Expert answer:Write 120 words for each article

Expert answer:Cited in APA style format. The topic of Teacher Leadership. An analytical annotated bibliography “not only summarizes the material, it analyzes what is being said. It examines the strengths and weaknesses of what is presented as well as describing the applicability of the author’s conclusions to the research being conducted”.I need to do like this example.Sahlberg, P. (2013, October). Teachers as Leaders in Finland. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 36-40.This article is important because it describes another country’s perspective on education. It is important for the best teachers to know more than just American education because having a broader concept of education helps them to determine with more accuracy what the best educational practices are. The United States is not the leading country in literacy, graduation rates, or other educational statistics, so it is enlightening to look at the practices and policies of countries with more successful statistics than the United States. Being aware of what teaching strategies are used in other countries can help Americans to improve our own schools.
article_1_leader.pdf

article_2_leader.pdf

article_3_leader.pdf

article_4_leader.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

DOI: 10.1515/jtes-2016-0014
Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 53ñ65, 2016
Teachersí Perceptions of the Relationship between
Inclusive Education and Distributed Leadership
in two Primary Schools in Slovakia and
New South Wales (Australia)
Jozef Mikolci
Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
Derrick Armstrong
University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji
Ilektra Spandagou
The University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract
The academic literature on the practice of inclusive education presents diverse and at
times contradictory perspectives in how it is connected to practices of distributed leadership. Depending on the approach, on the one hand, inclusive educational practice may
enable distributed school leadership, while on the other hand, it may allow for hierarchical
management styles if staff members do not implement inclusive practices. This paper
explores how school staff members perceive and understand the relationship between
practices of inclusive education and distributed leadership in two public primary schools:
one in New South Wales (Australia) and one in Slovakia. These two schools were identified by external informants as good practice examples of inclusive education. Using
qualitative research methods based on interviews, this paper identifies two main understandings of this relationship. First, although distributed leadership may encourage the
goals of inclusive education, it may in some circumstances also hinder their achievement.
Second, distributed leadership can be constructed as an indispensable component of
inclusive education, and this has implications for how the target groups of inclusive
education are conceptualised. This paper also discusses the wider social and political
contexts of the two primary schools and how in each case context significantly constrained and shaped understandings and practices of inclusion and distributed leadership
in the practice of teachers and principals.
Keywords: inclusive education, distributed leadership, policy, practice
Brought to you by | EP Ipswich
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/10/17 10:09 AM
54
Jozef Mikolci, Derrick Armstrong and Ilektra Spandagou
Introduction
In many countries there continues to be an increase in the number of students
assessed as having special educational needs (SEN), including Australia (Graham &
Jahnukainen, 2011) and Slovakia (fiovinec & Seidler, 2010). Despite, the global rhetoric
of inclusive education, fuelled primarily by the Organisation of United Nations and its
international policy initiatives, such as UNESCOís Salamanca Statement on Principles,
Policy and Practice in Special Needs Education (Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou,
2010), many practitioners and academics have questioned the extent to which inclusive
education practices occur in schools. It is important to clarify inclusive education as
discussed in this paper. Many authors have made the point that there isnít a commonly
accepted definition of inclusion (Armstrong et al., 2010). While the authors of the paper
support a broad understanding of inclusion relevant to the reform of educational systems
and schools, it needs to be acknowledged that in the two educational systems examined
in this study, inclusive education tends to be focused on students with special educational
needs and/or disabilities. This is also the case of the literature on inclusive education
discussed in the paper.
Regardless of what is seen as the focus of inclusion, there is consensus that practising
inclusion is not only about teaching and adjusting the curriculum, but that it is also a
whole-school matter very closely related to how leadership is organised and practised
in the school (e.g., Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Ward et al., 2015). That is also to say that
inclusive education calls for the redirection of the whole school culture, especially for
the change to be sustainable (BÁrziÚa, 2010). In this sense, ësustainableí in the context
of ëinclusive educationí does not only mean to make a change in school climate, policies
and practices or the whole state school system towards inclusion, which remains to be
in place in a long run (Ballard, 2013; Gill, Sherman & Sherman, 2009; McMaster,
2015; Sindelar, Shearer, Yendol-Hoppey & Liebert, 2006), but also to provide basis for
responsibility, activism, critical inquiry and social equality as such (Kairiene & Sprindziunas, 2016; Nelson, Cassell & Arnold, 2013; Starks, 2013; ZaÌe, 2010).
