Contributions from: E. Swart & Helen Krige
Abstract
The policy of inclusion is in the process of legislation and the first phase of implementation in South Africa. Together with the many other changes in education, inclusive education necessitate a reconstruction of educator's roles. This implies a collaborative process and needs to be carefully managed and supported. We argue that education managers and more specifically principals are a key to transformation in education and central to the provision of quality education for all. They have in the past received little training in responding to diversity within the learner population. This study investigates principals' perceptions of their changing roles and responsibilities within an inclusive education system and society. The purpose of this study is to inform the developers of education management programmes of the necessary training and support required for the successful implementation of inclusive education.
Introduction
The ongoing transformation in South Africa has brought about numerous educational issues into sharp focus, resulting in the development of many new laws, policies and practices. The issue of inclusive education is in the process of legislation and the first phase of implementation in this country. Together with the many other changes in education, inclusive education necessitates a reconstruction of educators' roles. This implies a collaborative process and needs to be carefully managed and supported. We argue that education managers and more specifically principals are a key to transformation in education and central to the provision of quality education for all. Specifically in South Africa, they have in the past received little training in responding to diversity within the learner population (Department of National Education, 1997:39,101; 1999:61). A review of the literature reveals that researchers have paid relatively little attention to the principal's role in inclusive education (Bailey & Du Plessis, 1997:429-430; Wigle & Wilcox, 1999:4-5; Ingram, 1997; Stainback & Stainback, 1996; Falvey, 1995). This study investigates the changing roles and responsibilities of principals within an emerging inclusive education system and society, by constructing an integrated theoretical framework from existing bodies of knowledge in educational change, educational reform, organisational development, teacher development and inclusive education. The purpose of this study is to inform the developers of education management and inclusive education training programmes of key elements that need to be considered for the training and support of principals that are required for the successful implementation of inclusive education.
The development of the notion and practice of inclusive education
Both within an international and national context, inclusion is proving to be a complex and controversial issue in education. Inclusion, a philosophy and practice, is a difficult concept to define, resulting in considerable debate about what it actually means (Winzer, 1998:230). As a philosophy, the concept of inclusion embraces the democratic values of liberty, equality and civic rights, and recognises and accommodates diversity thereby respecting the rights of all learners and enables them to participate fully in a democratic society. Thus the values underpinning inclusive education go beyond merely implementing a programme and the practical considerations thereof. Inclusion supports the notion that "living and learning together is a better way that benefits everyone, not just children who are labelled as having a difference" (Falvey; Givner & Kimm, 1995:8). Ultimately, the vision of inclusion is to contribute towards the development of an inclusive society where all members participate optimally and fulfil their potential in an environment where respect for and valuing of diversity are active values. Inclusive education is just one of the many aspects of inclusion in the broader society, thereby making it very difficult to bring about inclusive education in schools without sound inclusive values as a basis in all of society.
The notion and practice of inclusion naturally developed out of the normalization, mainstreaming and integration movements of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, culminating in a predictable moment in educational history. These principles suggested development along a number of dimensions. The principle of normalisation was originally conceptualised by Mickelson and Nirje in Scandinavia in the late 1960's and expanded by Wolfenberger in North America in the 1970's. Normalisation means that all citizens, including those with disabilities, the aged, those with psychiatric problems and members of ethnic minority groups, should have equal access to the ways of life and everyday activities of society (Smith, 1998:20; Greer & Greer, 1995:340; Bailey & Du Plessis, 1997: 428). The essential principle of normalisation is the valuing of people in society. Both mainstreaming and integration were attempts to apply this principle in education. Including learners who need support in regular education classrooms for some or all of their school day is an effort to integrate them into the "mainstream" of education. But, mainstreaming implies that learners with diverse needs are welcome only if they can benefit from existing services and programmes. This is therefore sometimes referred to as maindumping (Elkins, 1994:76). Integration on the other hand is related to mainstreaming and is also called desegregation. It refers to the process of including learners with diverse needs in regular education by adapting the curriculum and providing support and resources to enable the learner to fit in. In both attempts differences are highlighted and learners have to change to fit into the "mainstream" of education, which is essentially unchanged. The move towards inclusive education on the other hand implies more radical changes, and shifts the focus on the school (Thomas, Walker & Webb, 1998:10/11). The essential challenge is to transform the education system and operate supportive classrooms and schools that include and provide for the needs of all learners. In inclusive education, mainstreaming and integration are therefore regarded as intermediary steps to the ultimate goal of teaching all learners together (Stainback & Stainback, 1990:4).
