Leading Effective Inclusive Schools: How Principals’ Inclusive Consciousness Influences Their Leadership Enactment

Abstract

Purpose: In effective inclusive schools, principals must be adept at delivering high academic achievement outcomes and providing an inclusive education for students with and without disabilities. Leadership for effective inclusive schools is predicated upon principals’ inclusive consciousness, or a dogged determination to provide ethical and meaningful educational experiences to all students, but especially those with disabilities. The purpose of this study was to understand how four elementary-level public school principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. Research Methods/Approach: Data were collected from four effective inclusive elementary school principals in the southeastern United States using a basic qualitative methodology and included a series two of semi-structured interviews and field notes. Data were analyzed via the constant comparative and cross-case methods and coded using open, axial, and selective coding procedures. Findings: Findings indicated that how principals (a) exhibited a disposition for inclusion; and (b) engaged in effective and inclusive leadership behaviors determined their acquisition, development, and demonstration of an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership of effective inclusive schools. Implications for Research and Practice: Findings underscore the need to develop and enrich principal preparation for special education to include inclusive leadership and instructional leadership capacity for students with disabilities. This study also identified the need to support current principals in special education policy and practice.

Keywords

special education inclusion inclusive special education effective inclusive schools inclusive consciousness empirical paper

Introduction

The call for inclusion of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) places significant challenges at the feet of educational leaders (IDEA, 2004). These challenges are complicated by the ambiguity of inclusion in practice and ideology (Cameron, 2016; Carter & Abawi, 2018). Unlike LRE, inclusion is undefined by federal law. Researchers and practitioners have yet to come to consensus on a definition of inclusion. Most stakeholders agree that inclusion for students with disabilities means, at minimum, the education of students with disabilities in the general education classroom [physical space] (McMillan, 2020). Those who see inclusion as more than physical space, conceptualize it as membership in a community. Under this interpretation, belonging is characterized by providing students with disabilities the same academic and social opportunities to which they would be entitled if they did not have a disability (Carter & Abawi, 2018; DeMatthews et al., 2019).

Because definitions of inclusion vary so widely, so does implementation of inclusive education. That variability is evident at the state, school, and classroom levels (Ainscow et al., 2006; DeMatthews, 2015; McMillan, 2020). Unfortunately for students with disabilities, the lack of a common definition of inclusion allows for inconsistent access to the academic and social short and long-term benefits inclusion has to offer (Ainscow et al., 2006; Timberlake, 2014).

Gatekeepers and Access to Inclusive Classrooms

The disharmony around what inclusion is or should be positions principals as gatekeepers for inclusive education because the way they understand inclusion will determine the degree to and the way in which it is applied (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000; Timberlake, 2014). In fact, a principal’s expectation of and experiences with people with disabilities has been identified as one of the most critical components for deciding whether a leader will prioritize an inclusive school climate (Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Praisner (2003) wrote that “for inclusion to be successful, first and foremost, the school administrator must display a positive attitude and commitment to inclusion” (p. 136).

Research suggests that most principals receive very little, if any, instruction in special education (Castro-Villareal & Nichols, 2016; Lynch, 2012). Principals’ knowledge is limited to a brief overview of disability as a whole and/or negotiating legal concerns related to the Individual Education Program (IEP) process (Pazey & Cole, 2012; Roberts & Guerra, 2017). For many principals, committing to inclusion can be challenging since they may not have the knowledge, skills, and training necessary for supporting special education (Pazey & Cole, 2012; Roberts & Guerra, 2017). For these reasons, school-based administrators often feel unprepared to lead inclusive schools (Billingsley et al., 2017, 2018; Rinehart, 2017). They may be unaware of how to best support effective teaching for students with disabilities (Praisner, 2003) or how disabilities affect student progress (Roberts & Guerra, 2017).

Research has established that utilizing leadership practices that support effective inclusive schools and prioritize inclusion improves student outcomes, teacher self-efficacy, and builds positive school culture (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). Despite this knowledge, there has been little to no investigation into how principals acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness that drives their leadership practices. Despite being under prepared to lead for students with disabilities some principals still prioritize effective inclusive leadership (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014). This study sought to make meaning of how exemplary principals acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that allowed them to be both effective and inclusive in their leadership. The research questions that guided this investigation were:

(1) How do public school elementary principals acquire and develop an inclusive consciousness that guides their leadership?

(2) How do public school elementary principals demonstrate an inclusive consciousness in their leadership of effective inclusive schools?

Conceptual Framework

This study’s conceptual framework is grounded in four intersecting bodies of literature: (a) special education history; (b) leadership practices for effective and inclusive schools; (c) the intersection of inclusion mandates and accountability expectations; and (d) social justice literature. The historical marginalization of students with disabilities underscores the ongoing need for equity-focused leadership (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Simultaneously, the rise of accountability mandates has created tension between legal compliance and academic performance expectations (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). Research on inclusive history, principal preparation, and leaders’ knowledge of special education informed the exploration of how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness.

Inclusive Consciousness

Inclusive consciousness is characterized by a leader’s unyielding resolve to successfully negotiate the intersection of effective leadership for academic achievement and the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings while simultaneously fostering belonging and a sense of community for all students (McLeskey & Waldron, 2015). Principals with an inclusive consciousness possess a stubborn and unwavering persistence (Riester et al., 2002) in the implementation of inclusive leadership practices as well as demonstrate a tenacious commitment to evidence-based practices for effective leadership for academic achievement of all students. Inclusive consciousness also refers to a principal’s leadership style that demonstrates an adamant, uncompromising commitment to equitable education for students with disabilities that are both effective and inclusive.