If considering the literature, which focuses on inclusive education at a school level,
the form of school leadership is often scrutinised. Besides investigating the role of principals in bringing about inclusion in their schools (e.g., Cobb, 2015; Riehl, 2000; Wood,
Spandagou & Evans, 2012) and their attitudes towards inclusive education (e.g., Graham
& Spandagou, 2011), several authors have insisted that in looking at school inclusion
the meaning of school leadership must be extended beyond the role and influence of the
principal. For instance, the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011, p. 99) presents
an ëinclusive approach to leadershipí as one of the indicators that should be adopted
when considering the development of inclusive policies and practices. In the context of
the ëIndexí this indicator involves a form of collaborative leadership amongst the school
community, in contrast to what can be called an autocratic approach to leadership. In
the former case, knowledge-sharing takes place amongst staff, and staff members are
able to contribute to decision-making processes and their input is respected.
Developing a similar line of argument, Angelides, Antoniou, and Charalambous
(2010) portray principals as the ones who should empower others. Kugelmass and
Ainscow (2004) go even further in this respect. While calling for the ëpositionalí leaders
(the principals) to support ëdistributed leadership and participative decision-makingí,
they argue that principals should be ëautocraticí when introducing the values and beliefs
central to inclusive education (pp. 139ñ140). In a more recent study, Ainscow and
Brought to you by | EP Ipswich
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/10/17 10:09 AM
Teachersí Perceptions of the Relationship between Inclusive Education and..
55
Sandill (2010) advocate for ëdistributed leadershipí (p. 405) but they still portray principals as the only ones responsible for challenging the hierarchical structures in schools
whilst promoting inclusive values and encouraging other school stakeholders to participate in leadership functions. These studies gloss over the relationship between distributed
leadership and inclusive education and particularly the question of whether or not the
former is a condition of the latter being genuinely achieved in a school setting.
However, the extensive research on teachersí attitudes towards inclusive education
shows that teachers often feel that they do not have sufficient time, skills and training
to support their attempts to introduce inclusive educational practices in their classrooms
and schools (Rajovic & Jovanovic, 2013). In principle teachers may be supportive of
inclusion, in these studies understood as the education of students with SEN or disabilities
together with other students in regular classrooms of regular schools. However they
also frequently express rather negative attitudes toward the inclusion of students with
more severe disabilities or students with behaviour difficulties because of concerns about
the impact upon the education of other children in the class (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002; de Boer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2011). Therefore, in some circumstances, distributing
school leadership may work against the broader interests of school inclusion because it
places too much responsibility in the hands of those who lack the skills and experience
to lead whole school change. In this case, consensus between the school community,
and especially staff, may support a status quo that is derived from a fear of the consequences of change and an inability to see beyond the present situation. It may simply
reflect the absence of transformational leadership and the latter it might be argued is
more significant to bringing about inclusive practices in schools than a vaguely democratic
notion of distributive leadership. In other words, in the situation where school stakeholders have reserved attitudes towards inclusion, distributed leadership may result in
obstacles against inclusion.
In response to these concerns, it might be argued that they rest upon a very limited
view of the concept and dynamics of distributed leadership. In the academic field of
school leadership and administration, the concept of distributed leadership has been
defined in very different ways (Bolden, 2011). It can be understood as a purely descriptive
term (Spillane, 2010) or normative as a potential strategy for school improvement (Harris,
2013; Woods & Gronn, 2009). As in the case of inclusive education, several theorists of
distributed leadership also critically scrutinise the socio-political context and point out
the impact of power relations on the application of the concept in the everyday practices
of schools (Hall, Gunter, & Bragg, 2013; Hartley, 2010; Lumby, 2013). Neoliberal
discourses of managerialism, efficiency, and individualism in the educational policies of
countries like Australia (Welch, 2010) and Slovakia (KaËák & Pupala, 2012) may
create an insurmountable barrier to the practice of distributed leadership (Hall et al.,
2013; Hatcher, 2005; Leo & Barton, 2006; Ward et al., 2015) and inclusive education
(Armstrong, Armstrong & Spandagou, 2011; Ballard, 2013; Hardy & Woodcock, 2015;
Slee, 2013). These wider socio-political factors are often not spoken of in discussions of
sustainability of collaboration, distribution of responsibilities, involvement in decisionmaking processes and inclusion of all students in schools.
