**7. The analysis**

Data analysis was conducted in three phases.

• PHASE 1: Stakeholder focussed themes (SF)

• PHASE 2: Themes linked to stakeholder factors (SF) and existing indicators (EI)

(SWP) framework [30, 31]. Each of these artefacts emerged as a result of the school engaging with the Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievements in Schools (IDEAS) Project [22]. Interestingly both school communities adopted the image of a tree as a metaphor fortheir vision, even though each vision was distinctly different. Each vision and SWP is captured in **Figure 3**.

42 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

Permission had been gained from Education Queensland, school principals, and university Ethics Approval had been received. Principals indicated that staff could volunteer to be involved and suggested a number of parents and students who would be interested in this research because of its relevancy for them. Students took part in focus group discussions at each school. Staff and parents engaged in individual conversations with the researchers. Conversations were digitally recorded and then transcribed by the researchers themselves. Purposive sampling was utilised in alignment with what Cohen et al. [32] advised researchers to consider: sample size, representativeness, access to the sample; and the sampling, where too large a sample might become unwieldy and too small a sample might be unrepresentative. In total 25 teaching staff were involved in the data collation exercise – 15 (10% of fractional and full-time teaching staff) from PS1 and 10 (7.5% of fractional and full-time teaching staff) from PS2. Eight students were interviewed in a focus group from each school. In addition, several teacher aides and parents were interviewed. Collectively the data represents

The first interpretation of the data drew on the perceptions and stories of students, teachers, and teacher aides. For the purpose of capturing the initial picture of pedagogical and cultural 'reality', data collected from principal interviews were not included in this chapter although these findings will be reported in the near future [33]. The reasoning behind this decision was to ensure that we captured the voice of the people who experienced the reality of the 'the way we do things around here' and therefore seen by those operating at the classroom level. It is through the day to day operations that norms and assumptions underlying school culture are illuminated. Some participants referred to actions by the principal or other members of the leadership team. The collation of these perceptions infers a number of leadership char-

The semi-structured interview approach allowed participant discussions to illustrate additional related ideas as interesting points emerged. Excerpts of interview data illustrating findings have been woven throughout this chapter. Schools have been numbered (PS1 and PS2) and participants identified by a coding system: Teacher 1 – T1; Teacher Aide 1 – TA1; Parent

1 – P1; Student – S1; and, Head of the Special Education Program – HOSE.

**6. Research participation**

the viewpoints of approximately 45 participants.

acteristics integral to each school's 'ways of working'.

Data analysis was conducted in three phases. • PHASE 1: Stakeholder focussed themes (SF)

**7. The analysis**

• PHASE 3: Theme differences identified, principles articulated and a model created

**PHASE 1**: The Stakeholder focused phase acknowledged that a school is a community of individuals working together. Factors relating to the key stakeholders were summarised according to staff, parent, student, and leadership with management related factors. Although there were context specific nuances, a number of inclusive strategies appeared to be in operation across both schools. These operated as integrated pieces of a whole school approach embracing staff, parents, students, leaders and system interactions.

In both contexts, it had been reported that the principal had placed priority on developing staff capacity to support students with a particular need, and then followed up with additional sessions as required. Collaboration across the school ensured that planning was comprehensive and manageable by all parties inclusive of special support staff, teachers, teacher aides, students, parents and the leadership team. Professional development and time for professional conversations were a priority. Multiple opportunities were provided within the classroom for students to build metacognitive skills through mental processing tasks and 'talk alouds', so students could learn how to express their learning and emotional needs. This was particularly important for PS2 due to their high numbers of students with English as another language.

*Staff focused factors: targeted professional development; professional collaboration; intentional development of metacognitive skills; clear consciousness of varied needs; shared understanding of successful pedagogies for context*

Teachers indicated that considerable time was spent by the principal and other members of the leadership team, such as the Head of the Special Education Program, on contacting parents prior to a student's entry into school. Parents confirmed this. PS2 found this challenging as many parents did not speak English but translators were brought into the process. Multiple and varied opportunities were provided for parents to express their concerns and be 'heard'. Sometimes all that was needed was for parents to be reassured that support measures were in place for their child. Where regular consultations with medical practitioners and support personnel were needed, these were arranged and the school assisted parents to understand and respond to any concerns raised.