Inclusive education in South Africa
The history of education in South Africa reflects massive deprivation and lack of provision for the majority of learners. Therefore the central challenge facing education is "recognising and addressing the diverse needs of the entire learner population and minimising, removing and preventing barriers to learning and development - thereby promoting effective learning for all learners" (Department of National Education, 1997:i). The new Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996 includes a Bill of Rights which entrenches the right of all citizens, regardless of race, gender, sex, colour, sexual orientation, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language, to basic education and to equal access to educational institutions (Section 29 of the 1996 Constitution). The 1996 Constitution together with new education legislation and policy, for example, the White Paper on Education and Training No. 1 (1995) the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996, and Curriculum 2005 with its focus on outcomes-based education (Department of National Education, 1997:48/49), recognise diversity within a single restructured system of education that provides quality education for all learners. These policies, structures and laws provide a framework for and are the first steps towards inclusive education in South Africa (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 1997:20; Lazarus, Daniels & Engelbrecht, 1999:46). A learner's right to education relies on the need to ensure equal educational opportunities for all learners and access to all aspects of the curriculum that will allow them to achieve to their potential. Therefore, the emphasis falls on an education system that is inherently capable of meeting the diverse needs of every learner as inclusively as possible within schools. According to the Minister of Education, Professor Kadar Asmal, the ultimate challenge is to "create the conditions of learning and teaching in all our learning institutions so that all learners can be fully accommodated, can flourish and contribute effectively to the regeneration of our society, our economy and our country" (Department of National Education, 1999:ii).
Currently, a shift is being made from referring to learners with special educational needs (LSEN) and "special needs", to referring to the removal of "barriers to learning and development" (Department of National Education, 1997:2) or "causes and effects of learning difficulties and effective learning" (Department of National Education, 1999:7). The report of the National Commission on Special Needs in Education and Training (NCSNET) and National Committee on Education Support Services (NCESS): Quality Education for All, refers to barriers that can be located in the learner, within the school, within the education system and within the broader social, economic and political context. Barriers to learning and development may constitute lack of access to basic services, poverty and underdevelopment, factors that place learners at risk (i.e. school drop-out, abuse, violence or HIV/AIDS), negative and harmful attitudes towards diversity, inflexible curriculum, language and communication difficulties, inaccessible and unsafe built environment, inappropriate and inadequate provision of support services, lack of appropriate legislation and policy, lack of parental recognition and involvement, disability and lack of human resource development strategies (DNE, 1997:12 - 19). These barriers prevent both learner and system needs being met and can result either in learning breakdown or exclusion from the education system. Barriers to learning and development need to be addressed or removed, in order to cope with the diversity in the learner population and accommodate them in an integrated system of education.
This coincides with the view that learning difficulties originate not only from deficits within the learner, but also from deficits within a system. The implication here is that the barriers may be caused by a system that is unable to meet or adapt to the needs of the specific learner (Hegarty, 1994:126). Consequently the focus has now moved from the learner having to adjust to the demands of the system, to the system that needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the diverse needs of all learners as inclusively as possible (DNE, 1999:3). The implication of such a systems change approach requires a complete reform and restructuring of all school operations, making the issue of developing more inclusive schools an issue of fundamental educational reform. Such educational reform needs to be directed towards establishing schools and local communities that accommodate all learners based on values and attitudes of respect for diversity, care, sensitivity, acceptance, belonging and community. In such an environment individual differences are celebrated and valued and all learners are encouraged to become active members of the community. Inclusive schooling evolves over time and for it to be successful it needs to be thought of as a process and not an occurrence (Hewitt, 1999; Rouse & Florian, 1996:82).