In this article we explore the relationship between teacher understanding of inclusive
education practices and distributed leadership as presented by staff members from two
public primary schools ñ one in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and one in Slovakia.
The schools were chosen on the recommendation of senior education administrators in
Brought to you by | EP Ipswich
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/10/17 10:09 AM
56
Jozef Mikolci, Derrick Armstrong and Ilektra Spandagou
each location as exemplifying good practice examples of inclusive education. The article
considers the proposition that inclusive education requires distributed leadership in
school management if inclusion is to be enhanced and properly supported (e.g., Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Booth & Ainscow, 2011; Kugelmass & Ainscow, 2004). Our
study aims to provide an insight into how these two concepts relate to each other, and
to contribute to the theorisation of this relationship.
Methods
The two public primary schools were selected for this study through ëpurposeful
samplingí (Schensul, 2012, p. 84). A number of academics, non-governmental organisations and public administration institutions dealing with issues of inclusive education
were contacted to identify ëgood practiceí examples of inclusive public primary schools
in Slovakia and NSW. The research itself makes no judgment about whether or not these
schools did exemplify good practice. The intention was rather to examine the practice
of distributed leadership and inclusive education and the features we wished to observe
were judged more likely to be evident in schools that were generally considered by
knowledgeable insiders to be exemplars of ëgood practiceí.
The NSW school had approximately 100 students, four regular classrooms (Kindergarten, Year 1ñ2, Year 3ñ4, Year 5ñ6), five full-time teachers and one teaching principal
and it was located in urban area. The Slovak school had approximately 250 students,
nine regular classrooms (one classroom per year from Year 1 to Year 9) and sixteen
special classrooms only for students diagnosed with SEN or disability. The school had
approximately 30 full-time teachers, one teaching principal and one teaching deputy
principal and it was also located in the urban area. Neither of these schools is ëtypicalí
of their setting and there were, of course, significant differences between these schools
in terms of size, structure, and the policy contexts of operation. These factors were not
unimportant in respect of the comparison of practices between them. However, the
intention was not to examine differences and similarities in these respects or to generalise
from one school to all schools in each context. Rather, we were concerned with the
inter-relationship between distributed leadership and inclusive education in the practice
of teachers and principals.
After staff members of both schools expressed their consent to participate in the
study, the first author spent four months in each school (from mid-July till mid-November
2011 in the NSW school and from mid-November 2011 until end of March 2012 in the
Slovak school) as a volunteer teacherís aide (two days per week). This article focuses on
the data from interviews with staff members of the two schools. In the NSW school all
staff members (the principal, four classroom teachers, an English as a Second Language
(ESL) teacher and a non-teaching staff member) were interviewed, while in the Slovak
school a selection of staff members (the principal, deputy principal, special education
teacher and five classroom teachers) participated in the semi-structured individual
interviews. The interviewees were asked three main questions and prompted to elaborate
on them in detail: 1) how they understand the term ëinclusive educationí and how it is
practised in their school; 2) how they understand the term ëdistributed leadershipí; and
3) the relationship between these two terms.
Brought to you by | EP Ipswich
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/10/17 10:09 AM
Teachersí Perceptions of the Relationship between Inclusive Education and..
57
Results
Understanding the Concepts of Inclusive Education and Distributed Leadership
When being asked about their understanding of the concept of ëinclusive educationí,
staff members in both schools consistently constructed it as a set of goals or aims to be
fulfilled. These goals included (listed from the most frequent answers to the least):
1) enhancing educational results and skills of all students; 2) developing all studentsí
unique potential; 3) developing good and ethical behaviour in all students; 4) enabling
all students to experience happiness, belonging, and self-worth; 5) enabling them to
actively participate.
