Metales pesados

Commonalities in the behaviour of principals, revealed a close relationship between effective leadership decision making and allocation of highly contested funding, time and personnel resources. All respondents sought to achieve maximum benefit for students and the school in relation to money spent. In particular, data showed respondents were focused on the strategic allocation of funds which supported the academic learning, social growth and independent functioning of students with SEN, as noted in the literature (Branson et al., 2011;

141

Davis et al., 2005; Fullan, 2002; Marshall & Oliva, 2006; Rice, 2010; Strike, 2007).

In order to provide extra support for an increasing number of students with complex learning disabilities, ELL, behavioural and social needs, while keeping within budgetary constrictions, respondents were forced to utilise teacher aides instead of skilled teachers and specialist help. Respondents suggested however, that the support from teacher aides did not achieve the accelerated progress required by the large number of students needing specialist intervention. Data showed that short intense intervention by knowledgeable teachers or specialist support staff was more desirable than investing in prolonged intervention by less skilled support staff.

Legislation by MOE (2013c), NCLB (2001) and SENDA (2001) governed many funding decisions. However, respondents reported that reduced Government funding and increased cost of resourcing meant that schools were unable to commit to fully realising the potential of every student. Respondents faced the dilemma of ensuring equitable educational opportunity for students with SEN, as well as issues of fairness and justice as students compete for scarce resources, as noted by Strike (2007). A particular challenge for respondents was the ethical decisions required, where funding the requirements of SEN students meant other students received reduced resourcing. They agreed with Strike (2007) that this could be construed as reverse discrimination. Nevertheless, respondents considered this reflected the nature of an inclusive school in which all were

deemed equal, even though they were different in many respects, a view shared by Strike (2007). Respondents concluded that the aim of inclusion was to give each child a fair chance to succeed, as recommended by MOE (2013c).

Due to scarce funding, respondents were forced to decide which student

programmes were to be supported over others, and which students were to receive intervention. Data showed that this often demanded decision about a student’s learning capacity to make accelerated progress through individualised intervention such as reading recovery. Respondents agreed that in some circumstances this

142

was construed as a poor financial investment for the school. Respondents also referred to isolated incidents in which they based decisions on a student’s level of functioning given their current life circumstances, as noted by Strike (2007). Data showed that at times, investing resources elsewhere had the biggest impact on a greater number of students. For example small group intervention using a GEP and allocation of resources to students with similar need, allowed educators to address behavioural issues and speech and communication, numeracy and literacy needs more effectively, as foreshadowed by Mitchell et al. (2010).

Findings also revealed that the timing and strength of PLD and allocation of special educational resources was critical, as noted by Whitehead et al. (2013). SENCOs, having attended meetings (IEP, team or staff) generally approached principals with a special education plan and request for finance for training or resources. One respondent reported that applications for support were not necessarily because of the seriousness of the case, but sometimes because it was one they may not know enough about. Data showed that decisions were made collaboratively as to whether funding could be budgeted for within school, or whether student need was sufficient to require referral to RTLB or MOE special education for targeted support (MOE, 2004, 2013c, 2013e).

Although most discussion was centred on meeting the requirements of students with LD, some respondents suggested resources should be made available for investment in GAT programmes. Data showed some participants to be particularly strong advocates of GAT programming. This resonates with Collins’(2001) recommendation to “put your best people on your biggest

opportunity, not your biggest problem” (p. 58). Findings suggested that investing in GAT students could potentially produce citizens who would make the greater economic contribution to their nation, a view which aligns with the Government’s Neo-Liberal economic policy. Nevertheless, most participants questioned the ethics of investing in extension opportunities while other students were in severe need of help to address behaviour management issues, increase their self-

sufficiency and to develop relationships and personal dignity, as indicated by Strike (2007). Participants appeared to agree that while investment in GAT

143

students was a worthy goal, immediate intervention for students with severe need would benefit the whole community long term, rather than being seen as a drain on resources.

Respondents agreed with Strike (2007) that systematic tracking of student progress and engagement in regular dialogue with their SENCOs triggered the allocation of resources according to programme quality and effectiveness. Data was silent on how leaders measured the long term effects of intervention, and at what point they would gauge resource expenditure as imposing an unreasonable burden on the school or on those students who received less so another could receive more. However, all participants were adamant that the politics of schools must not detract from ensuring that school resourcing is consistent with student need, a view shared by Hattie (2009, January 13). Nevertheless, respondents confirmed that students with SEN required a disproportionately high level of resourcing to produce adequate educational gains, as measured against National Standards (MOE, 2013b, 2013d).

Summary

This chapter has provided discussion of research findings which reflects congruence between the voices of experienced principals and literature in most areas, while highlighting some divergence in others. Discussion has also noted any silences in data.

Having established that organisational culture differs between schools, this chapter has discussed seven key themes in relation to individualized leadership practice. Participants’ explanations of how they cater for the multiple learning requirements of children with SEN, shows that inclusive education does not

demand that all instruction take place in the student’s home classroom all the time. There are times when it is more appropriate to provide services in settings other than the classroom, a view shared by Lipsky & Gartner (1997).

144

Participants indicated absolute unanimity on the question of the essential value and functionality of intervention in the first year of schooling. They described systems for gathering and tracking data in order to develop and sustain evidence- based differentiated learning programmes. Child centred programmes were flexible enough to accommodate the diversity of learning needs and lifted students above the level of currently perceived limitations, as suggested by Babione and Shea, (2005).

Leaders confirmed that increased social issues, leadership decisions and teacher practice influences SEN programmes and student learning, a view shared by Carpenter (2010a), MOE (2013c) and ERO (2012). Participants identified a culture of distributed authority and responsibility, accompanied by high levels of trust that empowered educators to develop leadership capacity and take ownership for sustained improvement in school-wide teaching practice. They discussed leadership practice in relation to social justice and morality of special education, and the ethics of decision-making concerning the provision of equitable learning opportunities. This resonates with literature that identifies moral purpose and the ethics of moral obligation, responsibility and social justice as being most

influential in guiding leadership practice, defining inclusive learning communities and informing responsible behaviour and decisions (Branson, 2009, October 19). School-wide values programmes were identified as influential over leaders’ practice and beliefs and that of their educators’ and students’ (Glathorn et al., 2009).

Participants were united in their concern over an inept government regime which has devolved all responsibility for special education to school leaders. This has led to increased stress levels as a result of reduced resourcing, restructuring of special support agencies and tightening of criteria for accessing specialist support (MOE, 2000c, 2002b, 2013c). All leaders were unanimous in their moral

commitment to providing students with equitable access to a rich core curriculum and quality instruction, rather than being controlled by a standards-driven

145

In almost all instances research findings were congruent with literature. However, one of the critical areas of divergence concerned the assumption that the diverse environment of inclusive classrooms provided all children with the best setting in which to grow (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997). Another concerned the continued use of traditional assessment methods for determining student eligibility for additional support despite literature questioning their effectiveness. However, participants confirmed that these methods were supported with alternative assessment measures. Further divergence concerned literature which claimed a lack of cultural sensitivity, whereas participants described strong whanau partnerships (Cullen & Bevan-Brown, 1999; Talay-Ongan, 2001). The final area of divergence concerned changes in national education policy which, contrary to

recommendations by the NCLB policy, had forced participants to make

resourcing decisions based on investments which gained the greatest good for the greatest number of students. This led to some students being selected for

intervention based on their capacity to make accelerated progress.

There were silences in data concerning public accountability and sanctions imposed as a result of reporting poor school performance results as addressed by Roaf (2004) and Lashley (2007). Data was also notably silent concerning the long term effects of intervention, and how participants determined at what point

resource expenditure became a burden on the school and those students receiving less in order to support students with SEN (Cullen & Bevan-Brown, 1999).

146

Chapter Six: Conclusion

Introduction

This research inquiry sought to identify ‘how principals cater for the multiple learning requirements of students with special education needs’. The inquiry set out to examine the leadership behaviour which influenced the processes and therefore the decisions that were made. It sought to identify innovative ways in which a group of experienced Waikato primary principals dealt with the demand for scarce resources and the pressure to provide equitable learning opportunities that maximised educational potential for their students. Particular focus was on academic learning, social growth and independent functioning of students with SEN. This research inquiry not only offered a chance for principals to reflect on their own leadership practice with regard to special education, but it is anticipated that this will inspire improved quality of inclusive practice in primary schools.