Reculturing for inclusive education
We argue, however, that reforming to an inclusive education system requires more than simply restructuring present roles and systems or implementing new programmes and procedures. Restructuring is often approached as rational, cognitive processes in search of rational, cognitive ends. Subsequently, a narrow focus on restructuring often results in surface level and superficial change or merely an innovation. More importantly, for inclusive education to succeed educators and communities need to shift from one set of assumptions, beliefs, values, norms, relationships, behaviours and practices to another which entails a fundamental reculturing of learning and teaching (Hargreaves, 1994:255; Hargreaves, 1997:1; Miller, 1998:530; Fullan, 1998:226). This involves constructing new conceptions about learning and teaching and new forms of professionalism for educators that embrace values that reflect a supportive and caring environment that celebrates diversity and promotes equal opportunity and access to education. Besides redefining the content and forms of educator cultures, reculturing also needs to include learner and community cultures thereby building structures which promote interrelationships and interconnections. Reculturing involves restructuring, but to restructure is not to reculture. When restructuring is combined with reculturing where the emphasis is on the non-rational and non-linear aspects of change, change agents possess some powerful tools for facilitating deep change.
Reculturing acknowledges both the psychological and symbolical aspects of human nature thereby integrating the roles that both school climate and school culture play in school reform. Sergiovanni and Starrat (1998:176) describe school climate as the "enduring characteristics that describe the psychological make-up of a particular school, distinguish it from other schools, and influence the behaviour of teachers and students, as well as the 'feel' that teachers and students have for that school." The climate of an inclusive school should display the characteristics of a healthy school such as a sense of cohesiveness and synergy that bonds people together, direct communication that is open and honest across the boundaries of a system; equitable distribution of influence and power, innovativeness, adaptation and problem-solving adequacy. School culture reflects the more symbolic nature of school life and can be described as a set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people. Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998:190) perceive culture to exist at at least four levels. Artifacts of culture as manifested in what people say, how people behave and how things look, is the most tangible and observable level. Another level is the perspectives of people, while a third level is that of values. The fourth, and most abstract level is that of tacit assumptions and beliefs about themselves and their relationships to others. Altering school culture is a strong change strategy that ultimately seeks to create new work norms and enhanced moral purpose.
At the heart of reculturing is managing moral purpose and change agentry (Fullan, 1993:8), as well as possessing a deeper understanding of the complex interrelationships between emotion, hope, empathy and moral purpose. For the effective implementation of inclusive education, educators need to be committed to a moral purpose which Fullan (1996 in Wolger, 1998:87) describes as a 'desire to make a difference' because they are agents of educational change and societal improvement. This requires that each educator goes "deeper" into the heart of their professional practice, to rediscover the "passion and moral purpose that makes teaching and learning exciting and effective" (Fullan, 1997:xi). Educators are committed to cultivating an environment that values mutual respect, care, diversity, equity and access to ensure education for all. However, these moral requirements need to culminate in an expression of commitment to nurturing a genuine respect for all people, combating prejudice and discriminatory practices, utilising human resources to the mutual benefit of all, acknowledging the rights of all learners to access equitable educational opportunities and developing a flexible curriculum that addresses the diverse needs of all learners (Lazarus, Daniels & Engelbrecht, 1999). This moral purpose is explicitly related to the personal and interpersonal caring within the broader social purpose of accommodating diversity, but the building block is the moral purpose of the individual teacher (Fullan, 1993). However, moral purpose cannot exist on its own, without knowing and managing one's own and others' feelings, and developing hope that assists in dealing with chaos and complexity by finding ways and resources to address difficult problems. These emotional competencies are often collectively referred to as emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998) and adds value to both learners' and educators' learning. Reculturing implies educational change on a deeper, more meaningful level.
A natural ally for making the moral purpose more explicit and enhancing educational change is the tools educators require to engage in change productively. Being self -conscious about the nature of change and the change process, is what Fullan (1993) defines as change agentry. Those skilled in change are aware of its uncontrollably complex, semi-unpredictable and volatile character. They are also mindful of the fear of the unknown, ambivalence and anxiety that change produces. The effective management of change lies in better ways of feeling, thinking about, and dealing with complex unpredictable processes and their accompanying emotions (Fullan, 1991 in Fink & Stoll, 1998: Sergiovanni & Starrat, 1998). All educational changes to be productive require new skills, behaviour, beliefs and in-depth understanding (Fullan, 1993; Hopkins, West & Ainscow, 1996). In addition, building capacity to manage the upsetting, volatile and unpredictable feelings of change and finding purpose and hope are essential keys to deal with change constructively. Change requires both individual and organisational initiatives and simultaneously top down and bottom up processes. However, it is only by individuals taking action to alter their own values and beliefs, that there is any chance for deep change (Fullan, 1993:18/19)
Roles and responsibilities of the principal in creating an inclusive learning community
Achieving an inclusive learning community is dependent on establishing an inclusive school culture. Without identifying aspects of school culture that are supportive of inclusion, a mere modification of the pre-existing dual system of education occurs that fails to meet the requirements of inclusion. Such aspects serve as a framework that informs the development of inclusive communities. While each aspect is an essential element in the educational change process, they are interdependent parts of creating effective inclusive schools for all, and need to be tailored to the individual needs of each school. An overview of the literature reveals that such aspects might include: building a shared vision, promoting collegiality and collaboration, establishing a learning community characterised by support, staff development and time. Within each of these aspects the principal's role is paramount and has been cited as the single most influential individual in creating school culture and climate (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998). Subsequently, the discussion that follows is an attempt to reconceptualise and reconstruct the roles and responsibilities of the principals in creating an inclusive learning environment. These are also diagrammatically presented in Figure 1.
Building a shared vision
The role of the principal in building a shared vision within an inclusive school is one of the key factors in successfully implementing inclusive education (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996:780; Ainscow & Hopkins, 1992:81; Ingram, 1997; Thomas et al., 1998:16). A shared vision is essential in any reform movement as it provides the focus and energy for transformation within the individual, school and community. Simply described, a shared vision is the answer to the question "What do we want to create?" and encompasses change initiatives that are guided by a vision of preferred futures that are clear and positive. Visionising, or building a vision (Villa & Thousand, 1995:57) is the process of creating and communicating a compelling picture of the desired future state. More specifically, it involves reconceptualisation of ones beliefs and a public declaration of ownership of a new view. However, the responsibility for vision-building is not an individual one, and therefore not only the principal's. Creating a vision should be a collaborative effort and a process of consensus building amongst all role players.
In inclusive schools it is critical that a vision and philosophy is publicly articulated based on the democratic and egalitarian principles of inclusion. Such a vision reflects the belief that all children can learn, that all children have the right to be educated with their peers in age-appropriate regular education classrooms, and that meeting the diverse educational and psychological needs of all children is the responsibility of the school system and staff. This vision needs to be converted into a mission statement that outlines the practical execution of how all children will be welcomed and supported in an inclusive learning environment. Such an initiative requires careful planning, involving all the role players. Planning provides direction and focuses all collaborative activities. However, such a plan is a map of the journey, not a blueprint (Ainscow & Hopkins, 1992:81). It is the principal's responsibility to set the tone of the school to develop the culture, and initiate the process of shared vision building, as well as ensure that decisions are made, challenges are met and that actions and processes are supported that are consistent with the school's vision and mission.
The central role of the principal's personal beliefs and values in establishing a shared vision must not be underestimated, but instead deserves significant attention. To lead and manage an inclusive school necessitates a personal belief that all children can learn resulting in providing all children equal access to an integrated curriculum and quality education. Principals intent on building shared visions must be prepared to continually share their personal visions and ask for support, and not enforce it (Senge, 1990:205-232). Therefore, it is crucial for the principal to remember that their visions are still personal visions, and that a vision only becomes shared once it connects with the personal visions of all the people directly involved in the school and community. Further, we argue that the dynamic interplay that exists between personal and shared visions does not exist in a vacuum, but is in continual interaction with the broader socio-political context. This triarchical relationship is in a constant state of dynamic tension and active negotiation as well as development over time. (This can be diagrammatically presented in Figure 2). The most effective vision therefore is continually evolving and demands collegiality and effective collaboration between all the role players as well as change agentry. Thoughts become more concrete when they are shared. Hearing these thoughts and the reaction to them provide an opportunity to reconsider and reflect on personal ideas and beliefs in a more dynamic and creative way.
