Education concepts and foundations

Principal Leadership in Instruction

The inclusion of disabled individuals in the general social, educational and occupational contexts which are welcoming to mainstream populations is a goal which appears to parallel the progressive orientation of our culture. Modern education shows evidence of the trend toward change, facilitating the increasing integration of individuals who are physically, emotionally or learning disabled into public and private schools. This trend has been a decidedly positive one, with legal, economic and educational strategies coming together to present an effective and productive change in the way that we contend with disabilities. Inclusive practice, which submits that educational institutions should be considered responsible for helping to assimilate disabled students into mainstream population classroom settings and for providing them with the needed support to succeed therein, presents a number of challenges and chances to educators with respect to special education needs. The capacity for educators to handle the unique challenges and to seize the singular opportunities found in inclusion settings will depend significantly on the orientation of leadership within the school. This is something that I learned from the interview with Principal Skinner, who presides over the inclusive Springton Elementary School.

His perspective largely corresponds to the findings from our literature, which denote that the principal must take a decisive stand in favor of the resources, training and facilities to handle students of special needs. In order for curriculum and instruction to reflect the highest standards in inclusion education, Principal Skinner suggested that the principal must be willing to share his leadership with those that have special training in the area. To this point, the leadership of the school administration or principalship is often looked upon as the sole determining factoring the curricular standardization and approach which pervades a learning institution. As our interview and Graseck's (2005) article reveal, the perceived singularity of this leadership is both a product of a fundamental misapprehension of the opportunities for in-school leadership and may be a contributor to a negative educational experience all around.

At the heart of Graseck's model for administrative leadership is the notion that too much vested authority in this position will tend to create what he refers to as a 'wall,' which reinforces an improper notion that administration exists above principalship and teaching on a hierarchical scale. A perception which may be shared by both parties, it is likely to cause an improperly aloof administrative approach to leadership which is more dominated by bureaucracy than a true and inquiring interest in the improvement of education. Equally as destructive, such an attitude imperils the security of the teaching faculty, which tends to respond to being undervalued with resentment, occupational antipathy and diminished morale. This points to the relevance of the principal's role as an organizational leader with responsibilities to orienting with enthusiasm and effectiveness a staff of qualified and capable individuals. Especially in the inclusion context, where staff members will have particular insight as well as a particular opportunity where given proper academic and creative freedom, Principal Skinner indicates that this mode of distributed leadership is necessary. Indeed, Principal Skinner makes the case that one would have to be particularly attuned to the practices and conventions of special education in order to effectively delegate charges to educators and advocates.