have, had we known so few schools would chose these modules. Formalising this across all modules may be the most effective way to address this issue. This approach has the advantage of providing a context for the exploration of these important areas.

Whose needs are being provided for?
Our needs-based approach was fully explained to principals and/or lead teachers. We provided a survey form, which we encouraged them to photocopy and distribute to staff. They were then offered the option of collating and summarising these themselves, or having us do it. When schools took responsibility for this task we became aware that what was presented to our facilitators as the priority needs of staff was sometimes different to what staff themselves had indicated as areas of concern. On occasions, the summary of staff needs was more an indication of what management determined should be included in the programme. To some extent this may be legitimate. On some occasions it was clearly indefensible. It may have been better to have undertaken the survey ourselves, prioritised staff needs from this information, and then negotiated the programme with the key staff.

A final word
This project, and its sister project in South Auckland, potentially involved more than 16 percent of the nation's schools. Although our team members had considerable related experience to draw on, none had any significant previous experience delivering professional development to teachers. In some ways this was an advantage. It caused us to search for best practice, to consult with others and to approach this venture with the expectation that adjustments and modifications were going to be an ongoing feature of our work. We were extremely fortunate to have a most efficient project coordinator. Other staff knew they could depend on her to take care of organisational and administrative aspects, meaning they could focus almost solely on face-to-face work in schools. Our facilitators were skilled and committed professionals and the quality of their work is reflected in the level of satisfaction expressed by the teachers they worked with. While the design of professional development is critical, its effectiveness as an approach will largely be determined by the quality of the staff implementing it.

Where have we made a difference? Our participant schools can certainly not hide behind a claim that they are unaware of policy changes and/or ignorant of their roles and responsibilities towards providing appropriate learning experiences for their students with special needs. We would also hope that we have challenged some stereotypes held about these students and also some of the negative attitudes associated with including them. Even more than that, we have tried to demonstrate that these students have strengths, abilities and traits that enrich our classrooms. From this perspective it is not a matter of just including them, it is a case of welcoming them in. Have we made a difference in classrooms? This is very difficult to determine. However, during our review visits some principals reported change at this level, but change at the chalk face is the most difficult to effect and often occurs gradually and over a long period of time.

The Ministry of Education has decided to extend these professional development programmes for another 12 to 18 months. This provides a second opportunity for schools who did not accept the first round offer to become involved. The Ministry has targeted secondary schools, schools with high numbers of Maori students, and kura kaupapa as the priority for the extended projects.

References

Ainscow, M. (1994). Special needs in the classroom: A teacher education guide. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, and Paris: UNESCO.

Ainscow, M. (1995). Education for all: Making it happen. Support for Learning, 10(4), 147-155.

Ainscow, M. & Hart, S. (1992). Moving practice forward. Support for Learning. 7(3), 115- 120.

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.

Ministry of Education (1996), Special Education 2000. Wellington: Ministry of Education. http://www.minedu.govt.nz/

Mitchell, D. (Ed.) (1999). Creating inclusive schools. Hamilton: University of Waikato (limited availability until 2001).

Mitchell, D. (2000). Policies and systems for students with special education needs. In D. Fraser, R. Moltzen and K. Ryba (Eds.) Learners with special needs in Aotearoa/New Zealand. 2nd edition (pp. 29 - 49). Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.

Sparks, D. (1995). A paradigm shift in staff development. The ERIC Review: Professional Development. 3(4), 2-4.

United States Department of Education Initiative on Teaching (nd). Ensuring a talented, dedicated and well-prepared teacher in every classroom: Information kit. Washington DC: United States Department of Education.

Wood, F.H. & Thompson, S.R. (1993). Assumptions about staff development based on research and best practice. Journal of Staff Development, 14(4), 52-57.

Index