avissar et al paper

7/27/2019 Avissar Et Al Paper

1/16

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733]

On: 16 June 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911724993]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special Needs EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713698481

Principals' views and practices regarding inclusion: the case of Israelielementary school principalsGilada Avissara; Shunit Reiterb; Yona Leyserca Curriculum Centre, Special Education Department, Beit Berl Teacher Training College, Doar BeitBerl, Israel. b Special Education Department, Faculty of Education, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel. c

Special Education Department, Northern Illinois University, USA.

To cite this Article Avissar, Gilada , Reiter, Shunit and Leyser, Yona(2003) 'Principals' views and practices regardinginclusion: the case of Israeli elementary school principals', European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18: 3, 355 369

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/0885625032000120233URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000120233

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713698481http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000120233http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000120233http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713698481


2/16

European Journal of Special Needs EducationISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/0885625032000120233

Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 3October 2003, pp. 355369

Principals views and practices

regarding inclusion: the case of Israelielementary school principals

GILADA AVISSAR*, SHUNIT REITER and YONA LEYSER

*Curriculum Centre, Special Education Department, Beit Berl Teacher Training

College, Doar Beit Berl, Israel

Special Education Department, Faculty of Education, Haifa University, Haifa,

IsraelSpecial Education Department, Northern Illinois University, USA

Address for correspondence:

Dr Gilada Avissar, Beit Berl College, Doar Beit Berl, 44905 Israel.

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Mainstreaming/inclusion is one of the more complex changes on the currenteducational scene. The goal of this research study was to examine the schoolprincipal as the leading figure in implementing inclusion and to characterize his/herrole as a change agent. The variables explored were the principals educational visionand the inclusive practices in school. A sample of 110 elementary school principalsin Israel were studied. The Israeli Special Education Law of 1988 and the ongoingregulations issued by the Ministry of Education include provisions requiringmainstreaming. Several different instruments were used. The main findings were asfollows: principals were found to perceive the expected social success of main-streamed students higher than their expected educational success; the severity of thedisability affected their perception and how they forecast success; a variety ofinclusive educational placements were noted in the schools; several backgroundvariables, namely age, level of education and in-service training, were related toprincipals views and practices regarding inclusion. The findings are meaningful tothe understanding of the effects of inclusion and have implications for in-servicetraining for principals.

KEYWORDS

Principals, mainstreaming, inclusion, change, perception, practice, leadership


3/16

356 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, October 2003

BACKGROUND

School leaders in every era have had to ponder both the rhetoric and thereality of how they address questions of diversity in school. (Riehl, 2000,p. 56)

Mainstreaming and inclusion1 of students with special educational needs arebecoming a matter of priority in many countries around the world. The focus of themovement to include students with disabilities in general education has recentlyshifted from viewing inclusion as an innovation within special education towardsviewing it within the broader context of school restructuring (Sebba and Ainscow,1996; Lipsky and Gartner, 1996; Cuban, 1998; Riehl, 2000). The mandate toestablish inclusive policies and practices related to inclusion is regarded as a majorrequirement for implementing change in schools.

The requirement for educational reforms and for changes and innovations,whether incremental or fundamental, is currently an integral part of school life.Incremental changes are those that aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ofexisting structures of schooling, including classroom teaching. The premise behindincremental change is that the basic structures are sound but need improvement toremove defects. On the other hand, fundamental changes are those that aim totransform and alter, permanently, the basic structural framework of the system. Thepremise behind planned fundamental changes is that basic organizational structuresand processes are flawed at their core and need a complete overhaul, not renovations(Cuban, 1996). Cuban goes on to provide a list (though incomplete) of majorinnovations that have been implemented over the course of a century. He concludesby asserting that schools have changed a great deal . . . and . . . many changes inschools transform into new ways of preserving the overall stability of schooling(Cuban, 1996, p. 77).