Promoting collegiality and collaboration
Collegiality is directly related to school climate and school culture (Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1998:200). Collegiality refers to a strong professional culture knitted together by shared, collective work norms and manifests in high levels of collaboration characterised by mutual respect, positive emotional and moral support, shared work values, trust, cooperation and purposeful dialogues about teaching and learning. It is a professional virtue and an essential ingredient of an inclusive school culture that provides a healthy platform for the numerous collaborative efforts aimed at providing quality education for all.
Collaboration and collaborative relationships are consistently identified as the keystone or vehicle for responding effectively to diversity as well as managing change and educational reform (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996:780, Villa & Thousand, 1992:73/75). This is especially so in the light of educators' continual changing and increasing roles as they respond to the demands of a postmodern society. In an inclusive school the mutual support of many players is required. No one educator can be expected to meet the educational and psychological needs of all the learners. Westling and Fox (1995:57) define collaboration as a process by which different role-players work together to identify barriers and needs and ways to meet the needs and address the barriers. All members of the collaborative team, including parents and the community are of equal importance, and are expected to contribute their expertise in a collegial, trusting manner with the same end goal in mind. Such collaborative activities reflect the culture and values of inclusion as well as aims at the effective implementation of inclusive education. Collaboration encourages a willingness to work and learn together, facilitates interactions and promotes shared ownership and responsibility of problem definitions, and the development of creative solutions and actions. Each collaborative arrangement can be viewed as a learning opportunity as well as an opportunity to participate in decision making, thereby helping to create the conditions and capacity for every teacher to become a leader. A more complex view of leadership thus emerges emphasising leadership as an organisational quality, rather than an individual characteristic (Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999:424). A school that continually seeks to develop and refine their responses to the challenges they meet, is referred to by Senge (1990) as a learning organisation. By promoting collaboration and establishing collaborative teams, the principal broadens the leadership capacity of the school and extends it beyond principalship to culminate into a "community of leaders" (Servatius, Fellows & Kelly, 1992:270).
However, teachers' backgrounds do not prepare them for these collaborative leadership roles and learning how to work more collaboratively is a new experience for educators who are used to working in an isolated manner (Ingram, 1997). Reculturing reverses these dynamics. Reculturing the school to create collaborative cultures amongst teachers and with the broader community helps teachers build on present expertise, share resources, provide moral support and create a climate of trust in which successes can be celebrated and problems addressed. Therefore, collaboration requires the principal's support and the time and opportunity to work together in planning, preparation and evaluation to learn the skills of working with other adults. The principal also needs to be able to operate comfortably and effectively in collaborative groups as well as accept decisions made through collaborative interactions that may not always match personal preferences. Facilitating effective collaboration begins with an understanding of how relationships are formed and maintained and the acquisition of essential skills, like effective communication, dealing with conflict, creative problem solving, task team building, decision making and trust building (Thousand & Villa, 1992:76).
Collaboration is a prerequisite for establishing and maintaining an inclusive learning community, where people continually learn how to be together (Senge, 1990:4). The hallmark of effective inclusive education is a philosophy of, and support for lifelong learning about teaching and learning. This can only be realised when all the role players are actively involved in a learning community that focuses on reculturing learning and teaching to bring about deep level change.
Establishing a learning community
Creating an inclusive school in which all learners feel acknowledged, valued and respected implies significant changes in the interaction between not only teachers and learners, but all the role players, as well as changes in curriculum and instruction. Such changes are aimed at reflecting changing views of how learning and teaching, which is contextual and complex, take place. These views include the belief that each child can learn and succeed, that diversity is enriching and that effective learning results from the collaborative efforts of everybody to ensure the success of each learner (Falvey et al., 1995:9). Perspectives on learning and teaching are deeply embedded in the vision for an inclusive school, and operationalising this vision presents the principal and all other role players with many new challenges.
However, this challenge becomes less daunting when the school and all its role players are perceived as a learning community (Servatius, Fellows & Kelly, 1992:271) with learning as its focus, and not just the responsibility of one or two groups of people. A good school is described by Coots, Bishop, Grenot-Scheyer and Falvey (1995:7) as a place where every body is learning and teaching, and where everybody receives the supports necessary to develop. Further, such a school values differences in gender, ability, ethnic background, race, language, religion and sexual orientation and celebrates these differences as valuable opportunities for learning. In such a community informal conversations on values, beliefs, teaching and learning are commonplace and not once off occurrences. This creates fertile ground for learning new ways of relating and collaborating, adapting, modifying or accommodating the curriculum for the needs of all the learners, implementing new instructional, learning and assessment practices, transforming classroom management and appropriately deploying resources. True learning communities benefit, support and empower all learners and all professionals.
A learning community can also be conceptualised as a democratic inquiry-based, problem-solving organisation (Skrtic, Sailor & Gee, 1996:145) as it is premised on the principle of innovation designed to invent new practices and procedures for doing work that is so puzzling, that initially the knowledge and skills for doing it are completely unknown. Knowledge and skills systematically develop as the work unfolds, however this is only successful to the extent that the role players adapt to each other along their route of discovery. Self-directed learning is an important characteristic of the school climate of such an organisation. In this way practice can become a vehicle for change.
The principal plays an important role as a member of the learning community and can increase a school's capacity to become inclusive by creating a community of learners within which all role players are valuable members. By applying dimensions of instructional leadership, principals create cultures of collaboration, inquiry, life long learning, experimentation and reflection that are consistent with the principles of adult learning, action research, teachers' life cycles, roles, and motivations (Blase & Blase, 1999). In other words, the principal's role is to actively foster learning for everyone (Fullan, 1997:13). Instructional leadership is often defined as a blend of several tasks, such as staff development, direct assistance to teachers, group development, curriculum development and action research and needs to be linked to school development (Ainscow, in Wolger, 1998:88). This involves working with teachers over time and across different situations, constantly facilitating a teacher's thinking about practice and providing motivation and encouragement to learn new knowledge and skills, rather than only presenting once off workshops. Teachers require ongoing support or scaffolding as they learn new techniques.
Effective instructional leadership has been proven to result in teacher efficacy, characterised by teachers feeling empowered to apply new skills and competencies. However, feeling empowered begins with a person's belief in their own capability to perform a certain activity. Further, teachers may feel effective in inclusive classrooms if they are provided opportunities to experience some success in these settings through training and appropriate support. Success experiences can then eventually lead to stronger self-efficacy beliefs (Brouwers, 2000:19-22).
A further characteristic of an inclusive learning community is that of support by each member of the community in the course of having each person's educational and psychological needs met. All members of each system involved accepts responsibility to mutually support each other in the process of developing inclusive learning environments and supportive, caring communities. This implies more than informal supports available in the school and community, but also includes formal professional supports often required to provide the expertise to ensure that the needs of all learners are met. Support is often actualised and experienced through collaborative relationships which in themselves need to be supported and modelled. It is critical for the principal as well as all the roleplayers to understand that the goal of support networking is always to empower people to assist and support themselves and others (Stainback & Stainback, 1996:197).
Support for inclusion often also means supplementary aids, assistive devices and support services (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996:781). However, Ainscow (in Thomas et al., 1998:37) warns that material resources are of less importance, and that emphasis on them could displace attention from an often overlooked resource, the role players themselves.
For a learning community to successfully fulfil its functions, more time is required to work collaboratively, plan with colleagues, and discuss concerns and new strategies to use in the classroom. This is especially the case at the outset of a new education reform. They require time to learn about and practice the new learning behaviours, introduce and institutionalise the new strategies, and time to reflect on the reform initiative, assess its outcomes and continue further growth and development. Principals need to be sensitive and aware as reform initiatives are designed and implemented and allocate the necessary time that it takes. This frequently requires a rethinking of the way one looks at time. A "reculturing" of time is what is required. Hargreaves (1994:114) recommends that it may be more helpful if principals provide more responsibility and flexibility to educators in the management and allocation of their time, thereby offering them more control over what is to be developed with that time. He makes this point in the context that it is difficult for principals working outside of the classroom to understand what time feels like to those working inside classrooms. The gap between leadership and teachers needs to be narrowed as life long learning becomes the norm of a learning community.
Conclusion
The Department of National Education (1997:53) formulated the following vision for the implementation of inclusive education in South Africa:
"The NCSNET/NCESS envisage an education and training system that promotes education for all and fosters the development of inclusive and supportive centres of learning that enable all learners to participate actively in the education process so that they can develop and extend their potential and participate as equal members of society."