*Parent focused factors: prior contact with parents; multiple opportunities for parents to engage; supported interactions with medical or other support services; empathy and understanding of diverse family contexts*

Students were encouraged to be leaders of inclusive practice within their classrooms and whilst in the playground. Social skills and values education programs were in place to assist students develop peer relationships and support groups. Student leaders were actively encouraged to be the voice for their peers and were fully engaged in orienting students new to the school and becoming mentors in their initial transition to campus. Teachers were encouraged to provide multiple opportunities within each classroom for students to share their experiences, passions and hobbies in order to find 'triggers' and 'hooks' into learning. At both schools, students were encouraged to build independent learning skills within the classroom. Older students set their own learning goals and planned how to attain these through small achievable steps.

*Student focused factors: student leadership development; social skills/values explicitly taught; peer support; personal learning goals; interests taken into account*

**Key theme Evidence** *SFs/EIs*

We make things work! (T1 PS2).

and these children do fit in (TA1 PS2).

thing throughout the school (T1 PS2).

(T1 PS1).

School strategic foundations are linked to the vision, values and SWP (PS1 & PS2).Everybody works together to ensure every student has their needs met (PS1 & PS2).The principal ensures all teachers are inducted into who we are (T3 PS1).Teachers make a huge effort to include all kids. The difference between now and 3 years ago is huge. There were kids fighting to be included …now, they seem to just come and everyone's happy.

Inclusive Schoolwide Pedagogical Principles: Cultural Indicators in Action

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70358

Timetables are developed as 'best fit' choices – student to class, teacher to class, aide to teacher, aide to student – staff strengths and environmental aspects are considered (PS1 & PS2).All kids that come into the school, we want to do our best for them. We try and tailor programs (whether they've got a disability or not) to suit that child … down to changing Human Resources and fiddling current structures and processes around (HOSE PS1).

Tolerance, acceptance, empathy, active listening and clear high expectations are explicitly taught as are school values (PS1 & PS2).I usually get parents in, because parents then feel like they're part of the classroom as well…We talk about everyone's religion because religion is such a big thing in the cultures at the school… Then I find after that the kids value our values more (T2 PS2).Difference is celebrated (PS1 & PS2).The kids come and they're taught everyone has the right to speak, everyone has the right to say what they need to say, no-one is different (T3 PS2).The greatest strength of this school is the fact that we have so many children from diverse nationalities, cultures

Clear communication strategies (PS1 & PS2).We communicate really clearly here. The expectations in my class are the same as everywhere else with just a little flexibility – some days more than others but they still have to adhere to the school values – it comes under that umbrella, our vision (T2 PS1).Well defined understandings of specific students by teachers and peers (PS1 & PS2).We understand that some behaviours can be driven by things beyond their control (T2 PS1).Once their stories are told, then the respect comes in, then if anyone goes outside of that we can say "remember we have to respect them because they don't like that" (T1 PS2).Well defined behaviour management procedures (PS1 & PS2).We are all on the same page as far as behaviour expectations go (T2 PS1).A lot of the kids who come understand rules …they like to know what they have to do. Because we've got [behaviour walls and sets of rules]…it's seen and it's shown and everyone says the same thing, the kids understand that it's the same

Strong relationships abound within and beyond the school gates and parents are involved in supportive, student-centred learning partnerships.Lots of meetings…You've just got to persist…Let's try to get specialist appointments, let's do this testing, the evidence is saying this (T2 PS1).Initiating positive communications with parents from early in the year onwards.P…[The principal] insists that we keep in contact from the beginning – just say hi how's it going? – then when harder conversations may be required we already have a relationship with the parent (T4 PS1).Supportive parent group seeks to strengthen relationships with teachers and back up school initiatives.They're valuing diversity, they're valuing difference and they're enjoying and valuing the Visions program that we do on a Monday and they feel like it is very important for their children so that gives us the basis to keep going with this *L&M SFEIs 1, 2, 3, & 5*

45

*Staff & L&M SFEIs 3, 4, & 6*

*StudentSFEIs 7, 8 & 9*

*StaffSFEIs 1, 2, 6 & 8*

*Parent & Staff SFEIs 3, 7, & 10*

Theme 1:Organisation & structures are strongly student centred & inclusive

Theme 1(b):Best fit choices: students, teachers, teacher aides, resources & environment

Theme 2:Explicit teaching of social skills & the valuing of diversity

Theme 3:Clear communication, shared language & shared expectations

Theme 4:Positive relationship building between staff, students, parents & community

Where information was received from parents, or another avenue, that a student with particularly complex issues would be enrolling at the school, then at a managerial level, teams of people would meet to detail required school adjustments to process, environment and resources. This was undertaken well in advance to fully inform planning at the classroom level but was flexible enough to make adjustments 'on the run' when direct individual evaluations could be made. This pre-planning would often involve liaising with District Support staff to flag the probability of requiring extra resources or equipment. The leadership team interviewed parents, with their children, and the school's vision and expectations were clearly articulated. Leadership was not considered the domain of the principal alone, or of the leadership team as a whole. Individual staff members were encouraged and supported to make contributions to and lead working groups and planning sessions.

*Leadership and management (L&M) factors: address complex issues prior to enrolment; accept that context makes a difference; work with outside support avenues*

**Reflection:** With these various factors in mind, the research-based framework's (**Figure 1**) element of Cohesive Community becomes apparent. The principal made it very clear that respect for all stakeholders was expected. Leaders believed in supporting families throughout their entire contact with the school, prior to student enrolment and through to moving to a different location. Basically student need drives planning, timetabling, communication conduits, professional development, and relationships with parents and the wider community. In both schools, it was noted that staff had moved on when their expectations did not meet the expectations of the principal. The leadership team emphasised the need to maintain whole school commitment to the integrity of the school Vision, which was seen as a dynamic entity providing ongoing direction and actioned through school wide practices. This shared commitment could be seen and was reflected in each context specific language of inclusion.

**PHASE 2:** The themes linked to stakeholder factors (*SF*) and existing indicators (*EI*) phase sought to more fully understand the character of the inclusive school practices in place. Emergent themes were examined in detail for the recurring principles that underpinned the cultural assumptions and beliefs, which impacted on decisions made within each school. These choices influenced how each school engaged with their stakeholders. Both schools had surprisingly similar ways of working overlayed with contextual differences and there were definite synergies in initial themes, therefore school themes have been combined and nuances identified where synergies did not directly align. Extracts from the data that illustrate a theme are then taken from either one or perhaps both schools.

Not all points within themes are illustrated with examples but the data clearly supports the theme with snippets of conversation and synthesised interpretations. **Table 2** captures the themes and indicates the schools where a theme is particularly strong. Where one particular element within a linked theme came to the fore as being of major importance, apart from other related factors, the sub-theme to the theme above is indicated by a (b). It also correlates themes to the stakeholder factors (*SF*) and the 10 existing indicators (*EIs*) outlined previously.


*Student focused factors: student leadership development; social skills/values explicitly taught; peer* 

Where information was received from parents, or another avenue, that a student with particularly complex issues would be enrolling at the school, then at a managerial level, teams of people would meet to detail required school adjustments to process, environment and resources. This was undertaken well in advance to fully inform planning at the classroom level but was flexible enough to make adjustments 'on the run' when direct individual evaluations could be made. This pre-planning would often involve liaising with District Support staff to flag the probability of requiring extra resources or equipment. The leadership team interviewed parents, with their children, and the school's vision and expectations were clearly articulated. Leadership was not considered the domain of the principal alone, or of the leadership team as a whole. Individual staff members were encouraged and supported to make

*Leadership and management (L&M) factors: address complex issues prior to enrolment; accept that* 

**Reflection:** With these various factors in mind, the research-based framework's (**Figure 1**) element of Cohesive Community becomes apparent. The principal made it very clear that respect for all stakeholders was expected. Leaders believed in supporting families throughout their entire contact with the school, prior to student enrolment and through to moving to a different location. Basically student need drives planning, timetabling, communication conduits, professional development, and relationships with parents and the wider community. In both schools, it was noted that staff had moved on when their expectations did not meet the expectations of the principal. The leadership team emphasised the need to maintain whole school commitment to the integrity of the school Vision, which was seen as a dynamic entity providing ongoing direction and actioned through school wide practices. This shared commitment could be seen and was reflected in each context specific

**PHASE 2:** The themes linked to stakeholder factors (*SF*) and existing indicators (*EI*) phase sought to more fully understand the character of the inclusive school practices in place. Emergent themes were examined in detail for the recurring principles that underpinned the cultural assumptions and beliefs, which impacted on decisions made within each school. These choices influenced how each school engaged with their stakeholders. Both schools had surprisingly similar ways of working overlayed with contextual differences and there were definite synergies in initial themes, therefore school themes have been combined and nuances identified where synergies did not directly align. Extracts from the data that illustrate a theme

Not all points within themes are illustrated with examples but the data clearly supports the theme with snippets of conversation and synthesised interpretations. **Table 2** captures the themes and indicates the schools where a theme is particularly strong. Where one particular element within a linked theme came to the fore as being of major importance, apart from other related factors, the sub-theme to the theme above is indicated by a (b). It also correlates themes

to the stakeholder factors (*SF*) and the 10 existing indicators (*EIs*) outlined previously.

*support; personal learning goals; interests taken into account*

44 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

contributions to and lead working groups and planning sessions.

*context makes a difference; work with outside support avenues*

are then taken from either one or perhaps both schools.

language of inclusion.


**Researchers' reflection:** At first it seemed surprising that there were such strong common themes emerging, considering the differences within each school and its unique vision, values, SWP and community context. What was apparent from the beginning of the analysis though was a genuine sense that each school community was predominantly and individually 'on the same page', wording actually used by a number of participants. This 'same page'

**Key theme Evidence** *SFs/EIs*

in setting an example for younger students (TA3 PS1).

**Table 2.** Themes correlated to stakeholder factors and existing indicators of inclusion.

Strong principal social justice leadership, teacher leadership and student leadership teams work in parallel within PS1 (a slightly different

manifestation occurs in PS2).Shared strong social justice leadership between the principal and HOSE is evident. Teachers and students are expected to step up to expectations.The school community as a whole support school direction and intent (PS1 & PS2).The leadership team builds capacity in others – teachers, teacher aides and student leaders. Professional learning is undertaken, shared and woven into justifications for practice.P…[The principal] will often share something he has read or a workshop he has been to and offer others the opportunity to learn more (T5 PS2).Student leadership is promoted. Older students have a clear understanding of the role they play

*L&M SF*

47

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70358

Inclusive Schoolwide Pedagogical Principles: Cultural Indicators in Action

The language of social justice andinclusion ran throughout the transcripts fromboth schools' community members evidenced in words such as 'a huge effort to include all kids', 'we make things work', 'talk about everyone's religion', 'everyone has the right to speak', 'adhere to the school values', 'comes under that umbrella, our vision', 'remember we have to respect', 'valuing diversity', 'valuing difference', 'the safety that the children feel', 'partners in their child's education', 'tailor programs', 'admit students gradually to the school environment so overload doesn't occur', and 'plan our differentiation'. Similar messages continued to emerge from the transcripts. **PHASE 3** saw theme differences identified (**Table 3**), principles articulated and a model created (**Figure 4**) to represent the essence of the findings. Although there was considerable correlation and affirmation of the existing indicators of inclusive school practice (see **Table 3**), additional themes emerged. Remembering that school leader data were not used, it is significant that the two emergent themes both pertain to leadership: strong ethical and moral principal leadership and targeted informed leadership evident at all levels

These emergent themes show how the principal, in particular, is perceived in each school. A corresponding analysis of the rhetoric embedded within the leaders' data will ultimately

Through the process of cross-checking with existing indicators (*EIs*) and discussing overlapping theme elements it was agreed that certain characteristics were indicative of the "key school wide pedagogical principles and actions [that] underpin the support of all students". Inclusive school wide pedagogical principles emerged, cultural indicators in action, reflecting alignment, both structural and cognitive. Such alignment resonates with the elements

show correlations and additional insights to be woven into these findings.

was entitled 'inclusive school practices'.

of the school.

Theme 11:Targeted informed leadership evident at all levels of the school


**Table 2.** Themes correlated to stakeholder factors and existing indicators of inclusion.

**Key theme Evidence** *SFs/EIs*

they're in a safe place, there is no danger (T1 PS2).

46 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

Creating spaces and places where staff, students and parents feel safe and accepted is important in an inclusive culture.I think that it is the safety that the children feel – and the fact that parents are really partners in their child's education (HOSE PS1).I've seen a lot of young kids come with a lot of anger and a lot of hate towards different people…different races and colours. It takes probably around 6 weeks for that to go away and realise

Schools work closely with parents and other schools to enable students to accept change (PS1 & PS2).We take the kids to Master classes at the high school and other activities we are invited to – like musicals (T2 PS1).Teachers actively teach and promote independent student responsibility for actions, possessions and organisation in preparation for secondary school.We teach independence – metacognitive stuff – it's important as they get older (T3 PS2).From the time it is known that a child is coming to the school, or moving on to another, school leaders contact past schools, future schools and parents to put in transition plans where needed, to ensure success (PS1 & PS2).Sometimes [HOSE] works to admit students gradually to the school environment so overload doesn't occur for them or their parents (T3 PS1).

Collated data is regularly used to level activities and to plan for support and differentiation to ensure all learners are able to engage.We pull the data out and put it all on this big spreadsheet. We colour code, work out where our kids are, and then plan our differentiation (T5 PS1).I've found that from the data one child shouldn't be following the general programme for the year level, I will need to do a separate plan written for them (T3 PS2).Understandings of the fact that some students require different strategies to enable them to focus and learn.They let kids have what they need. Some may need MP3 players in their ears to listen to while they are doing their work, and some may need fiddle toys. Some may need a break time, so they take a break card and they

go and have five minutes and then they come back (P1 PS1).

of the kids in my classroom (T4 PS2).

Some teachers are more confident in relation to differentiation and inclusion than others. A mix of differentiation pedagogies (e.g. content modification) and inclusive pedagogies (e.g. using different forms of communication) are utilised and shared.…not gifted just better at it. Then our support teacher goes away and he writes enrichment programs for those children to help the teachers (T6 PS1).We look at every child individually. We have differentiation in place for many children – other kids are great helping new ones come on board too (T2 PS2).Mary (pseudonym) is my little selected mute. I think of ways to non-verbally communicate with her and the rest

Much time and money is spent on building staff capacity to meet student needs.[Our support teacher] has been doing lots of PD with casual aides and that has made a big difference to results…teacher aides have really taken ownership of it. We call them para-professionals and they are fantastic (T5 PS1).We look at what needs the students have and where the challenges are for staff, then tailor PD or intervention to support them… (HOSE PS1).

Strong moral leadership from the principal (PS1 & PS2).I came from a school where there was not the support that you get here. The kids are tough sometimes – because of multiple needs – but the leadership team will do what they can for teachers and they really care about the kids (T4 PS2).There is a clear vision and direction for the school (PS1 & PS2).Expectations are communicated clearly, consistently and regularly (PS1 & PS2).Decision making is solutions focussed, and as a result this approach permeates down to all staff within the school (PS1 & PS2).Principals articulate expectations that all staff will contribute to, establish and model high expectations for students (PS1 & PS2).

*Parent Staff & Student SFEIs 9 & 10*

*Students & Parent SFEIs 1 & 10*

*Staff & Students SFEIs 4, 5, 6 & 8*

*Staff & Students SF EIs 5, 7 & 8*

*Staff SFEIs 4 & 6*

*L&M SF*

Theme 5:Strong sense of safety, family & 'wrap around' student support

Theme 6:Transitions into & out of school prioritised

Theme 7:Teachers use information & data to plan adjustments and engage learners

Theme

Theme 9:Professional learning & sharing between staff

Theme 10:Strong ethical and moral principal leadership

8:Differentiation & inclusive pedagogies articulated, negotiated & actioned

**Researchers' reflection:** At first it seemed surprising that there were such strong common themes emerging, considering the differences within each school and its unique vision, values, SWP and community context. What was apparent from the beginning of the analysis though was a genuine sense that each school community was predominantly and individually 'on the same page', wording actually used by a number of participants. This 'same page' was entitled 'inclusive school practices'.

The language of social justice andinclusion ran throughout the transcripts fromboth schools' community members evidenced in words such as 'a huge effort to include all kids', 'we make things work', 'talk about everyone's religion', 'everyone has the right to speak', 'adhere to the school values', 'comes under that umbrella, our vision', 'remember we have to respect', 'valuing diversity', 'valuing difference', 'the safety that the children feel', 'partners in their child's education', 'tailor programs', 'admit students gradually to the school environment so overload doesn't occur', and 'plan our differentiation'. Similar messages continued to emerge from the transcripts.

**PHASE 3** saw theme differences identified (**Table 3**), principles articulated and a model created (**Figure 4**) to represent the essence of the findings. Although there was considerable correlation and affirmation of the existing indicators of inclusive school practice (see **Table 3**), additional themes emerged. Remembering that school leader data were not used, it is significant that the two emergent themes both pertain to leadership: strong ethical and moral principal leadership and targeted informed leadership evident at all levels of the school.

These emergent themes show how the principal, in particular, is perceived in each school. A corresponding analysis of the rhetoric embedded within the leaders' data will ultimately show correlations and additional insights to be woven into these findings.

Through the process of cross-checking with existing indicators (*EIs*) and discussing overlapping theme elements it was agreed that certain characteristics were indicative of the "key school wide pedagogical principles and actions [that] underpin the support of all students". Inclusive school wide pedagogical principles emerged, cultural indicators in action, reflecting alignment, both structural and cognitive. Such alignment resonates with the elements


in the organisational model developed by the LRI, the research-based framework for organisational alignment [22]. With these findings in mind a number of inclusive principles and the embedded actions reinforcing these were articulated, as were the key characteristics taken from the analysis. Together they led to the identification of each of the following:

Inclusive Schoolwide Pedagogical Principles: Cultural Indicators in Action

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70358

49

The principal ensures that teacher leaders, teacher aides and student leaders are empowered to plan and act in the best interest of others with a focus on inclusion and support. Leaders (staff and students) challenge the status quo. It began with each principal's firm commitment to social justice leadership. Each principal then placed a major focus on capacity building school wide whilst ensuring that the voices of students, staff and parents could be heard and concerns actioned. Targeted professional learning opportunities were of utmost importance and both principals, over a number of years, dedicated valuable time and resource commitment to engaging in an externally supported process of school renewal. Sergiovanni noted that "Few leaders have the competence, time, and information needed at any given time to get the job done. Wise leaders try and rely on others and build their own knowledge capacity" [33]. Principals epitomise this willingness to learn from and with others which is the essence of the holistic professional learning element so fundamental to the research-based

The language of inclusion and support is heard from the top down. The message is reinforced by teachers, support staff and the leadership team as a whole. It is a message that never waivers and is never compromised and the Principal ensures that action ensues if this vision is not met. Themes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 in particular reflect the nature of this principle in action. Each school's vision, an integral ingredient of their strategic foundations is clearly articulated and the essence of inclusion is obvious with words such as growing together and many paths, many futures. Each school's SWP even more clearly articulates the expectations of inclu-

Across the school a strong collective commitment to meeting the needs of all students through proactive planning, forward thinking and putting strategies in place to overcome barriers and remove possible obstacles were considered well in advance. Themes 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11 are particularly pertinent. Data investigation, conversations with parents and students, and with advisors and system personnel allowed for identification and collaborative planning to take place across the board. The strong values and social skilling programs were integral to ensuring peers were a part of the collective commitment and student leaders were utilised as mentors and advocates. Teacher aides were a strong link in the chains of support enabling students to succeed. Believing that all students have the right to an education

• Principle 1: *Informed shared social justice leadership at multiple levels*

framework [22] and driven by what emerged as Themes 10 and 11.

• Principle 2: *Moral commitment to a vision of inclusion*

sion and the celebration of diversity.

• Principle 3: *Collective commitment to whatever it takes*

**Table 3.** Themes across schools and matched to key factors.

**Figure 4.** A conceptual model of the cultural indicators of an inclusive school.

in the organisational model developed by the LRI, the research-based framework for organisational alignment [22]. With these findings in mind a number of inclusive principles and the embedded actions reinforcing these were articulated, as were the key characteristics taken from the analysis. Together they led to the identification of each of the following:

#### • Principle 1: *Informed shared social justice leadership at multiple levels*

**Themes (links to other themes have been placed in brackets) PS1 PS2 EIs** Organisation & structures strongly student centred & inclusive (11, 12) ✓ ✓ 1, 2, 3 Explicit teaching of social skills & the valuing of diversity (3, 4, 5, 11) ✓ ✓ 5, 7, 8 Clear communication, shared language & shared expectations (1, 4, 5, 12) ✓ ✓ 2, 6 Positive relationships: staff, students, parents & community (3, 5, 6) ✓ ✓ 3, 10 Sense of safety, family and 'wrap around' student support (3, 4, 6) ✓ ✓ 9, 10 Best fit: students, teachers, aides, resources & environment (1, 4, 8) ✓ ✓ 4, 6 Transitions in & out prioritised (1, 4, 5, 12) ✓ ✓ 1, 10 Information & data to make adjustments and engage learners (3, 6, 9) ✓ ✓ 6, 4, 5, 8 Differentiation & inclusive pedagogies articulated, negotiated, actioned (3, 6, 8) ✓ ✓ 5, 7, 8 Professional learning & sharing between staff (8, 9) ✓ ✓ 4, 6 Strong ethical and moral principal leadership (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12) ✓ ✓ \_\_\_\_\_\_ Targeted informed leadership evident at all levels of the school (1, 8, 9, 11) ✓ ✓ \_\_\_\_\_\_

48 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

**Table 3.** Themes across schools and matched to key factors.

**Figure 4.** A conceptual model of the cultural indicators of an inclusive school.

The principal ensures that teacher leaders, teacher aides and student leaders are empowered to plan and act in the best interest of others with a focus on inclusion and support. Leaders (staff and students) challenge the status quo. It began with each principal's firm commitment to social justice leadership. Each principal then placed a major focus on capacity building school wide whilst ensuring that the voices of students, staff and parents could be heard and concerns actioned. Targeted professional learning opportunities were of utmost importance and both principals, over a number of years, dedicated valuable time and resource commitment to engaging in an externally supported process of school renewal. Sergiovanni noted that "Few leaders have the competence, time, and information needed at any given time to get the job done. Wise leaders try and rely on others and build their own knowledge capacity" [33]. Principals epitomise this willingness to learn from and with others which is the essence of the holistic professional learning element so fundamental to the research-based framework [22] and driven by what emerged as Themes 10 and 11.

• Principle 2: *Moral commitment to a vision of inclusion*

The language of inclusion and support is heard from the top down. The message is reinforced by teachers, support staff and the leadership team as a whole. It is a message that never waivers and is never compromised and the Principal ensures that action ensues if this vision is not met. Themes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 in particular reflect the nature of this principle in action. Each school's vision, an integral ingredient of their strategic foundations is clearly articulated and the essence of inclusion is obvious with words such as growing together and many paths, many futures. Each school's SWP even more clearly articulates the expectations of inclusion and the celebration of diversity.

• Principle 3: *Collective commitment to whatever it takes*

Across the school a strong collective commitment to meeting the needs of all students through proactive planning, forward thinking and putting strategies in place to overcome barriers and remove possible obstacles were considered well in advance. Themes 1, 4, 7, 8 and 11 are particularly pertinent. Data investigation, conversations with parents and students, and with advisors and system personnel allowed for identification and collaborative planning to take place across the board. The strong values and social skilling programs were integral to ensuring peers were a part of the collective commitment and student leaders were utilised as mentors and advocates. Teacher aides were a strong link in the chains of support enabling students to succeed. Believing that all students have the right to an education in their parents' school of choice, each principal was seen to be guiding and supporting teachers to make this work. Each inclusive environment was made richer by the shared understandings of effective ways of working, articulated within each schoolwide pedagogical framework, and the way in which these were enacted, providing consistency and alignment of action to vision.

principals made school expectations clear for all concerned and where necessary

Inclusive Schoolwide Pedagogical Principles: Cultural Indicators in Action

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70358

51

A conceptual model of the cultural indicators of an inclusive school was (**Figure 4**) created to capture the inter-related nature of the six principles and how the essence of these align with and help action and strengthen the cultural indicators of an inclusive school culture. These indicators either emerged from this research or were confirmed by this research (the EIs) and provide a point of reference for collegial reflection around current practices within any school context. Participants from each school, identified regionally for being both inclusive and having consistently improving levels of student academic achievement (according to NAPLAN data), demonstrated a consistency of language use and context specific meaning holding particular significance. Such a pedagogically rich language, when consciously reinforced by the leadership team, becomes embedded in the strategic foundations of the school and serves a number

• Reinforcement of pedagogical practices that are effective for students in a particular school

• Dissemination of the school's culture and expectations of inclusive behaviours aligned

These functions are underpinned by a continually evolving process driven by school principals seen to be committed to social justice. Underpinning norms and assumptions related to the expected ways of working are evidenced within the 'language of inclusion' used by teachers, students, parents and teacher aides, and appear indicative of principal commitment to inclusive school practices. The model speaks to aligned practices across a school – the bond between leadership intent, school vision, schoolwide pedagogy, shared understandings and expectations, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to ensure student needs are catered for. Commitment to reflecting on existing practice, tackling inequity and building relationships across the school

It is acknowledged that contextual factors make a difference and strategies that may work in one context may be less than effective in another. It is also acknowledged that those interviewed

and broader community, build feelings of safety, respect, belonging and celebration.

would reiterate the essence of the school's inclusive vision.

**8. A model of cultural indicators in action**

of crucial functions:

context

• Reinforcement of the school vision

to clear values and beliefs

**9. Summary of findings**

• Induction into the school culture

• Advocacy for the needs of diverse student and family cohorts

#### • Principle 4: *Getting it right from the start*

This principle emerged from the extensive organisation and management focus placed on wrapping students with support. Teachers indicated that the leadership team would negotiate 'slow transitions' or 'supported transitions' when needed. Teachers and teacher aides were consistently supported to improve their knowledge and skills. Documentation, communication and reflection ensured consistency. Themes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 underpin this principle. The strategic foundations of each school allowed for flexibility and clever resource allocation to support needs from the moment a student entered the school. The well-developed social skills and values program means that older students could induct new students and were constant role models for others moving through their learning journey. Induction was also essential for staff so that clear expectations of inclusion and differentiation were actioned. Each principal ensured that rhetoric was indeed a reality.

• Principle 5: *Professional targeted student-centred learning*

A significant component of actioning each school's SWP was the need to make time and space for professional conversations centred on student need. Those tasked with the responsibility showed a willingness to adapt and be flexible with structures, timetables and human resources. All staff demonstrated commitment to providing and undertaking professional development targeted to meet the needs of the particular students needing support. Planning for student specific needs, where possible, starts well before a student enters the school and continues as they plan for moving on. Information is shared and parents are an integral part of the student-centred knowledge collation. This principle is integrally linked to Themes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It again highlights the holistic professional learning element integral to the capacity building for improved student outcomes.

• Principle 6: *Open information and respectful communication*

Themes 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 indicate the priority placed on really getting to each student and their family. Teachers needed to 'know' students and their needs, aspirations and hooks into learning. There were frequent interactions between school leaders, teachers, students and families, as well as, support staff, medical practitioners, specialists and community elders. The transparency within decision-making processes and the allocation of resources were easily seen to be priorities according to data and availability. The research based framework elements of Community Cohesiveness and Generative Resource design were evidenced through the ongoing efforts to inform and include all stakeholders. Participants indicated that principals made school expectations clear for all concerned and where necessary would reiterate the essence of the school's inclusive vision.
