A systematic process of gathering and storing data was adhered to throughout the research process and ensured the confidentiality of data was maintained (Mutch, 2005). In accordance with UoW regulations all non-identifying data such as interview transcripts used for publication will be securely kept, long enough to allow for academic examination, challenge or peer review, normally a period of at least five years (UoW, 2008). Identifying data, such as consent forms and digital
70
recordings will be stored securely in a filing cabinet with a single key held by the researcher. Digital copies have been stored on a password protected laptop and backed up on a password protected external hard-drive.
Summary
While social research involves the systematic and scholarly examination of problems which concern people within their social contexts, educational research applies the same principles to problems encountered in teaching and learning within the formal educational framework. Much educational research has ceased to be open-ended pure research, instead becoming in nature more evaluative of given initiatives and examining relationships between school and society. It examines how power can be reproduced through education, what ideological interest this serves, and the examination of how schools perpetuate or reduce inequality (Donmoyer, 2006).
Education as an activity undertaken for public good, requires decision-making to be informed through research which balances a wide range of perspectives and options, some contrasting, and some incommensurable with others, but
appropriate for particular situations and points in time (Donmoyer, 2006). Most researchers now appear to embrace an intellectual framework of thinking which reflects either constructivist or interpretive paradigms. However, Dillard (2006) suggests that the educational research community are struggling spiritually and intellectually with the proliferation of research discourses and a methodological revolution which has resulted in a range of paradigms operating simultaneously. These engender fundamentally different ways of thinking about both teaching and policy making and provide different options for research (Donmoyer, 2006).
Qualitative research examines teaching and learning through an ‘interactionism’ lens, which assumes that humans act on the basis of meanings they attribute to a situation. It is socially negotiated and re-negotiated in response to student voice and action. Also, Donmoyer (2006) reports that quantitative methods are less
71
successful than qualitative research in application to the complex study of human behaviour evident in the context of classrooms.
Semi-structured interviews provide an effective and flexible research method for collecting rich textual data (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Cachia & Millward, 2011; Clough & Nutbrown, 2002; Reissman, 2005). Through a reductive process of data analysis, I was able to record, simplify and explain findings, providing knowledge which can be built on by other researchers. This transmittable property is critical in extending knowledge and making decisions (Tuckman & Harper, 2012).
72
Chapter Four: Presentation of Research Findings.
Introduction
In this chapter, findings are presented using a thematic narrative approach. Data analysis began on a case by case basis in order to establish emerging themes. The data was organized into categories and reviewed repeatedly to establish
commonalities, inconsistencies and contradictions. As referred to by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), the process of categorising data was somewhat challenging as the semi-structured format produced a flow of conversation which differed between respondents, resulting in data which was initially jumbled. However, when interrogating the data, it became obvious that there were certain recurring themes.
There has been an emphasis on building a picture of six experienced principals in practice, to reveal how they cater for the multiple learning requirements of students with SEN thus addressing the research question. The findings provide a context in which to present key elements of leadership behaviours which have influenced organizational structure, school ethos and school culture, and therefore the decisions principals make concerning students with LD.
While seven emerging themes have been identified for ease of presentation, they are in fact interwoven. The themes include: fluidity of student needs and a reluctance to categorise and label students; addressing special needs as a specific element of effective leadership; building capacity for change and development; data collection systems are essential for informing decisions; moral purpose and social justice, key drivers in inclusive practice; the best learning environment for students with special needs – withdrawal or full inclusion; and limited resourcing requires focused decision making. Some of the sub-headings appear somewhat declamatory, but these are statements made by participants and are used
73
intentionally to remain true to the voice of participants. Quotations have been selected that best capture the essence of themes.
An important determinant appeared to be the culture of the school. However, this is not identified as a theme because it is all pervasive and influences all areas. Different schools clearly possess different organisational cultures, as one would expect. However, all schools demonstrated a culture of high trust rather than a need for micro-management. Data indicated that the organisational culture of each school was guided by a set of values, which was accepting of difference and appeared to determine the way in which people in their schools responded to the broad spectrum of SEN. An achievement culture of high expectation was present in all schools, although the level of achievement varied between schools
according to the demographics of the student population.
The data did not include explicit reference to organisational culture, with only two of seven participants using the term ‘moral purpose’. The respondents did not notice it because it is essentially the emic culture in which there are immersed. However, there is nonetheless a culture in each school that clearly supports learners with special needs. Beyond the matter of culture, the data suggest other findings which I have reported under seven categories.
4.1. Fluidity of student need and a reluctance to categorise and
label students
Participants indicated a shared understanding of ‘special educational needs’. However, the participants displayed different degrees of detail and explicitness in the categorisation of students’ learning issues. The interviews also revealed a need for flexibility in special education programming in schools, given the fluid nature of student need and the high levels of transience experienced by some schools.