By contrast, staff members in both schools understood ëdistributed leadershipí as a
set of processes. These processes involved primarily (listed from the most frequent answers
to the least): 1) collaboration among all staff members; 2) staff equal involvement in
decisionmaking processes; 3) taking on responsibilities and projects by all individual
staff members. Thus, while inclusive education was constructed as a set of goals targeting
exclusively students, distributed leadership related exclusively to processes involving
staff members.
Understanding Distributed Leadership as a Means to Inclusive Education
After being asked about their understanding of the concepts of ëinclusive educationí
and ëdistributed leadershipí, the interviewees were also questioned about how they
understood the relationship between the two concepts. The majority of staff members
in both schools (five out of seven in the NSW school; six out of eight in the Slovak
school) perceived distributed leadership as a means to practise inclusive education. They
considered the main processes of distributed leadership as conducive and beneficial to
the practice of inclusive education.
For instance, teachers in the NSW school particularly strongly associated distributed
leadership with the process of performing leadership responsibilities and leading various
school projects and subsequently connected this manifestation of distributed leadership
with what they saw as the practice of inclusive education.
The more people [staff members], I think, that youíve got involved in projects
and programs for our kids, it stands to reason that the more you are going to
be able to diversify the opportunities. So I think it works for the kids, because
you are getting increased expertise and access for the children. (Principal,
NSW school)
I think from a purely pragmatic point of view it is too much for one person to
handle. I also think that itís important as, if we believe in inclusive practice,
then we believe in providing students with opportunities that extend beyond
the classroom. And in order for those opportunities to be realised and to be
realised across the school, it involves us working together as teachers to provide
those opportunities. (Staff member, NSW school)
Besides associating the concept of distributed leadership with performing various
leadership responsibilities, staff members in both schools understood it as ësharingí
various responsibilities and ëcollaboratingí. The deputy principal of the Slovak school
expressed a view that collaboration among teachers and between staff members and
Brought to you by | EP Ipswich
Authenticated
Download Date | 1/10/17 10:09 AM
58
Jozef Mikolci, Derrick Armstrong and Ilektra Spandagou
parents plays a crucial part in attempting to achieve the inclusive goal of enabling
students to ëthriveí or ëprosperí. In this way, the interviewee alluded to the goal of
enhancing studentsí educational outcomes and skills.
It is also about when they [teachers] see, for instance, that a child is thriving
when working in this particular way, they share it amongst each other. And
in our school the work would not be possible without mutual collaboration,
because what we do here is really teamwork. That special education teacher,
parent, teacher, there really must be collaboration. We see that with children,
where there is no collaboration, they do not prosper. (Deputy principal, Slovak
school)
A NSW teacher described how collaboration between staff supported the achievement of inclusive education goals.
I am convinced that we discuss issues of inclusive education to a great extent
here. We usually do so at professional development meetings, but also during
informal break times. At staff meetings we discuss individual cases of students
so all teachers are informed about various students, even if we are not part of
their classrooms. In this sense all teachers act as a resource for each other.
They give particular advice to each other by saying, for instance, ëYou can try
this or thatí. (Staff member, NSW school)
Last but not least, staff members, who associated the concept of distributed leadership primarily with the process of involvement in decision-making, also saw it as connected to inclusive education. For example the school principal argued that
You [as a principal] simply cannot direct and encompass everything, you
have no chance to encompass what happens in the classroom. … Because
when you sit in the principalís office, you cannot decide about, for instance,
what the teacher should reduce or expand the lesson content for a particular
student or if she/he should be sent for [assessment]. I just canít imagine that.
Or how to adjust her/his plans. It must be in the jurisdiction of that teacher
and dependent on her/his decisions whether the child should be sent for an
assessment or whether that child should be transferred to [a special classroom].
(Principal, Slovak school)
This principal aptly pointed out that decisions, which extended beyond everyday
teaching situations, such as placing or transferring a child in a special or regular classroom, have to be made by a range of school stakeholders acting in collaboration with
one another.
Constructing distrib …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades