Leaders across many counties are working to create inclusive educational opportunities for students with disabilities. In 1994, over 300 participants from 92 countries met in Salamanca, Spain, and drafted a statement emphasising the ‘need to work towards “schools for all” — institutions which include everybody, celebrate differences, support learning, and respond to individual needs’ (UNESCO, 1994, p. iii). The United Nations convention has continued to advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD) addressing the need for inclusive education (United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development, 2006). As Hayes and Bulat (Reference Hayes and Bulat2017) emphasise, 173 countries ratified the CRPD and are working to comply with its requirements. These efforts are improving opportunities for students with disabilities to be served in inclusive settings around the world.
At the same time, continued efforts are needed to confront specific barriers to inclusive education, such as attitudes toward people with disabilities, myths about the negative impact of students with disabilities on other students, lack of a clear definition of inclusion, inadequate preparation for inclusion, and insufficient resources (Hayes & Bulat, Reference Hayes and Bulat2017; Loreman, Forlin, Chambers, Sharma, & Deppeler, Reference Loreman, Forlin, Chambers, Sharma, Deppeler and Forlin2014). The sharing of research, policies, laws, standards, demonstration projects, and resources can help policymakers and leaders across countries learn from others’ efforts. The purpose of this article is to share an example of how a collaboration between a national organisation, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) CenterFootnote 1, resulted in a document that links educational leadership standards to inclusive leadership for students with disabilities. We recognise that the efforts from one country may not be easily transferable to others, as individual efforts to improve inclusive opportunities are embedded in specific schools and communities (Ainscow, Reference Ainscow2005) and in complex cultural contexts (Hayes & Bulat, Reference Hayes and Bulat2017; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, Reference Sharma, Forlin, Loreman and Earle2006); thus readers should consider which aspects of this initiative may be relevant to their specific countries and institutions.
In the United States (US) and in other countries, principals (school leaders) in effective inclusive schools strive to develop a school culture in which all members of the school community share a vision and a sense of collective responsibility for including all students, including those with disabilities (Ainscow & Sandill, Reference Ainscow and Sandill2010; Dyson, Reference Dyson2010). These inclusive leaders have high expectations for students with disabilities, emphasising the same content taught to all students and the use of effective teaching and progress monitoring practices to ensure that students’ needs are met (Billingsley, McLeskey, & Crockett, in press).
Principals in effective inclusive schools also share leadership responsibility with others, seeking input from teachers about the creation of school structures to support inclusion (e.g., collaboration, schedules, physical environment) and supporting instructional practices to address the needs of students with disabilities and others who may be at risk of not learning (Billingsley et al., in press). The importance of shared and distributed leadership in inclusive reform has been described by numerous researchers studying inclusive schools (e.g., Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier, & Dempf-Aldrich, Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; DeMatthews, Reference DeMatthews2015; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; Shogren, McCart, Lyon, & Sailor, Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011). Although much has been learned about inclusive schools, many students with disabilities continue to be placed in segregated settings (Almazan, Reference Almazan2009; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2013), suggesting the need to support inclusive reform efforts.
Inclusive reform is clearly challenging work, and varied external groups have played important roles in promoting inclusion in the US. For example, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provided state-incentive grants to support inclusive change (Fisher, Sax, & Grove, Reference Fisher, Sax and Grove2000). The Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center (Reference Center2017; also funded by OSEP) provides guidance to selected districts and schools in developing inclusive practices. Professional organisations such as TASH (http://tash.org/) have advocated for the inclusion of students with significant disabilities and parents have pushed for inclusive change (Billingsley, Reference Billingsley, Crockett, Billingsley and Boscardin2012). Colleges and universities have also supported inclusive reform serving as ‘critical friends’ (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Ryndak, Reardon, Benner, & Ward, Reference Ryndak, Reardon, Benner and Ward2007) and providing professional learning experiences about inclusion (Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Kilgore, Griffin, Sindelar, & Webb, Reference Kilgore, Griffin, Sindelar and Webb2001; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey, & Liebert, Reference Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey and Liebert2006). Lawsuits have also prompted reform, requiring leaders to examine students’ opportunities for a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2013).