Inclusive consciousness, like equity consciousness (McKenzie et al., 2006), is characterized by the dogged determination to maintain high academic expectations for all learners, with particular regard to learners with disabilities, even those with significant cognitive disabilities, and the implementation of research-based leadership practices for leading effective inclusive schools (McMillan, 2020). Inclusive consciousness incorporates the tenets of equity consciousness and builds upon McKenzie et al. (2006)’s original criteria which states:

(1) that all children-except only a very small percentage, that is, those with profound disabilities-are capable of high levels of academic success; (2) that this academic success equitably includes all student groups, regardless of race, social class, gender, sexual orientation, learning differences, culture, language, religion, and so forth; (3) that the adults in schools are primarily responsible for seeing that all children reach this success; and (4) that traditional school practices results in inequity for individual students and groups of students and that these must be changed to ensure success for every child. (p. 160)

The concept of an inclusive consciousness further expounds upon equity consciousness and includes the caveat that effective inclusive leaders with an inclusive consciousness possess an unwavering commitment to the construct of presumed competence, or presumption that a student is capable before presuming otherwise (Biklen, 1999). Inclusive consciousness provides a lens through which to view and understand exemplary leaders’ beliefs and actions that are needed for these principals to lead effective inclusive schools.

Functional Understandings

To facilitate shared understanding in this research, functional understandings were developed for the meanings of inclusion, effective schools, and inclusive schools.

Inclusion

Borrowing from DeMatthews and Mawhinney (2014), inclusion in this research refers to “an ideal to be aspired to and as a pragmatic policy” (p. 851). As a matter of policy, inclusion refers to the education of students with disabilities alongside those without in the global context of the school community rather than in the four walls of a classroom. As an ideal, inclusion is defined by an innate sense of belonging and community whereby students with disabilities have equal value, autonomy, and agency in the school community. Students with disabilities hold other identities apart from disability that impact inclusion alongside non-disabled peers. These factors include, but are not limited to race, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. As inclusion is discussed throughout this work, the aim is not to exclude these identities but to center disability as one identity by which students are marginalized and study the inclusive consciousnesses of those leaders who seek to be anti-ableist in their leadership (Morningstar et al., 2017).

Effective Schools

Effective schools were defined as schools that maintained high rates of achievement, as set by proficiency thresholds on standardized state examinations and/or demonstrated improvement in achievement of students with disabilities by the same state assessment thresholds once a participant became principal of the school.

Inclusive Schools

Inclusive schools were schools that consistently demonstrated a habit of and reputation for placing most students with disabilities in the general education classroom for 80% or more of the school day based on both least restrictive environment data (US DOE, 2018). Additionally, inclusive schools were schools that regarded students with disabilities as equal and valuable members of the school community.

Methodology

To address the research questions, a qualitative design was used to understand how principals of effective inclusive schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness (Hatch, 2002). In this study, the researcher used a constructivist approach to co-construct meaning alongside the participants to understand their lived experience in leading inclusive and effective schools (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In taking this constructivist stance, the role of the researchers was not to discover truths, but to interpret how inclusive consciousness emerged and evolved through the lived experiences of leaders.

Participant Selection

A purposeful sampling procedure was used to identify participants that had atypical attributes, including leading with an inclusive consciousness, associated with principals who were both effective and inclusive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Criteria for selection included a reputation of effective and inclusive leadership, principalship of a K-12 public elementary school for at least three years, and rates of inclusion and achievement for students with disabilities that were outliers, as compared to their district and/or state averages. To identify potential participants, the researcher consulted leading experts in inclusive education, including leaders at the state agency for inclusive education and scholars in effective, inclusive leadership, and solicited recommendations for principals with an inclusive consciousness, known to have excellent rates of inclusion, and high rates of academic achievement. Of the eight principals directly contacted, four were selected and agreed to participate in this research.

Participants

All participants were white women who had served as principal in at least one effective inclusive K-12 public elementary school. Each held an undergraduate degree from a college of education, though not all in special education, and years of experience ranged from six to 18 years (see Table 1). Participants were assigned pseudonyms to maintain anonymity.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants of Effective Inclusive Elementary Schools.

Participant	Gender	Race	District size	Locale	Years as principal
Angela Waters	Female	White	Small	Town	6
Jacqueline Martin	Female	White	Very large	City	12
Lillian Schmidt	Female	White	Midsize	City	18
Pamela Howard	Female	White	Midsize	City	11

Schools

Table 2 provides a brief description of the characteristics of each effective inclusive school. Note that the schools included in this study were inextricable from the principals. Because the phenomenon under study was leadership of effective inclusive schools, the schools modeled each principal’s inclusive consciousness and how it was enacted. For this reason, the schools were selected by virtue of being the schools to which each principal was assigned; the types of schools included in this study varied widely. All schools included in this study were elementary public schools in Florida. One school included in this research (Mason Elementary) was not effective but was included in the table to retain transparency in reporting.

Table 2.

Characteristics of Elementary Schools Under Effective Inclusive Leadership.

Participant	School name	District size	Years as principal	School grade during participant’s leadership	% of students with disabilities (range)	Title 1 status
Angela	Greenville Elementary	Small	5	B & C	13.8-17.7	Yes
Jacqueline	Sunnyside Elementary	Very large	4	B & C	11.9-17.4	Yes
Jacqueline	Wagstaff Elementary	Very large	4	A & B	19.4-22.4	No
Jacqueline	Lakeside Elementary	Very large	3	D to C	10.7-17.2	Yes
Jacqueline	Jones Creek Elementary	Very large	1	C to B	14.2	Yes
Lillian	Millbrook Elementary	Midsize	12	C & A	11.8-18.3	Yes
Lillian	Mason Elementary	Midsize	2	F	14.8%-22.7	Yes
Lillian	Navarro Elementary	Small	2	B	14.8-15.6	Yes
Lillian	McCollum Elementary	Small	2	F to C	10.9	Yes
Pamela	Copper Cove Elementary	Midsize	11	A	12.6-18.3	No

Data Collection

Data were collected via two one-on-one, semi-structured interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the first of which focused on understanding how principals acquired and developed their inclusive consciousness while the second addressed how inclusive consciousness was demonstrated. The second interview was also designed to answer any lingering questions that emerged through constant comparative data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of all participants’ interviews after the first interview cycle and to reach saturation of data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes in length and were recorded and transcribed. Additionally, a research journal was used (Hatch, 2002) and field notes were taken during and immediately after each interview (Patton, 2002).