The school principal, who serves as an educational leader in school life, plays amajor function in implementing change. Fullan (1992), in his research review onschool improvement, suggests that the school principal is a primary agent of changeand a key figure in promoting or blocking change. More than anyone else it is theschool principal who can bring successful school improvement into sharp focus(Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991; Hall and Hord, 1987). This view is corroborated byfindings from the Rand Change Agent Study in the USA in the early 1970s. Findingsfrom this study revealed that one of the key figures with regard to any educationalchange is the school principal. Serving in the role of a change agent requiresawareness of the essentials of the process involved as well as involvement inimmobilizing implementation: Principals actions serve to legitimate whether a

change is to be taken seriously and to support teachers both psychologically andwith resources (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991, p. 76).

Despite the importance of the principal in initiating and maintaining supportfor change (Fullan and Miles, 1992; Hall and Hord, 1987; Sergiovanni, 1995) andthe recognition that mainstreaming is one of the more complex changes on thecurrent educational scene (Fullan and Stiegelbauer, 1991, p. 41), only fewempirical studies have been reported on principals views regarding mainstream-ing. In our literature review we found 30 research studies published in majorspecial education journals (in English) between the years 1985 and 2003 thatfocused on the beliefs, perceptions and attitudes of principals (and others) towardsinclusion.2 Overall, studies of principals attitudes regarding inclusion have

revealed mixed findings: some showed that they stressed the benefits of inclusion,while others revealed a tendency for low expectation of success of inclusive


4/16

Principals role in implementing inclusion 357

environment (e.g. Center et al., 1985). At the same time, some of the investigators(e.g. Arick and Krug, 1991) noted that principals are expected to provide majorsupport to teachers and other staff members in implementing inclusive practices inthe school. Interestingly, findings do suggest that school principals hold morepositive attitudes towards inclusion than do teachers (e.g. Forlin, 1995). Most

principals felt that inclusion could work in their schools but they were notconvinced that all the special needs students should be included (e.g. Barnet andMonda-Amaya, 1998). In studies that investigated views regarding success ofinclusion, social success was perceived as a major goal over academic success (e.g.Downing, Eichinger and Williams, 1997). As for preferred educational placement,traditional services namely, self-contained special classes and pull-out pro-grammes were generally favoured over full inclusion (e.g. Dyal, Flynt andWalker-Bennett, 1996). Findings also show that several background variables ofprincipals were related to the degree of their acceptance of students withdisabilities: (1) years of teaching experience the more experience a principal has,the less acceptance was found (e.g. Barnet and Monda-Amaya, 1998); and (2) theseverity of the disability the willingness to include decreases as the level of thedisability is more severe (e.g. Forlin, 1995). In regard to gender, it should bementioned that the majority of the principals in these studies were male.

Despite the key role principals play in instituting inclusive measures fewempirical studies have been reported on mainstreaming and the school environ-ment and school climate. Brotherson, Sheriff, Milburn and Schertz (2001), forexample, investigated the socio-political environment and inclusion of youngchildren with disabilities. They found out that a gap continues to exist betweenrecommended practices and the reality of early childhood inclusion in theschools. Salisbury and McGregor (2002) studied five elementary schools thatactively practised inclusion. They found a range of common administrativestrategies, core principles and leadership practices which were used by principalsto promote inclusive practices.

The present study adds to that knowledge base by studying school principals inIsrael, where mainstreaming practices were mandated about 15 years ago. It wasundertaken to examine the perceptions and practices of elementary schoolprincipals regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their buildings.The underlying assumptions of this study were as follows: the principal is a keychange agent in school; leadership is reflected in perceptions and practices;implementing inclusion means introducing change into school; and finally, it is theprincipals leadership that promotes the introduction of change into school.

Since the passage of the Special Education Law in 1988, in Israel,3 and up tothe school year 2001/02, the Director-General of the Ministry of Education has

issued over 20 different circulars. These publications contain regulations thatpromote an inclusive policy and outline the procedures and means for imple-mentation. As stated (Ministry of Education, Circular 58/9, May 1998) one of thecornerstones of the Israeli educational system is its commitment to respond to theeducational needs of all students and, in particular, to those with learningdifficulties, in inclusive rather than exclusive settings. It indicated that, Most ofthe exceptional students can and should be included. It also suggested thatstudents with disabilities will benefit from it socially and academically alike (p.5). As a country of immigrants, the State of Israel is home to a population fromdiverse ethnic, religious, cultural and national backgrounds. The educationalsystem is mainly public, and most classes are heterogeneous. In the 1999/2000

school year a total of 1,559,297 children were enrolled in schools under thesupervision of the Ministry of Education. As reported, 35,998 pupils (2.25 per