In a recent initiative supporting inclusive school leadership, the CCSSO and the CEEDAR Center collaborated to link the leadership standards, the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (hereafter referred to as PSEL; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015) to a second supplementary document titled, PSEL 2015 and Promoting Principal Leadership for the Success of Students with Disabilities (hereafter referred to as the guidance document). The guidance document states that leadership effectiveness should be viewed in terms of the ‘academic success and well-being of each student, drawing attention to students whose needs may require a more intentional focus’ (CCSSO & CEEDAR, 2017, p. 1). This is the first time a leadership organisation in the US has linked standards for all leaders to specific guidance about leading effective schools, specifically addressing students with disabilities (to be discussed in detail later in this paper).
Providing inclusive leadership is challenging work as leaders need to have clarity about what is meant by inclusion. Definitions vary and inclusion is described as a value, philosophy, attitude, and as a set of practices, among others (Billingsley, Reference Billingsley, Crockett, Billingsley and Boscardin2012; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2013; McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner, & Algozzine, Reference McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner, Algozzine, McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner and Algozzine2014). Although advocates, policymakers, and researchers across countries continue to advocate for greater inclusion (Cumming & Dickson, Reference Cumming and Dickson2013; Hayes & Bulat, Reference Hayes and Bulat2017), little is known about how school leaders think about or define inclusion. For the purposes of this article, we adopt a recent definition by the SWIFT Center (Reference Center2017), which sets a high bar for inclusive practices. They state:
Equity-based inclusive education means all students, including those with the most significant support needs, are educated in age-appropriate classes in their neighborhood schools. Students receive the help they need to be full members of their general education classrooms. Every member of the school community is welcomed, valued, and participates in learning. Inclusive education means that districts support schools, and schools and families support one another as ALL students are welcomed and included in their communities. (SWIFT Reference CenterCenter, 2017, para. 2)
In this article, we first briefly summarise research findings about inclusive leadership, outlining factors that have both promoted inclusive schools and impeded implementation in the US, providing insight into principals’ practices and challenges as they lead reform. Second, we discuss PSEL and the guidance document that explicitly ties these standards to leaders’ actions in leading inclusive schools, and what these two documents in combination mean for leadership preparation reform in the US. We also identify key online resources for policymakers and leaders to consider in their ongoing work in inclusive education and outline implications for policymakers in other countries.
Research on Inclusive School Leadership
In descriptions of inclusive school reform, principals usually served as key leaders, articulating support for inclusive change. As Salisbury (Reference Salisbury2006) stated, ‘Schools that function inclusively do so for a reason. . . . [and] the principals in these schools were the reason (p. 79). Principals often shared leadership with teachers as they served on planning teams and supported their peers in the change process (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, Reference McLeskey, Waldron and Redd2014; Sindelar et al., Reference Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey and Liebert2006; Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011). Principals empowered teachers, allowing them to make classroom decisions, and these teachers often welcomed opportunities for shared leadership (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Sax and Grove2000; McLeskey et al., Reference McLeskey, Waldron and Redd2014; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015).
Supporting effective inclusive schools may be situated in the same core leadership activities as those outlined by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (Reference Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins2008), as they focused on dimensions of leadership that made a difference in student learning. These included ‘building vision and setting directions; understanding and developing people; redesigning the organisation; and managing the teaching and learning programme’ (p. 29). In the following section, we briefly summarise each of these four key areas of leadership, providing examples of both formal and informal leaders taking responsibility for inclusive schools (for an in-depth discussion, see Billingsley & McLeskey, Reference Billingsley, McLeskey, McLeskey, Waldron, Spooner and Algozzine2014).
Building vision and setting direction
Principals played an important role in articulating a vision for inclusion and helping others understand and adopt inclusion as a core value or philosophy (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Hoppey & McLeskey, Reference Hoppey and McLeskey2013; Salisbury, Reference Salisbury2006; Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011). In a case study by Waldron et al. (Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011), the principal emphasised two aspects of the vision: the first addressed meeting all students’ needs, including students who are gifted and those with disabilities, and the second part addressed including students in classrooms with their typical peers. Principals sometimes captured the vision in written statements, such as ‘a belief that inclusive classrooms are beneficial for all students, and a commitment to ensuring optimal academic success for all students’ (Guzmán, Reference Guzmán1997, p. 446). Purcell, Horn, and Palmer (Reference Purcell, Horn and Palmer2007) also emphasised how a shared vision for inclusion is developed over time among ‘those who design, deliver, or use inclusive education, so that it includes the views of all participants’ (p. 91).
Facilitating buy-in from others for an inclusive vision was a critical part of principals’ work and these leaders often engaged school faculty, staff, and parents in conversations about the need for including students with disabilities in schools and classrooms. Principals formed school teams with representation from varied constituencies, such as teachers, parents, school psychologists, and critical friends. These school teams had multiple roles in some schools, helping others learn about, and understand the rationale and benefits of, inclusion, planning the program, identifying and addressing problems, assessing how inclusion was progressing, and encouraging others (e.g., Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, Reference Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello and Spagna2004; Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015). In successful efforts, a vision for inclusion became embedded in the school, with all students with disabilities being part of classrooms and with all school initiatives applying to ‘all kids’ (Salisbury & McGregor, Reference Salisbury and McGregor2002, p. 266).
Working toward an inclusive vision was sometimes met with resistance, with parents and teachers voicing a range of concerns. Principals often encouraged the expression of concerns and used these as opportunities for discussion (e.g., Guzmán, Reference Guzmán1997; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015); in some cases, even those who were initially reluctant eventually agreed to participate, demonstrating that resistance is a natural part of the change process (Janney, Snell, Beers, & Raynes, Reference Janney, Snell, Beers and Raynes1995). In case studies of school change, some principals made it clear that inclusion was not negotiable; however, they sought buy-in for inclusion by being flexible in how inclusion was implemented (e.g., Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015; Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011). Throughout the change process principals also expressed appreciation for teachers’ efforts, recognising their accomplishments (Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999).
Developing people
Professional learning is also critical to inclusive reform as both teachers (Scruggs & Mastropieri, Reference Scruggs and Mastropieri1996) and principals (Billingsley et al., in press) frequently reported that they are not prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Across studies of inclusive reform, leaders worked to ensure that teachers and staff had opportunities to learn about topics such as the effects of inclusion, differentiating instruction, collaboration and co-teaching, methods to teach students with specialised needs, and evidence-based practices, such as positive behavioural interventions and supports (e.g., Burstein et al., Reference Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello and Spagna2004; Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2014; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; Pierson & Howell, Reference Pierson and Howell2013; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015). Principals often participated in these professional learning opportunities, modelling their commitment to inclusion (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2014; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999). The format for and nature of professional development varied and was typically ongoing over time. These learning experiences included summer institutes (Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999), visits to exemplary schools (Hoppey & McLeskey, Reference Hoppey and McLeskey2013), university courses, and lesson study (Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011). Some professional learning opportunities were informal and involved special educators supporting general education teachers’ learning (Rice, Reference Rice2006). Overall, teachers typically agreed that professional learning was important in addressing the needs of students with disabilities (Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Sax and Grove2000; Janney et al., Reference Janney, Snell, Beers and Raynes1995; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015).
Redesigning the organisation
School organisations revised their policies and practices to support inclusion. These changes involved developing a plan for the program, revising policies (such as grading), getting feedback from school members about inclusion, eliminating special education classes, addressing needs for collaboration and co-teaching, using progress monitoring, securing resources, and adjusting plans over time (e.g., Burstein et al., Reference Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello and Spagna2004; Hoppey & McLeskey, Reference Hoppey and McLeskey2013; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, Reference Mayrowetz and Weinstein1999; Ryndak et al., Reference Ryndak, Reardon, Benner and Ward2007; Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015). For example, in one school 67 individualised educational programs (a required document outlining goals, plans, and services for each student with a disability in the US) were revised in the first months of the school year to change placements so students could learn in general education classrooms (DeMatthews, Reference DeMatthews2015). In another school, staff developed a visual representation showing how special and general educators worked together and where students with disabilities were placed (Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011).
Managing the teaching and learning program
Inclusive leadership also involved changes to curriculum and instruction and teachers were largely responsible for this work (Billingsley, Reference Billingsley, Crockett, Billingsley and Boscardin2012). Teachers taught the same state content to students with disabilities as other students (Pierson & Howell, Reference Pierson and Howell2013) and differentiated instruction to address their individual needs (e.g., Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015). Co-teaching was identified as an important support as general and special education teachers worked together to plan instruction, reteach material, adapt tests, monitor student learning, and share other responsibilities (e.g., Burstein et al., Reference Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello and Spagna2004; Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Sax and Grove2000; McLeskey et al., Reference McLeskey, Waldron and Redd2014; Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011). Paraprofessionals (individuals who are not licensed to provide education but assist teachers and therapists) supported learning in classrooms, often serving both students with and without disabilities (Shogren et al., Reference Shogren, McCart, Lyon and Sailor2015). More recent studies examined the use of progress monitoring (Waldron et al., Reference Waldron, McLeskey and Redd2011), using response to intervention to differentiate and improve instructional practices (e.g., Causton-Theoharis et al., Reference Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Bull, Cosier and Dempf-Aldrich2011; Hoppey & McLeskey, Reference Hoppey and McLeskey2013).
Barriers to Developing Effective Inclusive Schools
Principals often confront difficult barriers that interfere with reform. In the US, perhaps the biggest potential barrier is the level of support provided by district level leaders. Principals have authority to make a range of decisions, but they also serve at the pleasure of a superintendent and school board that adopt programs and policies that may not be aligned to and supportive of inclusion. As principals work within the public education system, they are ethically bound to uphold district policies and comply with external bureaucratic processes that can slow or limit opportunities for inclusion (Theoharis, Reference Theoharis2007). For example, a district might create fully segregated special education programs in a school. Although the principal can work within the school to place students into an inclusion classroom, the district may opt to continually send more children with disabilities from other parts of the district into the school's segregated programs (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, Reference DeMatthews and Mawhinney2014; Rouse & Florian, Reference Rouse and Florian1996). In such circumstances, the school would remain segregated despite the best efforts of the principal and teachers. Principals may also confront unsupportive district administrators, formidable bureaucratic demands, and harmful or conflicting state and district policies that potentially undermine inclusion (Runswick-Cole, Reference Runswick-Cole2011; Theoharis, Reference Theoharis2007).
Another potential district barrier is access to professional development and resources. Relatedly, a district's history with inclusion and providing high-quality special education services is important. When districts consistently fail to hire teachers that value inclusion and provide insufficient training to teachers, inclusion can be more time-consuming, susceptible to teacher and parent resistance, and prone to underserving students regardless of placement. As frustration levels rise with added pressures, both special education and general education teachers may experience feelings of burnout and reform fatigue that can lead to teacher turnover (Brunsting, Sreckovic, & Lane, Reference Brunsting, Sreckovic and Lane2014; Conley & You, Reference Conley and You2017; Rouse & Florian, Reference Rouse and Florian1996).