Data Analysis

After each interview, data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) which allowed the researcher to “engage in detailed analytic processes that require repeated confirmations of potential explanatory patterns discovered in the data” (Hatch, 2002, p. 26). Interview data were analyzed and compared to determine patterns and generate themes common among the participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Data were coded with Dedoose coding software using an open, axial, and selective coding process. Open coding, conducted on each transcript twice, involved reading each interview transcript, line by line, and assigning codes to ideas, concepts, and/or interactions in the data. During axial coding alike open codes were grouped together, further refining each concept or core category identified in the open coding process (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). During this stage, the data were reassembled into meaningful subcategories. In the selective coding process, an organizational scheme was created that reflected the relationships between emerging themes and addressed the research questions (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). After the researchers analyzed each participant’s transcripts, assigned codes, collapsed codes as necessary, and identified themes that were present across all four participants. A thematic cross-case analysis was conducted to identify patterns that cut across themes that addressed how leaders acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness (Patton, 2002).

Trustworthiness and Credibility

Trustworthiness of this research was determined by: (a) member checking, (b) triangulation, (c) peer examination, (d) rich, thick descriptions, (e) transferability, and (f) data saturation (Hatch, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Peer review was conducted by an inclusion expert to ensure the trustworthiness of the data as they were collected and ensure credibility of research methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation and member checking were performed on interview transcripts and themes, while rich, thick descriptions were documented in the research journal (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Patton, 2002). Transferability was reached since the research provided enough data to produce a reasonable set of findings and replicable by future researchers. The data collected from participants allowed saturation to be reached (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Findings

Findings were refined into two themes aligned with the research questions: (1) acquiring and developing a disposition for inclusion and (2) demonstrating effective inclusive leadership behaviors. Acquisition and development of inclusive was perceived, by the leaders themselves, to be innate but data revealed that it may be developmental and shaped by significant experiences with people with disabilities throughout the leaders’ lives. As data were analyzed, the prevailing theme of disposition emerged as a considerable influence on the participants as they acquired and developed an inclusive consciousness. As for how leaders demonstrated their inclusive consciousness, that was evident in their leadership practices. These themes and their greater nuance are discussed below (Figure 1).

Acquire and Develop: Disposition for Inclusive Consciousness

Each leader in this study held a disposition for effective inclusive leadership. Disposition was operationalized as how principals’ behaviors were filtered through their personalities and personal values structure and impacted by their personal experience with people with disabilities.

Mindset and Personal Philosophy

Each of the four principals demonstrated a mindset that was overtly inclusive. They also adopted inclusive mantras that expressed their beliefs in the capacity of and expectations for students with disabilities in effective inclusive schools. They used words and phrases like “all means all” and “all students” when discussing inclusion in their schools. These mantras serve as a truncated version of their inclusive philosophies, a refrain that helped succinctly verbalize their inclusive consciousnesses. These beliefs permeated every facet of the leaders’ actions and decision-making in their schools from hiring to professional development, to the methods of data analysis and managing resources. For example, Lillian shared, “You’ll say to a group of teachers, ‘Which kids do you want to learn in your classroom?’ [Teachers reply] ‘Well, all kids.’ ‘Everybody wants to say “all”. And then we talk about, ‘OK. What does that mean?’ All means all. Even the kids with a significant disability. We want that child to grow and learn.”

Angela also spoke about her “all means all” mindset, “It’s not what’s best for us. We do what’s best for students ...just having that mindset when I got into the school system was “it’s for all kids”. Jacqueline shared a similar sentiment adding, “I find education of all children very valuable. Not just some children…I really don’t separate out the students with disabilities. I’m thinking of all the kids”. Pamela’s mantra, rather than echoing an “all means all” refrain, she described inclusive education as a support, likening teachers to pushing students in their wheelbarrow. If all students belong in the wheelbarrow, then “when we’re talking about everybody in your wheelbarrow, that’s everybody”.

A mindset for inclusion framed all these leaders’ perceptions of inclusion and opportunity for (most) students with disabilities. Three of the four principals included students with significant cognitive disabilities in their definitions of “all”. Pamela noted that her vision for inclusion was conditional for students with intellectual disabilities. It is important to consider that beliefs about students with all types of disabilities informed these leaders’ future behaviors.

Personal Experiences with Disability

Each of the four principals shared that their firsthand experiences with people with disabilities before entering the principalship shaped their mindset and influenced the acquisition and development of their inclusive consciousness. For all four leaders, the most formative experience was personal experience with disability. Some had disabilities themselves, some experienced disability in their families, and others worked with people with disabilities. For all participants, this firsthand experience with disability was formative in shaping their inclusive consciousness. For example, Lillian’s passion for inclusion was shaped both by her experiences working with students with disabilities and by raising two children with disabilities. She explained, “I’ve always tried to help every kid. I think, as a parent, I became even more passionate about it [inclusion].” Angela reported that she struggled in school herself, which influenced her beliefs. She explained, “So how can I make it look different for the kids that do struggle no matter who they are?” This experience personalized inclusive leadership. Jacqueline shared her experience as a student teacher, seeing students with emotional/behavioral disorders excluded cemented her beliefs while in college. She witnessed first-hand students being segregated and excluded from a field trip explicitly because of their disability. That experience planted the seed that would blossom into an inclusive consciousness in her teaching and leadership thereafter. Lastly, Pamela worked as a camp counselor for adults with developmental disabilities. That experience profoundly impacted her perspective of people with significant disabilities, leading to her preference for working with students with high incidence disabilities.