74
4.1.1. Lack of standardisation in defining special needs
All participants shared an understanding that the requirements of students with SEN would normally fall outside those of their mainstream peers, and that they would frequently be achieving well below the National Standards, with the exception of students in their first year of school. The following statements provide examples of how participants perceived SEN:
“Those students who have learning or behavioural difficulties that require support, to enable them to fully and successfully participate in the teaching and learning programmes in the classroom” (Principal A).
“Children who need significant adjustment in order to access learning at the same expected level as their peers” (Principal D).
Although respondents acknowledged that GAT students fell within the realm of special needs, as demonstrated in the following statement, not all included this group in their initial definition.
“That realm of learning that ‘normal’ teaching and learning practices don’t fully meet [at] either end of the spectrum” (Principal F).
Two participants described clearly structured systems for categorising students with SEN, such as that used by principal E.
“We categorise ranging from Category 5, Moderate special needs –short term, Category 4, Moderate to high, Category 3, very high – short term, and (Category 2) moderate to high, and then (Category 1) very high needs. Under those categories they (the staff) have got to say which category they believe they fit in”.
75
“I had to actually sit down and think about it. The only ones that I consider you know…like our ORRS kiddie. When they (senior leaders) came in, I said can you give me the names of our special needs kiddies please? We actually don’t and I don’t think we think about them as special needs either” (Principal D).
Regardless of categorisation, each participant had a clearly structured method for identifying students who require special programming, as demonstrated in the following statement by Principal A:
“Oh I think we have a clear structure…. Quite often a teacher will say to us, you know this Mary Lou is just not keeping up with everybody else and so that creates a signal, an alarm bell and then we do some
investigation” (Principal A).
It was clear that some teachers struggled to distinguish between SEN and what fell within the ‘normal range of educational needs’ a teacher would expect to find within a class of students.
“My understanding of special needs is anything that is really high, high ORRs and high health needs that require on-going support…anything that is mild to
moderate is just part of our every-day learning programme” (Principal C).
4.1.2. Labelling of students is unnecessary and inappropriate
There was a unanimous feeling that labelling students as having ‘special needs’ was unnecessary and inappropriate. It was felt that singling them out as ‘special’ inferred that they were different and did not ‘belong’.
“We probably don’t look (at it) quite like that, we are probably a bit more holistic in how we look at kids, and we just say they have a learning need or a behaviour need or a both need. We don’t really single kids out” (Principal C).
76
“They would end up being labelled…labelled, bullied, whereas the kids go that is just whoever.… It is just normal to the kids isn’t it, we haven’t said you can’t be in this class and you can’t do this.… Lots of our students perhaps could be classed as special needs in a different school. None of our kids are any the wiser, they just know that that person is that person” (Principal C).
“I don’t look at a kid and think you have special needs you know. It is just another student in our school, who might need help with this, that or the other thing” (SENCO).
“Instead of labelling them, I think it is about celebrating those successes” (Principal A).
4.1.3. Fluidity of special educational needs
The term fluidity was used by a number of the participants, and in order to be true to their voice, I have made use of this term in discussing findings. Participants use it in the context of schools’ SEN being changeable and uncertain. All
participants identified a need for intervention programmes which were responsive to the flexible nature of student need within the school. This took into
consideration students’ responses to interventions and fluidity among groups particularly in those schools with a highly transient roll. Participants described the ‘special needs’ in their schools as:
“Very fluid and very much governed by needs of students who walk through the door - it never stays the same for long” (SENCO).
“Lots of our kids might start off as mild, and when you dig down it becomes moderate or some of them will stay high because maybe their behaviour gets in the way. So you might start as a high, but once you start digging around and start to do things, it might drop down to a moderate or a mild” (Principal C).
77
4.1.4. Social issues challenge special education programmes
Respondents identified a variety of reasons for students making slow progress. Alongside more traditionally recognised special needs such as LD and auditory, visual and physical impairment, principals identified an increase in ELL, priority learners, high health needs, poor attendance, transience, children who lacked experiences and opportunities in their home environment and students with
behavioural needs who were in need of special intervention (ERO, 2012, August). In addition several principals noted an increase in the number of students
exhibiting signs of more complex learning difficulties as a result of Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Principals agreed that social issues needed addressing before learning programmes could become effective
“The current way of thinking about education is there is a high degree of accountability for society’s problems coming back to school. Well society’s problems could be resolved if the parents were responsible…. We are a reactive system … although we try to be proactive through our education of children, and things like that, we invariably end up picking up the pieces” (Principal F).
“It is a learning need, through lack of experience …. It is because they have lacked the experiences at home, so it is not that they are not teachable, they just haven’t had the opportunities, so we don’t see that as being a disability or a special need” (Principal C).
“If we don’t fix the behaviour, then their learning’s not there.… Because if you are not coping socially, you are not usually coping with learning, and if you are not coping with learning that usually impacts on your social behaviour, so the two kind of go together” (Principal C).
78
Although social issues challenged special education programmes, respondents concurred that organisational structure and effective leadership practice were critical in catering for students’ multiple learning requirements.