5/16


cent) were enrolled in Special Education (special classes within regular schools andseparate special schools), while 124,743 pupils (8 per cent) received specialeducation services in inclusive settings (Margalit, 2000). Indeed, inclusion hasbecome an integral part of school life in Israeli schools. Table 1 presents thechange in numbers of students enrolled in Special Education from the school year1989/90 to 1999/2000.

In this study, the school principal was examined as a change agent by focusingon two aspects of leadership that are imperative for implementing change: a cleareducational vision as reflected by the principals perception about inclusion andthe principals behaviours and practices that promote change. The followingspecific questions were examined:

1. What are the principals perceptions of inclusion?2. What are the principals practices regarding inclusion?

The data regarding these two questions explored here are part of a larger-scale study(Avissar, 1999, 2002) in which data were also gathered from 181 teachers. Theteachers were included in the study based on attribution theories. They were askedto provide input on principals behaviours and school practices regardinginclusion.

METHOD

Participants

The schools

The sample included all 205 elementary schools in the largest school district in Israel(there are altogether six school districts in the country). These represent a variety ofschools of different sizes and characteristics, as well as cities, towns and villages, inurban and rural areas. Of these schools, 110 participated. Examination of theresponding schools indicated that they respresented the same variety of different

sizes and characteristics. Most (76 per cent) served students age 6 to 12 years (1st to6th grades) and some (24 per cent) served students age 6 to 14 years (1st to 8th

Table 1: Numbers of students enrolled in special education from the school year

1989/90 to 1999/2000

School year Overall

no. of students

Students in

special education

Percentage of special

education students

1989/90 1,220,600 34,934 3.5

1994/95 1,429,000 38,334 3.3

1995/96 1,454,000 35,000 3.0

1996/97 ~ 1,500,000 34,600 2.9

1998/99 1,540,000 31,060 2.4

1999/2000 1,559,297 35,998 2.25


6/16


grades). The participating schools included children with a wide range of disabilities.The most prevalent disability (over 90 per cent), as reported by the participatingprincipals, were students with learning disabilities, followed by students withemotional and behaviour disabilities.

The principals

The sample of 110 elementary school principals represented 54 per cent of thesample (total 205). They responded to a Questionnaire for Principals mailed to themwith a return self-addressed stamped envelope. The procedure spanned fromDecember to March and included two rounds of telephone reminders. Of theparticipating principals, the majority (95 per cent) were females, most were veteranteachers (86 per cent with over 16 years of educational experience). Most (67 percent) were holding a principalship position for at least seven years. Over half had aBachelors degree and another 25 per cent had an MA or PhD degree. Over halfreported that they had taken in-service courses on topics such as Implementingchange, Special needs students and Inclusion. The most prevalent in-service trainingwas related to the topic of implementing change.

Instruments

Much effort was exerted in adapting and developing new instruments. The maininstrument used was a Questionnaire for Principals (QP). Its purpose was toidentify the perceptions and the inclusive practices of school principals. The QPwas comprised of three parts: Part I, The Schools Profile, aimed at gathering dataabout the school (size, staff, categories of disabilities served, etc.) and about theeducational placement alternatives available for students with disabilities; Part II,Inclusion, data gathered on inclusion as practised in the school, utilized twoinstruments: one was a scale containing 17 statements about inclusive practices;these statements were based on a content analysis of data collected in a previouspilot study. The second instrument was developed in order to assess the principalsperception of inclusion. Six different vignettes were presented (examples of two ofthese are presented in the Appendix). Vignettes are known to facilitate therevealing of hidden strata of perception and thought (Clark, 1972; Stenhouse,1979). Each vignette described a real-life case study based on a true story (nameswere changed) and was constructed of two parts the first described the problem,