Building Personal Leadership Capacity for Effective Inclusive Schools

Feeling an initial lack of preparedness to lead effective inclusive schools, each leader in this research study engaged in self-directed efforts to fill knowledge gaps through seeking their own personal professional development into effective inclusive leadership. They engaged in practices like reading research, placing themselves in special education spaces, seeking expertise in inclusive education, asking questions, and attending formal training in their areas of perceived need. They all developed habits of seeking knowledge to develop their capacity for special education leadership and, therein, developed and demonstrated their inclusive consciousness.

Angela said succinctly, “There is no book for this!”. Attributing her knowledge of inclusion to her teacher preparation program, rather than her principal preparation, Jacqueline was the only principal who stated that they felt prepared, in any substantive respect, to lead an inclusive school. Jacqueline explained, “I don’t know that the principal preparation program led me to do that [lead an effective inclusive school]. I think that’s just who I was because I was a teacher of students with disabilities.”

Even though two of the four leaders were formally trained as special educators and all four participants had teaching and leadership degrees conferred by colleges of education, they bemoaned their sparse preparation to lead effective inclusive schools. Seeking knowledge in myriad forms outside of principal preparation programs, like district based professional learning, on-the-job experience, mentorship, etc. Built these principals’ capacity for effective inclusive leadership. The tenacious pursuit of knowledge of effective inclusive leadership skills is the hallmark of how these principals, both developed and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness.

High Expectations and Ethical Call to Inclusion

While each leader set to work building their own knowledge and skill, they also recognized that to be both an effective and inclusive, they needed to focus, not only on ensuring students with disabilities were being educated in general education classrooms, but that the students were also highly achieving. To achieve this goal, each principal set and communicated high expectations for students with disabilities by disseminating their ideas that learning, making achievement gains, and mastery of standards was not negotiable.

Jacqueline explained, “when student achievement is your number one goal, they’re [students with disabilities] included in that”. Pamela clarified, “Even though they have special needs, we give them accommodations and they need to do their work”. Lillian shared, “Wherever they are, whether they’re really, really low or not much below grade level. Wherever they are, they should be growing”. Angela noted, “I’m not going to not expect less, but I’m going to be OK if they’re giving me their best”. None of these effective inclusive principals were content to let students with disabilities underperform or use their students’ disabilities as justification for the student to be excused from achieving. They each had a deep understanding of disability, specially designed instruction, inclusive education, and how those three elements connect to impact both inclusive placements and academic achievement.

To these four leaders, it was incongruent with their inclusive consciousness to provide a subpar education to students with disabilities because they were disabled. As such, all four leaders felt an ethical call to effective inclusive leadership. They felt compelled to do what was right for students with disabilities and provide access to the students in their schools.

Beliefs Around Providing Access to Inclusive Education for All

While all the leaders believed that inclusion facilitated equity, belonging, and improved high expectations, not all the principals shared the same beliefs about including all students with disabilities all the time. The conversation of “readiness” factored heavily into access to inclusive education, especially for Pamela. Her most significant concerns centered students with behavioral disabilities and/or cognitive disabilities needing to demonstrate that they were “ready” for inclusion. Pamela believed that inclusive placement was not always appropriate for all students with disabilities, especially those with intellectual disabilities. Her concern with including students with significant disabilities was ensuring that they got the best education possible in the most appropriate setting. She explained, “Now do I think that some children who have cognitive deficits, do I think they should be in general ed. as long as possible? Yes, if they-are truly benefiting from it”. She also argued that students with significant disabilities who were not benefiting from inclusive placement would interfere with the learning of others. She clarified:

I do not think that children with disabilities have a right to interfere with other children’s learning and impact other children’s learning…I've seen it impact grades of other kids. And that bothers me a lot... And I do feel that sometimes, children with special needs, I don't think their need should outweigh other kids' needs.

Even though Pamela subscribed to the belief that students with significant disabilities needed to be ready to access general education classrooms, she still believed in making decisions based on student need. She talked about earning access as a decision based on individual student performance, stating that there were many students with significant disabilities receiving an inclusive education in her school, “At this point in time, we have probably about 15 kids on special standards...some of those kids are in general ed. classes”. Pamela’s perspectives are somewhat different from her peers but demonstrate her inclusive consciousness and effective inclusive leadership. Even when principals have biases that lean less inclusive, there are still opportunities to improve inclusion and access for students with disabilities. There are learning opportunities throughout leaders’ careers that can inform their propensity to become more inclusive, as was the case with Pamela.

Demonstrate: Effective and Inclusive Leadership Behaviors

True demonstration of inclusive consciousness is the ability to put beliefs about effective inclusive education into practice. Enacting effective inclusive leadership means more than saying “all means all” or that every student deserves an equitable educational experience. Such sentiment is worthless if one is unable to actualize those beliefs. Every leader in this study had some variability in how they acquired their inclusive consciousness, but each engaged in a shared set of leadership behaviors that demonstrated their inclusive consciousness. This included two critical practices for effective inclusive leadership: (a) sharing and communicating their vision and (b) building leadership capacity for effective inclusive schools.

Sharing and Communicating Vision

These four principals were keenly aware that effective inclusive schools were developed and cultivated with intention. Their inclusive consciousnesses guided the ways they made that intention clear. All four effective inclusive principals prioritized similar elements of shared vision and demonstrated leadership for effective inclusive schools, enacting their visions by prioritizing shared, data-based decision-making, communication, and collaboration.

Communication

Ensuring that they actively engaged in sending and receiving messages that demonstrated their inclusive consciousness was at the core of each leaders’ practice. Establishing communication as a part of their school’s culture was pivotal to the success of each effective inclusive leader. In her leadership, Lillian took a no-nonsense approach to her communication, likening herself to a “bull in a china shop”. She said, “I’m not everybody’s cup of tea. People leave [the school] because they realize real quick-I make decisions about kids”. Although she was firm in her stance and direct in her approach, Lillian stressed that she is not unreasonable and understands she needs to facilitate buy-in and build teachers’ trust. She explained, “People get the idea that I’m supportive. I hear your concerns… Once you create that kind of dialog with your staff … their mindset kind of changes.”