Within schools, principals also confront several barriers. School personnel (e.g., teachers, office staff, counsellors) come from unique backgrounds and have a broad range of experiences and perspectives. Each individual enters the school with their ‘cultural baggage’ and ‘unchecked assumptions’ about students with disabilities. Some teachers may undervalue students with disabilities or reject inclusion as central to the school's mission (Cameron & Cook, Reference Cameron and Cook2013; MacFarlane & Woolfson, Reference MacFarlane and Woolfson2013). Principals make important decisions about hiring and removing teachers, but they usually do not have significant authority to remove teachers or staff who do not value inclusion or who are actively resistant to it (DeMatthews, Reference DeMatthews2015). Thus, resistant teachers who harbour biases toward students with disabilities can slow or sabotage inclusion, as well as challenge the principal's legitimacy.
Another barrier to creating inclusive schools is the variability of assets, needs, and experiences that each student and family brings to a school. For example, when districts have operated segregated schools, neglected family input, and delayed providing special education to struggling students, a new school receiving a student with a disability may find disgruntled and distrusting parents. These parents might reject inclusion as an option not because they do not want what is best for their child, but because they are used to the idea of a segregated program and overly cautious of losing services after advocating for their child to even receive a benefit from their educational program. A child's past experiences can also create barriers to inclusion. As many districts formerly operated segregated programs in which students have languished, a student may develop a lack of self-confidence to feel successful in an inclusive classroom. The power of a disability label is stigmatising and often has a lasting effect on a student's identity and their own beliefs about their ability to be academically successful (Banks, Reference Banks2014; Crouch, Keys, & McMahon, Reference Crouch, Keys and McMahon2014). Sometimes, students become frustrated, self-advocate for a return to their previous placement, and act out or underperform due to stress or a lack of self-confidence.
Barriers can also be physical and structural. Outdated and poorly designed school facilities can be costly to adapt. Depending on school design, students with disabilities may confront difficulties manoeuvring within the school and may require extra to time get to class and other activities (Pivik, McComas, & Laflamme, Reference Pivik, McComas and Laflamme2002; Rouse & Florian, Reference Rouse and Florian1996). Principals can advocate with families for improvements, but they rarely have authority to transform their buildings. Piecemeal modifications can meet legal requirements for accessibility but be insufficient for providing students with truly inclusive access to academic and social opportunities.
In many cases, these barriers are intersectional. For example, when districts do not provide adequate resources and training, students with disabilities are physically included in a general education classroom but remain isolated and unsuccessful. When teachers lack the capacity and experience, they may be unable to manage student disciplinary issues. As disciplinary issues arise, students with disabilities may be more susceptible to being bullied, bully others, and experience feelings of isolation (Pivik et al., Reference Pivik, McComas and Laflamme2002). Unprepared or unsupported teachers may also fail to adequately deliver instruction in ways that allow students to feel successful. In doing so, they might reinforce a student's perception that they cannot be successful in an inclusive classroom. When districts have historically underserved students with disabilities and devalued relationships with parents, principals and teachers may find it difficult to build trusting relationships with open lines of communication, which are vital to helping a child successfully transition from a segregated classroom to an inclusive one.
Finally, the lack of strong preparation is also a barrier to inclusive schools. Principals often complete their university-based principal preparation programs feeling prepared to be effective instructional leaders, but then reality sets in and they recognise that their knowledge and skills are insufficient, especially when working to create effective inclusive schools. The insufficient preparation of principals has been well documented in the US. More than 25 years ago, Valesky and Hirth (Reference Valesky and Hirth1992) found that principals knew little about student placement procedures and had limited knowledge in special education law. Decades later, few programs even offer a course focused on special education (Cusson, Reference Cusson2010; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, Terry, & Farmer, Reference McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, Terry and Farmer2010; Powell, Reference Powell2010).
The shortcomings of university-based principal preparation programs are not a result of a lack of advocacy on behalf of professors in both special education and educational administration. Numerous empirical articles and reports stress the importance of preparing principals to lead inclusive schools (Boscardin, McCarthy, & Delgado, Reference Boscardin, McCarthy and Delgado2009; Crockett, Becker, & Quinn, Reference Crockett, Becker and Quinn2009; Lashley, Reference Lashley2007). Textbooks designed for principal preparation programs focus on inclusive school leadership (Causton & Theoharis, Reference Causton and Theoharis2014; Ryan, Reference Ryan2006) and the PSEL and guidance document provides university-based principal preparation programs with additional guidance for inclusive principal leadership. The body of research presented in the first part of this paper examines the leadership practices within inclusive schools in the US and has identified core leadership practices relevant to principal preparation.
Systemic challenges in university programs may continue to limit the readiness of program graduates to create and lead inclusive schools. Young and Rorrer (Reference Young and Rorrer2012) reported that many programs do not perceive high-quality educational research as accessible or aligned to the needs of their programs. A 2007 Wallace Foundation study revealed four problematic areas within most principal preparation programs: (a) outdated coursework, (b) misalignment between theory and practice, (c) limited faculty experience as administrators; and (d) ineffective clinical experiences (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen, Reference Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr and Cohen2007). Relatedly, many programs maintain outdated courses that broadly covered law, management, administration, finance, organisational change, and instructional leadership but ignore issues related to understanding and meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Hess & Kelly, Reference Hess and Kelly2007). Moreover, few programs provide students with meaningful clinical experiences where they work with veteran principal-mentors or engage in activities associated with special education (Angelle & Bilton, Reference Angelle and Bilton2009).
An additional concern is the need to prepare principals to develop effective inclusive schools in diverse contexts. Most programs focus broadly on school leadership as a universal set of practices but ignore the nuanced local issues principals confront with regard to changes in policies, student and teacher demographics, and access to resources (Hess & Kelly, Reference Hess and Kelly2007). Principals are ultimately responsible for ensuring that all students receive an appropriate education. When program authors do not consider the contextual issues surrounding a school, district, and state, their program graduates will be underprepared to lead in diverse communities and unable to identify or understand how different variables and circumstances might support or constrain their efforts to create effective inclusive schools (Artiles, Reference Artiles2003; Harry & Klingner, Reference Harry and Klingner2014).
Recruitment into principal preparation programs is also a concern, especially given the depth of knowledge and skill a principal might need to develop an inclusive school. Although there is some growing attention to the importance of recruiting individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups into programs, there is little discussion of diversity in terms of experience with students with disabilities and inclusion (Karanxha, Agosto, & Bellara, Reference Karanxha, Agosto and Bellara2014). Unfortunately, few principals have meaningful special education experience prior to their tenure, and thus new principals quickly learn about special education beginning a job that is already difficult and complex. Given these circumstances, it seems obvious that a principal might focus narrowly on compliance and avoid significant changes to the school's special education programs. The recruitment and selection of individuals with special education expertise into preparation programs is part of a larger structural challenge many universities confront in the US, particularly as funding allocations and student enrolments decline in colleges of education. These trends make it difficult for programs to be highly selective or to recruit potential school leaders with backgrounds in special education.
Leadership Standards and Implications for Preparation
The previous discussion summarises key findings about principals’ practices as they led reform and the nature of the barriers that they encountered, which varied across specific district and school contexts. As we discussed, many principals report that they are not prepared for this work. Educational organisations and schools in other countries will likely encounter some of these barriers as well. Moving forward requires understanding specific factors that both promote and interfere with change.
In this section, we describe one example of how a specific guidance document, Promoting Principal Leadership for the Success of Students With Disabilities (CCSSO & CEEDAR, 2017), was designed to clarify what it means to lead an effective inclusive school. Importantly, the guidance document was aligned with 10 PSEL standards used in developing principal preparation programs. We discuss the PSEL standards, the related guidance document, and the relevance of these two documents to the preparation of leaders for effective inclusive schools. We provide this as an example of a strategic leadership effort through a prominent organisation, CCSSO, in collaboration with a major centre (i.e., CEEDAR) to support inclusive leadership. This example illustrates how a major professional organisation and the CEEDAR Center partnered to support inclusive education, and identified corresponding leadership practices that relate to inclusive education for each educational leadership standard.
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008), which were initially developed in 1996 and subsequently revised in 2008, have served as standards for the preparation of school leaders in most states for the last two decades. However, given increased expectations for student achievement through more rigorous academic standards and the challenges they present to school leaders, educators and policymakers recognised the need to produce a new set of standards. The recently developed PSEL standards were designed to ensure that school leaders are well prepared to ‘inspire staff to pursue new, creative approaches for improving schools and promoting student learning’ (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, p. 1).
The PSEL standards were based on research and the wisdom of practice indicating that school leaders can substantially influence student learning by creating schools that are academically challenging as well as socially and emotionally supportive. Given this emphasis, the standards have a strong focus on student learning and ensuring ‘that each child is well-educated and prepared for the 21st century’ (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015, p. 2). The standards also emphasise the importance of human relationships that underlie effective leadership and the need to provide conditions for teaching and learning that support the academic success of each student. The 10 PSEL standards are listed in Table 1.
Alignment of Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL) 2015 Standards and Content From the Guidance Document
Principals play a key role in creating the conditions for teaching and learning where students with disabilities and other learners who struggle can thrive in school. To do this, principals must demonstrate instructional leadership and support all staff in a process of continuous school improvement that leads to the success of each student, including those with disabilities. Although the PSEL standards address supporting the learning of each student, the standards do not call out the principal's key role in leading inclusive schools that support improved outcomes for students with disabilities. Additionally, the PSEL standards are broadly intended for all leaders, including superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and teacher leaders — not only principals.
Therefore the guidance document emphasises the principal's key role in developing effective inclusive schools where each child has an equitable opportunity to succeed — with a particular focus on students with disabilities (see Table 1). The document also provides actions that principal preparation programs, professional learning providers, and both national and local governments can take to advance inclusive principal leadership into policies and practices across the principal career continuum — from initial preparation to ongoing practice. Many of the actions important to inclusive leadership in Table 1 are consistent with the research findings described in the first section of this article. CCSSO became involved in this work because the organisation believes in the power of principals to influence student outcomes. Additionally, the organisation views the recent authorisation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), the U.S. primary federal school reform policy, as an opportunity for states to strengthen supports for school leaders as a lever for change, particularly in the lowest performing schools.
To create the guidance document, CCSSO and CEEDAR convened an advisory group comprising principals, university researchers, state and local education agency leaders, and representatives from principal associations to review the literature on effective inclusive principal leadership. The group then identified aspects of the PSEL that are particularly important for principals to demonstrate to ensure the success of each student with a particular focus on students with disabilities. From January to October 2016, the group met to develop the content and organisation of the document, which was then shared at two convenings of state leaders to obtain input from the key stakeholders the document was intended to reach. After multiple rounds of stakeholder engagement and feedback, the document was finalised.
The PSEL standards and related guidance document are timely and important. A growing number of students with disabilities are spending a majority of their school day in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and Office of Special Education Programs, 2016). Yet many principal preparation programs and district professional development opportunities do not emphasise the knowledge and skills that principals need to demonstrate in order to develop and lead schools that are effective and inclusive (Billingsley et al., in press). The supplementary guidance document may be used by principal preparation programs to advance effective inclusive principal leadership in conjunction with other resources on principal leadership. Indeed, the PSEL and the guidance document are part of a suite of guidance documents aimed at improving the way that principals are prepared to meet the needs of each learner, including CCSSO's (2012) Our Responsibility, Our Promise and Promises to Keep (CCSSO & CEEDAR, 2015), along with the forthcoming National Educational Leadership Preparation standards that will be used to guide the accreditation and approval of principal preparation programs (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2018). The CEEDAR Center, the SWIFT Center, and other organisations have resources to support inclusive leadership as well (see Table 2).
Web-Based Resources for Leadership Preparation
To elevate the recommendations included in PSEL and the guidance document and advance state, district, and university awareness of the identified effective practices, both CCSSO and the CEEDAR Center have engaged in ongoing dissemination and engagement efforts. Shortly after the release of the guidance document in January 2017, the CEEDAR Center hosted a webinar on preparing principals to meet the needs of each student. Additionally, from January to June 2017, CCSSO shared the document through various networks and newsletters and engaged states during multiple convenings of state leaders. Beginning in July 2017, CCSSO launched the National Collaborative on Inclusive Principal Leadership, an alliance of diverse organisations that will work to align resources on effective inclusive principal leadership, such as those included in Table 2, and support states to advance inclusive leadership into policies and practices affecting principal preparation and practice.
The CCSSO initiative holds promise for supporting leadership preparation that moves beyond compliance and toward preparing principals who can develop and support effective inclusive schools. To do this, leadership preparation programs have the challenge of creating programs in which their graduates value inclusion, acquire necessary knowledge and skills to support effective inclusive schools, and have opportunities to work in effective inclusive schools through field-based experiences. As part of this work, university faculty in varied countries may consider how to build or capitalise on existing relationships with local school districts and their departments of special education. They can do so by co-planning courses, developing curriculum advisory committees, and identifying potential mentor principals who have expertise and experience leading effective inclusive schools. Programs also need to invest in recruiting, retaining, and developing faculty with experience working in special education and leading effective inclusive schools. Lastly, programs need to revamp clinical experiences and internships to ensure principal mentors are knowledgeable about special education and are working toward creating effective inclusive schools.
Conclusion and Implications
Educating students with disabilities in effective inclusive schools has proven more difficult than most educators and leaders expected as there are numerous barriers to this work. Improving the preparation of principals so that they are knowledgeable and well prepared to meet the needs of each student is a critical next step in the development of effective inclusive schools. The PSEL and the guidance documents provide a description of research-based standards for principal preparation that may be used to improve principal preparation programs and ensure that principals are better prepared to meet this challenge. We also described resources that may be used to support principal development in both preparation programs and in continuing professional development. Research or evaluation studies are needed to determine the extent to which the guidance documents are used by states, colleges/universities, or leaders to improve inclusive preparation and practice.
There are several implications of this work for inclusive leadership. Although the particular details about leadership practices for inclusive schools will differ within and across countries, the core commitments are similar: the need for a vision that supports the success of all students, including those with disabilities; holding asset rather than deficit-based perspectives; and working collaboratively with a range of stakeholders to help them improve the professional capacity of leaders and teachers to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. These core commitments are consistent with the CRPD (United Nations Division for Social Policy and Development, 2006), which has been widely adopted; however, these core commitments may not yet be reflected in leader development. It is important to share efforts across countries so that policymakers and leaders may learn from others as they strive to support stronger leadership for students with disabilities. A second point is that the guidance document provides an explicit description of the dimensions of inclusive leadership and their relevance to a school leadership audience. Policymakers and stakeholders in each country should clarify what inclusive leadership looks like and provide examples of each dimension. Third, it is important to make sure that inclusive leadership practices are clear and visible to the broadest possible audience. We provided one example for doing this as the guidance document is linked to the well-known and used PSEL standards, rather than a standalone document. For example, many states in the US have either revised their leadership standards to align with PSEL or they have plans to do so. Fourth, the process used to develop consensus about the guidance document was described, which may be adapted for other contexts. Finally, clarity about inclusive leadership should help support leadership preparation as these leadership dimensions can help inform the development of course syllabi, the selection of instructional resources, the planning of professional development programs, and the design of assessment data to determine progress toward a better prepared leader workforce.
We recognise that although a great deal has been achieved in the development of inclusive schools around the globe, much work remains to be done. In the US, educational outcomes for students with disabilities have continued to be less than desirable. Research has made it clear that preparing principals to develop and support effective inclusive schools has the potential to substantially increase the number of students who have access to these settings as well as opportunities to achieve. Through the collaboration of leadership and special education faculty, we are optimistic that this will occur in the coming years, and more students with disabilities will receive the high-quality education that they so richly deserve.