and the second offered an educational/school solution. The case studies reflectedthree modes of inclusion physical, social and academic. At the end of eachvignette, three identical questions were presented: (1) what in your opinion is theexpected academic success of this student?; (2) what in your opinion is theexpected social success of this student?; and (3) in your opinion, how severe is thestudents problem? The responses were rated on a 15 Likert scale (1 representingthe lowest estimate and 5 the highest estimate). The six cases were: (1) a studentwith a hearing impairment; (2) a student whose parents constantly interfered withschool decisions; (3) a case where information from a former school was missing;(4) a learning disabled student who needed additional related services; (5) a first-grader with limited academic readiness skills; and (6) a learning disabled student

aided by assistive technology. Part III included required background informationand personal data.


7/16


RESULTS

Perceptions and Practices of Inclusion

Principals perception of inclusion

The following are the responses to the six vignettes regarding the perceived severityof the problem, the expected academic and/or social success (see Table 2).

The perceived severity of the problem: Hearing impairment was perceived as beingthe severest disability out of the six vignettes (mean 3.12). The problems of the otherstudents were ranked mean 2.32. One-way analyses of variance with repeatedmeasures yielded a significant effect between the six vignettes as follows: F(5,495) =18.53; p < 0.001. Analyses of variance with repeated measure regarding differencesin perception of the severity of the problem yielded significant difference, F(2,210)

= 28.58; p < 0.001.

Assessment of expected success: As is evident from Table 2, the means of expectedsocial success were higher than the means of expected academic success. In order toverify the significance of differences between expected social success and expectedacademic success, an analysis of variance (2 3) with repeated measures wasperformed between 3 modes of inclusion 2 (social success or academic success). Ityielded significant effect of inclusion modes, F(2,206) = 37.28; p< 0.001. Since thevignettes represented different modes of inclusion (see Table 2), differences werenoted as follows. The highest level of expected success was judged to be in academicinclusion, and in physical inclusion expected academic success is perceived higher

than in social inclusion. The means for physical inclusion and social inclusionwere M = 3.45; SD = 0.50 and M = 3.40; SD = 0.51 respectively.

Table 2: Principals perception as reflected by the vignettes

The main problem presented Inclusion

mode in the

vignette

Mean of

perceived

severity

Mean of

expected

social

success

Mean of

expected

academic

success

A hearing impaired student Social 3.12 3.74 3.05

Parents interference Social 2.99 3.74 3.05

Lack of information from former

school

Physical 2.98 3.75 3.20

A learning disabled student

needing related services

Academic 2.80 4.04 3.71

A first-grader with limited academic

readiness skills

Physical 2.79 3.75 3.20

A learning disabled student aided

by assistive technology

Academic 2.32 4.04 3.71

Total Means 2.32

SD 0.42

3.83

SD 0.47

3.31

SD 0.40


8/16


Analyses of variance with repeated measure regarding differences in judgement ofexpected academic success vs social success yielded significant differences F(1,103)= 138.91; p < 0.001.

Practices of inclusion

In the following the analysis of the responses to the 17 statements regarding modelsof inclusion and preferences regarding inclusion modes (see Tables 3 and 4) ispresented.

As can be seen from Table 3, schools implement a wide range of inclusive modelsand offer a variety of educational placement alternatives. The most prevalent onesoffered were pull-out programmes where the students are taught outside of theregular classroom (i.e. a special class; individual instruction; group instruction). Fullinclusion is also practised in about a quarter of all schools.

Modes of inclusion

Responses to the 17 statements (Part II of the QP) were analysed by examining thedifferent modes of inclusion practised. Means were extracted on a 1 to 5 scale (seeTable 4). The higher the mean reported, the more prevalent the mode of inclusion.Social inclusion presents the highest mean (4.18). Analysis of variance with repeatedmeasures was performed in order to compare the three modes (physical inclusion,academic inclusion and social inclusion). It yielded a significant effect, F(3,327) =142.46; p < 0.001, suggesting that the most prevalent practice was social inclusion

followed by academic inclusion.