More gently, Angela leveraged existing methods of communication to disseminate her vision. She integrated her inclusive consciousness in a methodical manner, valuing a “plant the seed” and watch it grow method over direct messaging. She centered inclusion in weekly emails, newsletters, classroom walkthroughs, and in day-to-day conversations with faculty and staff. She said, “It’s a constant process. That’s the other part of leadership is staying open to learning from your environment and making adjustments”. Similarly, Jacqueline underscored the benefit of considering the needs of her staff in communicating vision. She said, “I always make sure to make sure that it was a two-way communication, making sure that we mold it together, that it wasn’t just my vision and now go do it.” Enlisting help from her leadership team, Pamela centered communication of the shared vision and ensured her team were “all singing the same song” to support her inclusive vision. She recalled, “We talk about situations and problem-solve through situations and then meet with the teachers as a team to try to get a handle on what’s going on, what’s working, what’s not working, what can we do differently?”

By valuing the needs of their teachers, these leaders used communication to share their own vision and facilitate buy-in from their staff. Including teachers and staff in decision-making and ensuring they felt like their ideas and feelings were valued, albeit to varying degrees, allowed for open discourse and disagreement. Valuing open, solution-oriented, yet honest communication about the challenges teachers and students in their schools were experiencing supported the complex change work of leading effective inclusive schools.

Enhanced Collaboration

Recognizing that they cannot build vision in a vacuum, the principals engaged in collaboration by seeking experts and trusted friends to problem-solve how to best meet student need in and outside of their buildings. Pamela used a team approach to collaborative problem-solving for inclusive opportunities leveraging partnerships with state-funded discretionary projects for inclusive practice, accessed district resources, and relied on school-based experts. Both Lillian and Jacqueline relied on others to fill their gaps in knowledge or experience. Jacqueline shared, “If I don’t know, I tend to reach outside,” to district and state partners who could assist. Lillian built a relationship with a collaborative partner who best understood inclusive education to develop her inclusive consciousness. She recalled:

I had a wonderful ESE [special education] teacher in my school who had done inclusion and so she really took the lead on training of staff and getting resources in classrooms and training paras… I learned so much from her and she pushed me, as a principal. If you say you’re going to believe in this, if you say that all means all, then you know, back it up with your decisions…back it up with resources, back it up with your PD choices, and she really pushed me to do that.

All four leaders noted that they could not have led an effective inclusive school without help. Although most had university-level special education training, none of them were completely prepared to lead an effective inclusive school during their leadership preparation programs. The dynamics of leading effective, inclusive schools are complex. Collaborative partners in and outside of schools provided expertise and support for these principals. Part of each principals’ leadership centered on identifying key school personnel to be “keepers of the vision” to shepherd the move towards inclusive school reform (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000).

Focus on Instructional Leadership

While keeping and sharing inclusive vision is critical, great leaders of effective inclusive schools also need to be excellent instructional leaders-especially for students with disabilities. Because most principals have limited instruction in evidence-based practices for teaching students with disabilities (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011; DeMatthews et al., 2019), they are often underprepared to lead for academic achievement that centers students with disabilities making gains or reaching proficiency (Leko et al., 2015; McLeskey et al., 2022). The principals in this study identified instructional leadership practices like shared, data-based decision making, using evidence-based practices, and job-embedded professional development as the most valuable methods for becoming both effective and inclusive.

Shared, Data-Based Decision Making

Central to the way these leaders made instructional decisions was reliance on data. They made decisions that allowed students with disabilities greater access to their least restrictive environment, improved teachers’ academic expectations, and increased buy-in of the principal’s inclusive vision for their schools. Pamela looked at her school’s testing data, recognized that students with disabilities could be successful in general education settings and deliver results on standardized achievement tests, and made decisions about students’ LRE. Using academic inclusion data from her previous school, Lillian also facilitated buy-in for her inclusive vision when she became principal at a new school. Jacqueline and Angela shared that using data to make decisions helped take the emotional charge away from talking about students. By relying on information that could be collected and quantified, Jacqueline and her team were able to make choices rooted that created a clear picture of student need. Engaging in a collaborative process informed by data lent gravitas to and supported effective inclusive education for the students across their schools.

Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Disabilities

For these four principals, instructional leadership meant building knowing and teaching evidence-based instructional practices for students with disabilities. By using and advocating for evidence-based practices for inclusive education, principals created an educational climate in which teachers were able to use evidence-based practice to address the needs of any learner that entered their classroom. These well-supported teachers possessed an instructional arsenal of instructional techniques and strategies, including scaffolding, co-teaching, data-based decision making, and differentiated instruction, among others, which could fill gaps, set high achievement expectations, and facilitate learning for students with disabilities.

On evidence-based practice for students with disabilities, Jacqueline stated, “Schools [must] realize that you must change what you’re doing with your special education population to help move that school forward… That is the key to school achievement in many, many of our struggling schools.” Similarly, shared, “It was very evident when looking at data in the classes that were differentiated…every kid-even the kids without disabilities in those [inclusive] classes outperformed…the [non-inclusive] class.” Pamela also used data to support evidence-based practices for students with disabilities centering on co-teaching models. “We had a lot of data to show the positive effects of co-teaching at that school...the grades were so much better.” These four effective inclusive leaders demonstrated their inclusive consciousness by building capacity in stakeholders and using evidence-based practice to support students with disabilities. All four leaders made it their responsibility to know how to lead to improve outcomes for students with disabilities.

Job-Embedded Professional Development

Building capacity for teachers was a critical element in demonstrating inclusive consciousness. Almost all professional development these leaders provided to their teachers was job-embedded and school-based. They relied heavily on coaching, modeling, and professional mentorship. Lillian used professional development to train fear out of her staff. “How you get rid of people’s fears and people’s complaining is you train them well. And you give them tools where they’re not just flying in the dark trying to meet needs”. Because she believed in inclusion, she made sure she addressed the needs of her teachers and gave them the opportunity to learn how to teach students with disabilities well-and her statewide outcomes showed it.

In sum, each leaders’ inclusive leadership centered on working collaboratively with stakeholders to enact their vision for the school. Every action they took required support from others. All participants recognized that schools were delicate but dynamic which required an engaged, responsive leader, willing to hear opinions, even those that may have been dissenting. Flexibility was critical as the school needed to be able to pivot as data indicated changes needed to be made. Each leader leveraged their position as principal to build more equitable and inclusive opportunities for all students. They developed and enacted inclusive consciousness by embracing a belief system that valued and expected difference. In all, the participants demonstrated enthusiastic advocacy for students with disabilities to have equitable educational experiences by actively pursuing leadership practices that would create the expectation of an effective inclusive education for all students and the supports needed to make it successful.

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this study was to understand how four leaders of effective inclusive elementary schools acquired, developed, and demonstrated an inclusive consciousness that guided their leadership. Inclusive consciousness was an indispensable characteristic in principals who successfully negotiated achievement demands and inclusive expectations. In the literature, there is very little research conducted on how leaders can comingle demands of both effectiveness and inclusivity and how principals develop to a desire to do so (Billingsley et al., 2018; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). This study identified acquisition, development, and demonstration of an inclusive consciousness as the basis for effective inclusive leadership.

Acquiring and Developing an Inclusive Consciousness

Findings of this research suggest that each of the four principals had a disposition amenable to inclusion that predated their principalship. These principals’ dispositions, and underlying personal beliefs, enabled them to acquire inclusive consciousnesses that valued people with disabilities as co-equal members of the school community and prioritize effective inclusive leadership (Carter & Abawi, 2018; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Research behind principals’ motivation to be inclusive of students with disabilities is limited but existing research into morality and ethics of inclusion supports these leaders’ confidence that their behaviors are a translation of their beliefs (DeMatthews, 2015). Even though the principals stated that they believed they were inherently predisposed to being effective inclusive leaders, an analysis of their responses suggested that the capacity to acquire an inclusive consciousness was not as fixed and in-born as it may have appeared. Each leader described formative experiences, in their early life or early career, in which they decided that making sure students with disabilities were provided with an effective inclusive education was an incontrovertible certainty. While the limited research into decision-making of leaders of students with disabilities provides little guidance as to why principals decide to prioritize students with disabilities, there is some evidence that principals of inclusive schools do feel a responsibility for the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities (Billingsley et al., 2018). Experiences that encouraged these leaders’ decisions to prioritize the equitable education of students with disabilities included: (a) having a child with a disability; (b) being involved in establishing a co-teaching program that graduated high numbers of students with disabilities; (c) seeing that students with disabilities were chronically underserved; and (d) teaching students with disabilities early in their career. While each of experiences sparked the leaders’ inclusive consciousnesses, or served as the nexus of acquisition, their consciousnesses developed through living those experiences. They each grew in, or developed, their understanding of and believe in inclusion by nature of proximity to disability. Through these experiences, each principal recalled instances when they realized there was a need for allyship in their leadership. In all, the leaders in this study, because of their innate beliefs coupled with their transformative experiences, made a conscious choice to value students with disabilities in their leadership practice and decided that inclusion was “not negotiable” (Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014).

Demonstrating Inclusive Consciousness

Having acquired and developed their inclusive consciousnesses over time, the four principals in this study skillfully engaged in leadership practices that are aligned with emerging research on leading for effective inclusive schools (Hehir, 2012; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2014). For instance, findings suggest that each leader demonstrated their inclusive consciousnesses, by intentionally building an inclusive vision, distributing leadership, while building the capacity of their faculty and staff to meet the needs of students with disabilities. They focused on engaging in ongoing professional development for themselves and providing job-embedded professional learning opportunities for their teachers. The goal of these efforts was to build an inclusive school culture that uses resources flexibly, values shared data-based decision making, to create a supportive learning organization for all students, including students with disabilities. These leaders increased opportunities for students with disabilities to access general education classrooms, while simultaneously seeking to hold students with disabilities to high academic expectations (Billingsley et al., 2018; DeMatthews et al., 2019).

All Means All versus All Means Some

Although the idea of inclusion has existed in literature for decades no one definition has been able to “gain currency” (Florian, 1998). The differences in how researchers and practitioners think about inclusion has created nuance that allow for wide variability in practice (Esposito et al., 2019; Timberlake, 2014). This was evident in the data from this investigation. All principals in the study agreed that inclusion was characterized by students with disabilities being included in general education classrooms alongside students without disabilities (Stone et al., 2016), students with disabilities were valued members of the school community (Cameron, 2016; Connor & Ferri, 2007), that student learning and social needs should be addressed and met (Carter & Abawi, 2018), and expected that students would be held to high academic standards (Causton-Theoharis et al., 2011).

However, when the conversation about defining inclusion turned from students with high-incidence disabilities to those with significant disabilities, participants diverged in their expectation and practice of effective inclusive leadership. There was tension between embracing the idea that education in a general education classroom is a right (Esposito et al., 2019) and the belief that students needed to earn access into the general education classroom by demonstrating an ability to benefit from inclusive placement (O’Laughlin & Lindle, 2015; Timberlake, 2014). Carter and Abawi (2018) described the tension between those who support full inclusion of all students and those who believe in a continuum of services as an “ideological rift” (p. 49). Most of the conversation about earning access to general education classrooms was predicated upon a fear that the inclusive classroom would not provide the LRE and, thereby, do a disservice to students with significant disabilities. This finding aligns with research explaining the complex issues that arise from a lack of shared understanding of what inclusion is, how it should work, and to whom the mandate applies (Billingsley et al., 2018; Theoharis et al., 2015).

Limitations

This study adds to a small body of literature that endeavors to elucidate the conditions under which effective and inclusive schools can intersect (Billingsley et al., 2018; Billingsley & McLeskey, 2014; Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Hehir, 2012; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013, 2014; Waldron et al., 2011); however, there are limitations to this research given that the literature on effective inclusive schools and their leaders is still emerging (Billingsley et al., 2017). Additionally, the participants limited the findings of this study, in the sample size, geography, and demographics. Because many principals find the ability to balance inclusive practice and academic achievement demands difficult (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014), there were a limited number of qualified principals who could participate in this research (Pazey & Cole, 2012). Along with a limitation in the number of participants, this research was limited by geography. While strenuous efforts were made to recruit a diverse sample, all participants were selected from different districts within one state and were homogenous in that they were all white, middle-aged women who had led public K-5 elementary schools in Florida. The lack of diversity in the study represents current leadership demographics (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020) but may have influenced findings relating to disposition and defining inclusion. Research has outlined a need for representation of diverse populations in school leadership and the findings of this research may have been impacted by a more diverse group of participants (Karanxha et al., 2014).

Future Research

In future research, a larger, more diverse sample of principals (by race, gender, age, school type - middle and high school - and setting – urban, rural, suburban) from across the United States of America would allow for more significant conclusions to be drawn about effective inclusive leaders and the ways in which they acquire, develop, and demonstrate an inclusive consciousness that drives their leadership. Additionally, future research should incorporate observations to confirm or refute the leaders’ assertions about their own behaviors and practices (Patton, 2002). Lastly, further investigation into this topic should include input from teachers, staff and parents in effective inclusive schools and their perceptions of the principals’ leadership to create a more robust and multi-faceted understanding of how their demonstration of inclusive consciousness is experienced by their others.

Implications

All findings of this study suggest implications for both research and practice. First, infusing more special education content and instructional leadership into leadership preparation and ongoing professional learning opportunities is paramount for improving rates of inclusion and achievement for students with disabilities. Additionally, designing practical experiences for future leaders to participate in with people with disabilities would be beneficial to facilitate acquisition and development of an inclusive consciousness. Lastly, inclusive school reform efforts should focus on creating supportive structures for principals to do the tasks defined in research as supportive of effective inclusive leadership and receive mentorship to be successful in their efforts to ensure that students with disabilities are not only physically included but that they are members of the larger school community.

Infusing Special Education into Leadership Preparation

Specifically, this research indicates a need for prospective and sitting school leaders to develop more knowledge and skills related to special education. Currently if principals have any special education preparation, it primarily focuses on compliance, understanding legal responsibilities, and avoiding due process complaints (Billingsley et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2019). This method of principal preparation inadequately prepares principals to lead effective inclusive schools (DeMatthews et al., 2019) and inhibits the development of an inclusive consciousness. The lack of preparation to lead effective inclusive schools inhibits school leaders’ ability to serve as instructional leaders, improve rates of inclusion, and produce academic achievement gains for students with disabilities (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014), all outcomes inherent in principals with an inclusive consciousness. Principals need more professional learning for special education and more research needs to be conducted on the impact and effectiveness of that learning.

Instructional Leadership for Special Education

Principal preparation programs also need to incorporate instructional leadership and specifically knowledge about using high-leverage practices (McLeskey et al., 2022) to improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities, in their programs of study. By incorporating professional learning about evidence-based practices for inclusion and high achievement expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities as well as those students with high incidence disabilities, leaders will be more prepared to step into the principal’s role (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Thompson, 2017). It is necessary to incorporate this type of instruction in principal preparation because even if a principal has had training, as a teacher, regarding evidence-based instructional practice for students with disabilities, they will need to understand their role as an advocate and instructional leader for students with disabilities (DeMatthews, 2015; DeMatthews et al., 2019).

Continued Professional Learning for Principals

To address knowledge and skills gaps of sitting principals, job-embedded professional development for effective instructional practices for students with disabilities, information on how to incorporate inclusive practice into leadership, and training related to building effective inclusive school culture are recommended. For current principals who have already completed their principal preparation, professional learning should include opportunities to: (a) interact with students with disabilities in inclusive settings being held to and meeting high academic standards; (b) engage in professional learning communities focused on inclusive practice; (c) meet with and observe other leaders engaging in effective inclusive leadership; (d) receive ongoing mentoring and coaching on effective inclusive leadership (e) and assess progress through on-going feedback about their school’s effective inclusive culture via stakeholder input (McLeskey & Waldron, 2000). Research into the effectiveness of these efforts should also be conducted into the impact of this professional learning on inclusion and achievement on students with disabilities in their schools.

Practical Experiences with People with Disabilities

In addition to instruction in effective inclusive practice, principal preparation programs (and teacher preparation programs for that matter) need to include a practical component in which principal candidates have meaningful experiences with students with disabilities. Research has demonstrated that principals’ perceptions of and expectations for students with disabilities are shaped by their experiences (Billingsley et al., 2018; Praisner, 2003). These experiences should be provided and studied in university-based programs as well as in-service district-based preparation programs to build a shared foundational knowledge about what it means to lead an effective inclusive school that addresses the needs of students with disabilities. In this way, school leaders can have formative experiences that destigmatize disability and facilitate acquisition of inclusive consciousness that guides their leadership.

Conclusion

Although research into effective inclusive school leadership is limited, this study is congruent with current research that espouses how lack of training and knowledge of inclusive practice limits principals’ ability to lead effective inclusive schools (Billingsley et al., 2018). Findings of this study are encouraging in that they suggest that capacity to lead effective inclusive school can be built or cultivated. If inclusive consciousness may be developed, there are significant implications for both policy and practice insofar as principal preparation can encourage the acquisition and development of an inclusive consciousness so that it can be demonstrated in principals’ leadership for effective inclusive schools. Ultimately, informing and encouraging effective inclusive school leadership is the goal of this research, as inclusive schools will bring equity not just to students with disabilities, but to the marginalized populations in American public schools.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Megan Robinson McMillan

Author Biographies

Dr. Megan Robinson McMillan is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Florida. Her scholarship focuses on inclusive special education, leadership for effective inclusive schools, inclusive school culture, and teacher preparation.

Dr. David Hoppey is a professor and director of the Educational Leadership doctoral program at UNF. His scholarship focuses on inclusive teacher education, inclusive school reform, special education policy, and school university partnerships, including providing quality preservice teacher education, and ongoing in-service teacher professional development.

References

Ainscow

Booth

Dyson

Farrell

Frankham

Gallannaugh

Howes

Smith

(2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967157

Angelle

Bilton

L. M.

(2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 5–10.

Biklen

(1999). The metaphor of mental retardation: Rethinking ability and disability. In Bersani

Jr. (Ed.), Responding to the challenge: Current trends and international issues in developmental disabilities. Essays in honor of Gunnar Dybwad (pp. 35–52). Brookline.

Billingsley

DeMatthews

Connally

McLeskey

(2018). Leadership for effective inclusive schools: Considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.6

Billingsley

McLeskey

Crockett

J. B.

(2017). Principal leadership: Moving toward inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities. CEEDAR Center.

Billingsley

B. S.

McLeskey

(2014). What are the roles of principals in inclusive schools? In McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 67–79). Taylor & Francis.

Cameron

D. L.

(2016). Too much or not enough? An examination of special education provision and school district leaders’ perceptions of current needs and common approaches. British Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12121

Carter

Abawi

(2018). Leadership, inclusion, and quality education for all. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.5

Castro-Villareal

Nichols

S. L.

(2016). Intersections of accountability and special education: The social justice implications of policy and practice. Teachers College Record, 118(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611801404

10.

Causton

Theoharis

(2014). How do schools become effective and inclusive? In McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 30–42). Taylor & Francis.

11.

Causton-Theoharis

Theoharis

Bull

Cosier

Dempf-Aldrich

(2011). Schools of promise: A school district-university partnership centered on inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510366163

12.

Connor

Ferri

(2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society, 22(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590601056717

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

Creswell

J. D.

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

15.

DeMatthews

D. E.

(2015). Clearing a path for inclusion: Distributing leadership in a high performing elementary school. Journal of School Leadership, 25(6), 1000–1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461502500601

16.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Kotok

Serafini

(2019). Leadership preparation for special education and inclusive schools: Beliefs and recommendations from successful principals. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 15(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775119838308

17.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Mawhinney

(2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13514440

18.

Esposito

M. C. K.

Tang

Kulkarni

(2019). Ensuring inclusive environments for students with disabilities: School leaders play a linchpin role. Journal of Educational Administration & History, 51(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2018.1515185

19.

Fan

Gallup

J. L.

Bocanegra

J. O.

Zhang

(2019). Using the CEC advanced preparation standards for special education administration to examine competencies for special education directors. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 31(1), 39–56.

20.

Florian

(1998). Inclusive practice: What, why, and how? In Tilstone

Florian

Rose

(Eds.), Promoting inclusive practice. Routledge.

21.

Florian

Black-Hawkins

(2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096

22.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.

23.

Hatch

J. A.

(2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Slate University of New York Press.

24.

Hehir

(2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. Josey Bass.

25.

Hitt

D. H.

Tucker

P. D.

(2016). Systematic review of key leadership practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315614911

26.

Hoppey

McLeskey

(2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910390507

27.

Hoppey

McLeskey

(2014). What are qualities of effective inclusive schools? In McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

Spooner

Algozzine

(Eds.), Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice (pp. 17–29). Taylor & Francis.

28.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act

of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).

29.

Karanxha

Agosto

Bellara

A. P.

(2014). The hidden curriculum: Candidate diversity in educational leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 9(1), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775113498374

30.

Leko

M. M.

Brownell

M. T.

Sindelar

P. T.

Kiely

M. T.

(2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598782

31.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

32.

Lynch

J. M.

(2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100205

33.

McKenzie

K. B.

Skrla

Scheurich

J. J.

(2006). Preparing instructional leaders for social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 16(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460601600204

34.

McLeskey

Maheady

Billingsley

Brownell

Lewis

T. J.

(2022). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms (2nd ed.). Routledge.

35.

McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

(2000). Inclusive schools in action. ASCD.

36.

McLeskey

Waldron

N. L.

(2015). Effective leadership makes schools truly inclusive. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715569474

37.

McMillan

(2020). Leading effective inclusive schools: How principals make the difference (publication no. 999). Doctoral dissertation, UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. University of North Florida. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/999

38.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

39.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kurth

J. A.

Johnson

P. E.

(2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516678327

40.

National Center for Education Statistics (2020). Characteristics of public school principals. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cls.asp

41.

O'Laughlin

Lindle

J. C.

(2015). Principals as political agents in the implementation of IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy, 29(1), 140–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814563207

42.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

43.

Pazey

B. L.

Cole

H. A.

(2012). The role of special education training in the development of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x12463934

44.

Praisner

C. L.

(2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900201

45.

Riester

A. F.

Pursch

Skrla

(2002). Principals for social justice: Leaders of school success for children from low-income homes. Journal of School Leadership, 12(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460201200303

46.

Rinehart

(2017). Are principals prepared for the role of instructional leaders for all students including those with disabilities? A director’s perspective. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 57–59.

47.

Roberts

Guerra

F. R.

(2017). Principals' perceptions of their knowledge in special education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1), 1–16.

48.

Stone

Sayman

Carrero

Lusk

(2016). Thoughts on Dewey’s democracy and (special) education. Journal of Thought, 50(3&4), 3–17. Fall-Winter 2016.

49.

Theoharis

Causton

Woodfield

(2015). Inclusive leadership and disability. In Theoharis

Scanlan

(Eds.), Leadership for increasingly diverse schools (pp. 13–38). Routledge.

50.

Thompson

P. A.

(2017). Effective leadership competencies of school-based special education administrators. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(1), 31–47.

51.

Timberlake

(2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(2), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914544547

52.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2018). 40th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Washington, D. C. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594658.pdf

53.

Waldron

N. L.

McLeskey

Redd

(2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51–60.