1.2 Where would you like to be?
The experience of being within cultures underpinned by the values and priorities evident in Activity 1 will be profoundly different and produce very different teaching practices. In a Turkish study of more than 400 teachers for instance (Sonmez & Gokmenoglu, 2023), the more that school leaders shared leadership duties, the more likely staff were to support each other, to critically engage with their practice and school process, and to behave in inclusive ways (for example being open to different cultures and languages). Similarly, in a study of 6 schools in the US, when principals drew on teachers’ ideas and expertise in developing reforms, school initiatives were far more successful than when they expected them to adopt and implement top-down practices (Kraft et al, 2015).
Activity 2 Where would you like to be?
So let us try and get some sense of the different experiences that teachers have, as result of the differing approaches of ‘inclusive’ leaders. Here are two articles discussing experiences in Early Years settings. One in New Zealand and one in Thailand.
Higginson, R., (2019) ‘Walking the talk: Leadership in New Zealand early childhood settings [Tip: hold Ctrl and click a link to open it in a new tab. (Hide tip)] ’, Early Education, 65, pp. 11–15.
Read from Findings (p. 12) until the end of the discussion (p. 14). In this chapter the acronym DL stands for designated leader.
Agbenyega, J. S. and Klibthong, S., (2022) ‘Giving voice: inclusive early childhood teachers’ perspectives about their school leaders’ leadership practices’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, pp. 1–17.
Read from Findings (p. 7) until the end of the discussion (p. 13).
As you read consider the following questions:
- To what degree is the practice being described hierarchical?
- How do the staff view their leaders?
- How would you describe the relationship between the staff and their leaders?
- Is any of the practice you are reading about close to what you would think of as inclusive practice?
- What other practices would you look for in an inclusive leader?
Discussion
These two papers deliver quite different views of teacher experiences of being led in early years contexts.
- The New Zealand staff recognise that there is a hierarchical role to be played by the leader of the setting, set against the pressure to make a profit for the setting, but their primary experience is that their leaders trust them to make decisions too. There are mentions of making the big calls, being ultimately accountable and having hold of the bigger picture, but it is also clear that they advocate for and empower staff, recognising their contribution and seeking ways to reward them. At the heart of the relationship is a collaborative ethos, based on trust, and a feeling that the leaders are generally true to their inclusive vision.
- In contrast the Thai staff see themselves as being held in a very hierarchical relationship, being expected to follow top-down decisions and to accept being blamed and publically rebuked if the leader feels under pressure. Consequently, these staff do not feel trusted or respected, but have a sense of a low status. They do not feel supported or able to contribute to the overall running of the settings but are held responsible for its shortcomings. It is perhaps unsurprising that they feel stressed and dispirited, relying upon informal networks to resolve difficulties. It is interesting to note that the authors feel that training of the leaders is the solution, whilst the data suggests the problem is more about an economic culture of profit.
Neither of these papers specifically refer to inclusive leadership, rather they talk of leading an inclusive setting. Within the New Zealand setting, staff seem to recognise that the inclusive approach of their leader supports the development of their own inclusive practice, whilst in the Thai context the staff recognise that their marginalisation works against claims of inclusion and the development of practice that might be considered inclusive. This seems to echo some of the central ideas associated with inclusive leadership. In a systematic review of 107 papers which attempted to address the conceptual confusion about inclusive leadership, Korkmaz et al (2022) identified many of the characteristics from the New Zealand paper (see Figure 2), but also mentioned the importance of leadership impacting upon different levels of the system (e.g.: the personal, the team and the wider organisation). They noted that the boundaries between levels are not always clear, particularly if people are trying to work in flexible and fluid ways. But they also noted that taking a multi-level view of inclusive leadership was an important consideration point within the literature.
The issue of levels, raised in the discussion for Activity 2, was also one taken up in a study funded by the European Union (Óskarsdóttir et al, 2020). This study looked at policies and practices across the European Union and concluded that inclusive leaders need to set a strategic vision, whilst attending to both organisational and human development. This was across a variety of levels too, the national and regional Macro level, the community Exo level, the school Meso level, and the individual Meso level. They also identified a range of roles and responsibilities for those leaders at each of these levels. As you read this list below it is interesting to reflect upon whether these are all functions that can be undertaken by all members of a staff team in all types of settings or if these behaviours by necessity feed into some notion of hierarchy and the individual hero model of leadership. You might want to share this list with friends and colleagues and discuss your views.
| Macro (national/regional) |
|---|
| Influence the development of national policy on equity and inclusive education through consultation and communication. |
| Translate and implement policies in ways appropriate to their school context and values and manage school level change regarding: curriculum and assessment frameworks; professional development; funding and allocation of resources; quality assurance and accountability. |
| Exo (community level) |
| Build partnerships with support agencies, other schools/institutions at other system levels, businesses in the community. |
| Build school capacity for diversity through research engagement and collaborative professional development activities, e.g. with universities. |
| Manage human resources, securing commitment to the shared vision of inclusion. |
| Manage financial resources to meet the needs of the whole school community. |
| Meso (school level) |
| Guide and influence school organisation and resources according to principles of equity. |
| Engage the learning community in self-review and reflect on data to inform ongoing school improvement. |
| Provide opportunities for professional development. |
| Ensure a continuum of support for all stakeholders. |
| Show commitment to the ethic of everybody. |
| Ensure curriculum and assessment are fit for purpose and meet the needs of all learners. |
| Actively engage all families. |
| Micro (individual level) |
| Influence learner-centred practice/listening to learners, personalisation (centre). |
| Ensure that teachers take responsibility for all learners. |
| Support innovative and flexible evidence-based pedagogy/practice in classrooms. |
| Monitor classroom practice ensuring high-quality education for all. |
| Develop a culture of collaboration – positive and trusting relationships. |
| Use data as a basis for teacher reflection and ongoing improvement. |
Having introduced some models of the behaviours associated with inclusive leaders, let’s explore more deeply the models that are generally seen to underpin this approach.