Table 3: Service delivery models

The models N %age of schools

A special classroom 54 58.6Full inclusion 28 25.2

Pull-out for individual instruction 24 21.8

Pull-out for group instruction 19 17.0

Related services 15 13.4

Table 4: Inclusion modes as practised by principals

(means)

Inclusion mode practised Mean

Social inclusion 4.18

Academic inclusion 3.95

Physical inclusion 3.91


9/16


In conclusion, these results suggest that principals stress the social aspects ofinclusion over the physical and academic aspects and that they perceive that learnerswith disabilities are more likely to succeed socially, compared to their potential foracademic success.

Correlations between principals background characteristics, perceptions of inclu-sion and practices of inclusion

Background variables and perception of inclusion: Pearson correlation and one-way MANOVA yielded significant effects for principals level of education andperception of the severity of the problem. The higher the level of education of theprincipals, the more severe the problem was perceived. Regarding the practice ofinclusion, few differences were found between modes of inclusion. Where inclusionpractised was mainly physical, the correlation coefficient was r = 0.34; p < 0.001.Where inclusion practised was mainly academic, the correlation coefficient was r =0.20; p < 0.05.

Background variables and practice of inclusion: Significant correlations werefound between level of education, age, in-service training and inclusion practices inschool, as follows. Principals with a higher level of education practised more pull-out programmes (r = 0.19; p< 0.01). The older the principals, fewer full-inclusionpractices were implemented (r = 0.19; p< 0.01), while more pull-out programmeswere used (r = 0.25; p< 0.05). Finally, principals with more in-service training in thearea of inclusion practised more pull-out programmes (r = 0.24; p< 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The main goal of this study was to examine whether the school principal serves asa change agent in implementing inclusion as mandated by Special Educationlegislation. Being a change agent includes both vision (driven by perceptions) andactions taken. In this study, perceptions and practices of elementary schoolprincipals in Israel were examined. The underlying assumptions of the study were:the principal is a change agent in school; leadership is evident via perceptions andpractices; implementing inclusion means introducing change into school; and finally,it is the principals leadership that promotes this change.

Findings reported here tend to suggest that inclusive practices have been widelyimplemented in Israeli elementary schools since the passage of the 1988 law. Theresults show that principals manifest a clear vision of inclusion and their leadership

behaviours promote inclusive policies. These findings have also been corroboratedby teachers responses in the larger study (Avissar, 1999). Yet, while the principalsare supportive of inclusive practices in their schools, findings have suggested thattheir support depends on the severity of the students disability. They view thesuccess of inclusion as being social rather than academic. These findings coincidewith data reported in similar studies in other countries (Center et al., 1985; Barnetand Monda-Amaya, 1998; Mills et al., 1998; Waldron and McLeskey, 1998;Stanovich and Jordan, 1998; Praisner, 2003). One explanation for this finding maybe that the principal is removed from the classroom and therefore when a child witha disability is included academically, the principal may not perceive the child sproblem as severe as a teacher does.

Similar to findings reported by Dyal et al. (1966), we also found that principalspreferred pull-out programmes over inclusion. This is a troubling finding consider-


10/16


ing the requirements for inclusion in the Special Education Law in Israel, and theefforts exerted by the Department of Special Education within the Ministry ofEducation.

Our findings, however, tend to raise several challenging thoughts. The findingsregarding the emphasis by principals on social success rather than academic

success is problematic. Learning and academic progress are critical for success inschool and in society. From our study it is not clear whether or not the principalsdid not really believe in the academic outcome of inclusive practices. Could thisfinding be gender related? In Israel, almost all elementary school principals arewomen. As noted in the literature, women in leading positions tend to emphasizethe social aspects of management (Greenfield, 1987; Hersey and Blanchard,1988).

The correlations found between selected demographic variables and inclusivepractices have shown that former experience and tenure and seniority tend toaffect the willingness to practise inclusive measures, namely with more experienceand seniority, there is less support for inclusion. These findings are supported byfindings in similar studies (Center et al., 1985; Villa et al., 1996; Barnet andMonda-Amaya, 1998). There are several possible explanations. It may be said thatsince many of these principals have received their training and their initialeducational experience in the pre-inclusion era, they have mixed feelings about it.It may well be that former experience is associated with age and fixed ideas (byolder persons), which would explain lack of willingness to practise anythingdifferent or new.

Some limitations of the study need to be mentioned. The response rate in thisstudy was only 54 per cent. Similar rates were reported by other studies (e.g.Praisner, 2003; Barnet and Monda-Amaya, 1998) which have used mailedquestionnaires. A higher response rate may be achieved by using a differentprocedure i.e. meeting with each principal in person, a procedure though whichmay be expensive and time-consuming. More work is needed in the developmentof the research instruments. It would be useful to use the vignettes with a differentsample of principals or even a different sample of educators. Also, it isrecommended that vignettes be developed that describe older children and to usethem with principals of middle and high schools. Further studies should focus onthe examination of variables such as in-service training of principals and thestrategies principals find most useful for promoting inclusive practices. Followingstudies carried out by several researchers (Duquette and OReilly, 1988; Downinget al., 1997; Stanovich and Jordan, 1998), we feel that further comparative studiesare needed, comparing views of principals and other school personnel.

The findings of this study have several implications for practice. There is a need

for training for principals in knowledge and skills needed in inclusive settings. Asnoted by several researchers (Barnet and Monda-Amaya, 1998; Poetter, Everingtonand Jetty, 2001; Crockett, 2003; Praisner, 2003), principals training programmesdo not fully support the efforts of school leaders to promote inclusion. Inclusionaffects structures, local school policies, attitudes and practices. Therefore in-serviceprogrammes should also be implemented in order to address school personnel.Similar recommendations are offered by Vidovich and Lombardi (1998) andLombardi and Woodrum (1999), who had conducted a survey of parents, teachersand administrators perceptions in three Pennsylvania school districts in theUSA.

In order to assure that inclusive practices will reflect more fundamental types of

change in schools we need to overcome attitudinal and knowledge barriers thatcan impact the success of the inclusion of special needs students in schools.


11/16


NOTES

1. The terms mainstreaming and inclusion are used in this paper interchangeably.Both refer to the situation where children with special educational needs spend atleast part of the school day in a regular class. The term students with disabilities

refers to children of school age who have been diagnosed as having difficulties inperforming school tasks. Their educational placement, whether in an inclusive ora special educational setting, has been determined by a pedagogical committeeappointed by the Special Education Department within the Ministry ofEducation.

2. A full list of references can be obtained from the first author upon request:[email protected]

3. Three major laws govern the educational scene in Israel: Compulsory EducationLaw (1949), State Education Law (1953) and Special Education Law (1988). Thefirst states that all children between the ages of 5 (compulsory kindergarten) and15 (grade 10) inclusive, are provided with free education. The second regulates asix-day school week and determines the content and procedures of StateEducation; and the third states the purpose of special education for studentsbetween the ages of 3 and 21.

REFERENCES

ARIK, J. R. and KRUG, D. A. (1993). Special education administrators in the United States:perceptions on policy and personnel issues, The Journal of Special Education, 27, 3,348364.

AVISSAR, G. (1999). The school principal and inclusion: the role played by the principal withregard to establishing in school inclusive policies and inclusive behaviours. Unpublished

PhD thesis, University of Haifa, Faculty of Education.AVISSAR, G. (2002). Teachers discuss inclusion: the way things are, 19982000, Issues inSpecial Education and Rehabilitation, 17, 1, 1524 (in Hebrew).

BARNET, C. and MONDA-AMAYA, L. E. (1998). Principals knowledge of and attitudestoward inclusion, Remedial and Special Education, 19, 3, MayJune, 181193.

BROTHERSON, M. J., SHERIFF, G., MILBURN, P. and SCHERTZ, M. (2001). Elementaryschool principals and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programmes,Topics in Early Childhood Education, 21, 1, 3146.

CENTER, Y., WARD, J., PARMENTER, T. and NASH, R. (1985). Principals attitudestowards the integration of disabled children into regular schools, Exceptional Child, 3, 3,141161.

CLARK, O. A. (1972). Action Research and Organizational Change. London and New York:

Harper and Row.CROCKETT, J. B. (2003). Special educations role in preparing responsible leaders forinclusive schools, Remedial and Special Education, 23, 3, 157168.

CUBAN, L. (1996). Myths about changing schools and the case of special education,Remedial and Special Education, 17, 2, 7582.

CUBAN, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: redefining reform success and failure,Teachers College Record, 99, 3, 453477.

DOWNING, J. E., EICHINGER, J. and WILLIAMS, L. J. (1997). Inclusive education forstudents with severe disabilities: comparative view of principals and educators, Remedialand Special Education, 18, 1, 133142.

DUQUETTE, C. and OREILLY, R. (1988). Perceived attributes of mainstreaming: principalchange strategy and teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming, Alberta Journal ofEducational Research, 34, 4, 390402.

DYAL, A.B., FLYNT, S. W. and WALKER-BENNETT, D. (1996). Schools and inclusion:principals perceptions, Clearing House, 70, 1, 3235.


12/16


FORLIN, C. (1995). Educators beliefs about inclusive practices in western Australia, BritishJournal of Special Education, 22, 4, 179185.

FULLAN, M. (1992). Successful School Improvement: The Implementation perspective andbeyond. Buckingham: Open University Press.

FULLAN, M. and MILES, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: what works and whatdoesnt, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 10, 745752.

FULLAN, M. and STIEGELBAUER, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change.New York: Teachers College Press.

GREENFIELD, W. D. (1987). Institutional Leadership: Concepts, Issues and Controversies.Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

HALL, G. E. and HORD, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools, Facilitating the Process. NewYork: State University of New York Press.

HERSEY, P. and BLANCHARD, K. H. (1988). Management of Organizational Behavior Utilizing Human Resources (Fifth edition). New York: Prentice-Hall.

LIPSKY, D. and GARTNER, A. (1996). Inclusion, School Restructuring and the Remakingof American Society, Harvard Educational Review, 66, 4, 726793.

LOMBARDI, T. and WOODRUM, D. (1999). Inclusion: a worthy challenge for parents,teachers, psychologists and administrators. In: S. I. PFEIFFER and L. A. REDDY (Eds)

Inclusion Practices with Special Needs Students: Theory, Research and Application. NewYork: The Haworth Press, Inc., 171192.MARGALIT, M. (2000). Report of the Committee on the Implementation of Special

Education Law, Israel (in Hebrew) [online]. Available: http://www.education.gov.il/special/special.htm [13 August 2003].

MILLS, P. E., COLE, K.N., JENKINS, J. R. and DALE, P. S. (1998). Effects of differing levelsof inclusion on preschoolers with disabilities, Exceptional Children, 65, 1, 7990.

POETTER, T. S., EVERINGTON, C. and JETTY, R. (2001). Curriculum deliberation inaction: preparing school leaders for inclusion,Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 16,2, 162182.

PRAISNER, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities, Exceptional Children, 69, 2, 135145.

RIEHL, C. J. (2000). The principals role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: areview of normative, empirical and critical literature on the practice of educationaladministration, Review of Educational Research, 70, 1, 5581.

SALISBURY, C. and McGREGOR, G. (2002). The administrative climate and context ofinclusive elementary schools, Exceptional Children, 68, 2, 259274.

SEBBA, J. and AINSCOW, M. (1996). International development in inclusive schooling:mapping the issues, Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 1, 517.

SERGIOVANNI, T. J. (1995). The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (Thirdedition). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

SHILED, G. (1999). The Plan for Inclusion 1998: A Survey (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Ministryof Education, Department of Assessment and Evaluation.

STANOVICH, P. J. and JORDAN, A. (1998). Canadian teachers and principals beliefsabout inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms,Elementary School Journal, 98, 3, 221238.

STENHOUSE, L. (1979). Case study in comparative education: particularity and general-ization, Comparative Education, 15, 1, 511.

VIDOVICH, D. and LOMBARDI, T. P. (1998). Parents, teachers and administratorsperceptions of the process of inclusion, Educational Research Quarterly, 21, 30,4152.

VILLA, R. A., THOUSAND, J. S., MEYERS, H. and NEVIN, A. (1996). Teacher andadministrator perceptions of heterogeneous education, Exceptional Children, 63, 1,2945.

WALDRON, N. L. and McLESKEY, J. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school programmeon students with mild and severe learning disabilities, Exceptional Children, 64,395405.


13/16


APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

A

Dear principal,

Following is a questionnaire about the issue of inclusion in your school. This is acomplex issue and a variety of opinions are being heard about it from policy makers,educators and laymen. Your cooperation will enable us to obtain a more precise

picture of the actual state of affairs in the schools.

Part II: Inclusion

Following you will find 17 statements that describe the many different steps a schoolprincipal can take to promote inclusion. The daily hardships that are part of theschool principal routine and other factors may interfere with the desire to act.

Read each statement carefully and indicate to what degree you have taken suchaction, on the following scale:

Not at all A little Somewhat Much Very much

1 2 3 4 5


Action taken

1. Establishing

learning centres

for students who

study in the regular

class but have

difficulties in basic

skills

1 2 3 4 5

2. Encouraging social

activities that

promote

interactions with

regular students

during the school

day

1 2 3 4 5

3. Preparing a yearly

plan that takes into

account the

necessary

curricularadaptations

1 2 3 4 5


14/16



4. Assessing the

students who are

having difficulties inorder to enable

curricular

adaptations

1 2 3 4 5

5. Taking part in IEP

sessions

1 2 3 4 5

6. Establishing a

support system for

school staff

1 2 3 4 5

7. Creating a

differential

curriculum

1 2 3 4 5

8. Reorganizing the

timetable so that

special education

teachers can work

within the regular

class

1 2 3 4 5

9. Encouraging the

teachers to

practise inclusive

measures

1 2 3 4 5

10. Organizing akindergarten class

to prepare SN

students for 1st

grade

1 2 3 4 5

11. Establishing a

close follow-up

system for SN

students

1 2 3 4 5

12. Reorganizing the

special education

resources topromote inclusion

1 2 3 4 5

13. Opening a

remedial teaching

centre for SN

students

1 2 3 4 5

14. Making adaptations

in the Language

Arts curriculum

1 2 3 4 5

15. Making the

remedial teaching

centre available toall the students

1 2 3 4 5


15/16



16. Including all SN

students in regular

classes

1 2 3 4 5

17. Taking actions to

reduce

stigmatization of

SN students

1 2 3 4 5

Following are 2 vignettes (out of the 6 which appeared in the originalquestionnaire), describing various cases of SN students in elementary school. Readeach vignette carefully and indicate to what extent you think the student canadvance academically and socially.


1 2 3 4 5

A. Yaniv came to our school at the beginning of the school year and was enrolledin the 5th grade. Before coming to the school, he lived with his family in a smalltown. The policy of the school he attended there was to discourage stigma andencourage the weak students. As a result, they were cautious about referringstudents to special education and declared that they were doing much to include allstudents. Yaniv attended a regular class with his peers. At the end of the 2nd grade,the students were tested in reading and in mathematics. Yaniv had very lowachievements. During the 3rd and 4th grades, he was allotted assistance for 2 hoursa week. Nevertheless, his grades were average or below but there was no mention ofhis academic difficulties on his school records that were transferred to us.

B. Yotam is 9 years and in the 3rd grade. He is a student with a hearingimpairment but can lip-read. He is expected to be like any other student in his class.Sometimes he is slow in responding to the teacher. He still has a hard time reading,his writing is slow and his language is poor. When he is in a good mood, his peersinclude him in their activities. When he is disruptive, his peers stay away from him.In order to better understand him the students have learned to look directly at himwhen he speaks. Before Yotam joined this class, the teacher taught the studentsabout hearing impairment and its implications on daily functioning.

In your opinion . . . A little Somewhat Much Very much

1. How well will the

student doacademically?

1 2 3 4 5


16/16


In your opinion . . . A little Somewhat Much Very much

2. How well will the

student do

socially?

1 2 3 4 5

3. How severe is the

students problem?

1 2 3 4 5

avissar et al paper

Documents