The principal plays a key role in implementing and actualising the above vision of the government. They need to be informed about governmental policies concerning inclusion, but more significantly be collaboratively bought into the vision. This is critical, as a lack of a clear understanding of the complex nature of inclusion and its far reaching implications, reveals the possibility that schools may implement basic surface level or additive changes without approaching the fundamental systemic changes necessary to develop successful inclusive communities.
Implementing inclusive education requires far reaching changes, which in itself is complex and contextual in nature. Achieving this vision suggests implementing radically different approaches to educational reform, and principals, who are comfortable with and prepared to be the facilitators of non-linear and dynamically complex change, are needed to implement inclusive education. A deep understanding of change theory is critical for a principal to guide the implementation of inclusive education from inception to institutionalisation. There exist no shortcuts or miracle techniques for learning about change. Therefore "(L)eaders for change must immerse themselves in real situations of reform and begin to craft their own theories of change, constantly testing them against new situations and the accounts of others' experience" (Fullan, 1997:9).
Deep level change is further facilitated by a principal's fundamental beliefs, values and attitudes. Beliefs and attitudes of principals towards diversity and inclusive education are key factors influencing their behaviours towards learners with barriers to learning and development as an important role of the principal is that of symbolic leader. His/her actions, statements, expectations and behaviours make powerful symbolic statements, condoning or condemning the attitudes and behaviours of all other role players. Therefore, a curriculum for preparing principals for inclusive education must go beyond providing content knowledge and specific practical skills to include attitudes, values, beliefs and new ways of behaving. The new forms of professionalism and conceptions of learning and teaching require reculturing, and principals who adopt an ethic of caring, and lead with soul, passion and purpose.
Reculturing is a challenge of redesigning school structures away from individualistic, modernistic models to help educators and all role players work together more effectively as a learning community in collaborative cultures of shared leadership, learning and continuous development. In such a collegial environment, it is possible for the principal to facilitate the development of a shared vision including generic components such as collaboration, mutual support, life long learning, risk taking and trust in processes. Any planning for an inclusive school must involve all the role players in the school as well as representatives of the community (Rouse & Florian, 1996).
Much work will need to be done to prepare principals for the changes that must take place. Continuous personal and professional development of principals and other school leaders must be addressed. Principals need to get into the habit of and situations for constant learning. It is only active, life-long learners that can deal with and make meaning of changing situations. The challenge for the National Department of Education, school districts and higher education to collaborate and cooperate in supporting principals as they reculture in implementing inclusive education. Therefore, researchers in education management and special education should collaborate to conduct research in the area of inclusive schools.
"The challenge is to improve education in the only way it can be -through the day-to-day actions of empowered individuals." (Fullan, 1997:47)
References
Ainscow, M., & Hopkins, D. 1992. Aboard the "moving school". Educational Leadership, 50(3), 79 - 81.
Bailey, J., & Du Plessis, D. 1997. Understanding principals' attitudes towards inclusive schooling. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 428 - 438.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. 1998. Handbook of instructional leadership. How really good principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., & Blase, J. 1999. Principals' instructional leadership and teacher development: teachers' perspectives. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-370.
Brouwers, A. 2000. Teacher burnout and self-efficacy. An interpersonal approach. A. Brouwers.
Coots, J.J., Bishop, K.D., Grenot-Scheyer, M., & Falvey, M.A. 1995. Practices in general education: Past and present. In M.A. Falvey (Ed.), Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction (pp. 1 - 22). London: Paul H. Brookes.
Department of National Education (DNE) 1996. White Paper on Education and Training. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of National Education (DNE) 1997. Quality Education for All. Report of the National Commission On Special Needs In Education And Training (NCSNET) & National Committee For Education Support Services (NCESS) Pretoria: Government: Printers.
Department of National Education (DNE) 1999. Consultative Paper No. 1 on Special Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System, First Steps. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Donald, D., Lazarus, S., & Lolwana, P. 1997. Educational psychology in social context. Challenges of development, social issues, and special need in Southern Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Elkins, J. 1994. The school context. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating children with special needs (pp. 71 - 104). New York: Prentice Hall.
Falvey, M.A. (Ed.) 1995. Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. London: Paul H. Brookes.
Falvey, M.A., Givner, C.C., & Kimm, C. 1995. What is an inclusive school? In R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp. 1 - 15). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fink, D., & Stoll, L. 1998. Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman,
M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change. Part 1 (pp. 297 - 321). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fullan, M. 1993. Change forces. Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. 1997. What's worth fighting for in the principalship? London: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. 1998. The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International handbook of educational change. Part 1 (pp. 214 - 228). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Greer, B.G., & Greer, J.G. 1995. Questions and answers about inclusion: What every teacher should know. The Clearing House, 68, 339 - 342.
Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing teachers, changing times. Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A 1997. Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind (pp. 1 - 26). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hegarty, S. 1994. Integration and the teacher. In C.J.W. Meijer, S.J. Pijl & S. Hegarty (Eds.), New perspectives in special education: A six-country study of integration (pp. 125 - 131). London: Routledge.
Hewitt, M. 1999. Inclusion from a general educator's perspective. Preventing school failure, 43(3), 133-135.
Hopkins, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. 1996. Improving the quality of education for all. Progress and challenge. London: David Fulton.
Ingram, P.D. 1997. Leadership behaviours of principals in inclusive educational settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5). http://www.emerald-library.com/brev/07435eb1.htm
Lazarus, S., Daniels, B., & Engelbrecht, L. 1999. The inclusive school. In P. Engelbrecht, L. Green, S. Naicker & L. Engelbrecht (Eds.), Inclusive education in action in South Africa (pp. 45 - 68). Pretoria: Van Schaiks.
Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. 1996. Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762 - 796. Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C.S. 1999. Sources of leadership for inclusive education. Creating schools for all children. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 423 - 450.
Miller, L. 1998. Redefining teachers, reculturing schools. Connections, commitments and challenges. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change. Part 1 (pp. 529 - 543). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Republic of South Africa 1996a. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996). Pretoria: Government Printer. Republic of South Africa 1996b. South African Schools Act 1996 (Act 84 of 1996). Pretoria: Government Printer. No. 17579.
Rouse, M., & Florian, L. 1996. Effective inclusive schools: A study in two coutries. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 71 - 85.
Senge, P.M. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation. London: Random House.
Sergiovanni, T.J., & Starrat, R.J. 1998. Supervision. A redefinition. Sixth edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Servatius, J.D., Fellows, M., & Kelly, D. 1992. Preparing leaders for inclusive schools. In. R.A. Villa, J.S. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.). Restructuring for caring & effective education. An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 267 - 283). London: Paul H. Brookes.
Skrtic, T.M., Sailor, W., & Gee, K. 1996. Voice,collaboration, and inclusion. Democratic themes in educational and social reform initiatives. Remedial and Special Education, 17(3), 142-157.
Smith, D.D. 1998. Introduction to special education. Teaching in an age of challenge. Third edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. 1990. Inclusive schooling. In W. Stainback & S.
Stainback (Eds.), Inclusive networks for inclusive schooling. Interdependent integrated education (pp. 1 - 24). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. 1996. Collaboration, support networking, and community building. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion. A guide for educators (pp. 193 - 202). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes.
Thomas, G., Walker, D., & Webb, J. 1998. The making of the inclusive school. London: Routledge.
Thousand, J.S., & Villa, R.A. 1992. Collaborative teams. A powerful tool in school restucturing. In R.A. Villa, J.S. Thousand, W Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring & effective education. An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 73 - 108). London: Paul H. Brookes.
Villa, R.A., & Thousand, J.S. 1995. Managing complex change towards inclusive schooling. In R.A. Villa & J.S. Thousand (Eds.). Creating an inclusive school (pp. 51 - 87). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Westling & Fox 1995
Wigle, S.E., & Wilcox, D.J. 1999. The special education competencies of general education administrators. Reading Involvement, 36, 4-15.
Winzer, M.A. 1998. The inclusion movement and teacher change: Where are the limits? McGill Journal of Education, 33(3): 229 - 251.
Wolger, J. 1998. Managing change. In C. Tilstone, L. Florian & R. Rose (Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice (pp. 78 -91). London: Routledge.
 |
 |