See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/27464120

A case study of inclusive school development: A journey of learning

Article in International Journal of Inclusive Education · April 2004

DOI: 10.1080/1360311032000158024 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

120 16,152

2 authors, including:

Suzanne Carrington
Queensland University of Technology
106 PUBLICATIONS 3,236 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Suzanne Carrington on 21 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the authors version of a paper later published as:
Carrington, S., Robinson, R. (2004) A case study of inclusive school development: a journey
of learning. The International Journal of Inclusive Education 8(2):141-153.

Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis

A case study of inclusive school development: a journey of learning

SUZANNE CARRINGTON and ROBYN ROBINSON
School of Learning and Professional Studies, Queensland University of Technology,
(Originally received 29 July 2002; accepted in final form 25 July 2003)

A global recognition of students' rights requires school organizations to recognize, value and
provide for diversity. The move towards more inclusive schooling in Queensland, Australia,
requires schools to address professional development on two levels: reculturing of the school to
reflect inclusive beliefs and values; and enhancement of teacher skills and knowledge to better
address the learning needs of all students. The recently developed Index for Inclusion 2000) is one
resource that can facilitate the process of professional development and facilitate change in school
culture, policy and teaching practice. The process used incorporates a critical friend and peer
mentoring model within an action research framework, which together provide benefits for all
involved in the professional development process. The journey of learning incorporating the
phases of the Index for Inclusion are reported along with discussions for future directions.

Inclusion: process or product?

Inclusion has developed from a long history of educational innovation and represents school
improvement on many levels for all students (Skrtic et al. 1996). Above all, inclusion is about a
philosophy of acceptance where all people are valued and treated with respect. Indeed, it is argued
that inclusion is unending, so that there is no such thing as an inclusive school (Ballard 1995).
According to this notion, all schools can continue to develop greater inclusion, whatever their current
state (Sebba and Ainscow 1996). Recent understandings of inclusive schooling have described a
process that fosters participation by all pupils and staff as a base for future school development
(Bines 2000). This is because the introduction of inclusive policies and the ever increasingly diverse
learning needs have forced school staff to change their approach to organization of students, models
of support, teaching staff roles, and approaches to teaching and the curriculum. Because inclusion
can be understood as a process rather than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there are strong
links to school and staff development and processes for managing change.

Managing change in education

The rate of technological change and the rapid movement of Australia into the global community will
continue to increase the complexity of schooling, thereby challenging schools to be more effective in
this new environment. Indeed, schools could be described as the shock absorbers and buffers for
societal change (Luke 2000). Challenges and new directions for education in Queensland, Australia,
are expressed in the document 2010 Queensland State Education (Education Queensland 1999). It
describes a consensus around the need for schooling not only to focus just on employment, but also
to enhance social cohesion through a sense of community and cohesion. The prime educational goal
is to increase student achievement levels.
Previously in Australia, teachers and schools have experienced imposed change in the form of
systems initiatives and departmental mandates. This `everyone must love it or else' dictum (Hughes
and Anderas 1995: 30) resulted in superficial reforms at best and more frequently in passive
resistance and alienation. Whereas in truth it is the thoughts, words, deeds and hearts of members of
the school community that create or stifle change. It has been widely recognized that `effective
change occurs when it happens from within' (Hughes and Anderas 1995: 29) and that an
organization's culture shapes the energy of the workplace to respond to change and reach goals
(Voutas 1999).
 In Queensland, the responsibility for professional development, once a system responsibility, has
been devolved mostly to school organizations. Principals have the role to manage the pace and path
of change in schools: to manage the anxiety and stress that can accompany change. Because it is
recognized that human minds need stability (Schein 1992), the change process needs to involve
school leaders creating a climate of collaborative effort and ownership of the change process.
However, to bring about effective change, school leaders and teachers must be actively involved in
the change process together. This will determine the capacity of the school to become more inclusive.
An inclusive school culture engages the school community in collaborative forms of learning and is
underpinned by democratic planning processes.

Professional development model

Recognizing that teachers are the most critical actors in school reform (Hattam 2000), the model of
professional development discussed in this paper attempts to enhance teacher learning through
reflective practice and professional dialogue, with peers and a critical friend, whilst also addressing
whole school reculturing. The term `critical friend' can be described as someone outside the school
who has been trusted to provide guidance and honest feedback. The first author, a university lecturer
in inclusive education, took on the role of `critical friend', researcher, and was the coordinator of data
collection and analysis in the project. The partnership was truly collaborative with the university
lecturer located in the primary school one day per week over a school year and considered by many
in the school community as a member of staff. The second author worked as the support teacher for
students with learning difficulties in the school and coordinated the project along with fulfilling the
roles of peer mentor and researcher. The model incorporated staff meeting activities, group meetings
for teachers (facilitated by the critical friend), professional dialogue with peers, collaborative planning
and teaching with the critical friend and staff, as well as individual teacher planning and reflection
time.
The model of professional development described here acknowledges the needs of individuals
as well as the needs of the learning organization. The following features have been considered:
• Recognition and response to individual requests for increased knowledge and skills to meet
diverse learning needs: Teachers are wary of the `swinging pendulum' syndrome where it
seems quick-fix innovations are periodically created and forced upon those at the bottom of
the chain of command (Hughes and Andreas 1995). Teachers need to be in control of their
own learning and development so professional development strategies have been designed
to meet the diverse needs of a group of adult learners.
• Training, access to information and support must all be sustained, as `staff development is
most powerful when it is conducted long enough and often enough to assure progressive
gains in confidence, knowledge and skills' (Little, cited in Phillips and McCullough 1990: 301):
As change is a process not an event (Hord et al. 1987), members of organizations have to be
trained and continuously retrained throughout their career (Johnson and Johnson 1994: 113).
• The professional development process involves collaborative partnerships and peer
mentoring: Gersten and Brengelman (1996) argued that professional development activities
must include opportunities for discussion with colleagues. Peer collaboration will contribute to
the development of an inclusive school culture, which is committed to change, and creating
better learning opportunities for all students (Carrington and Elkins 2002). The sharing of
successes and difficulties in the application of new strategies facilitates learning about the
underlying concepts. Peer collaboration and mentoring reduces isolation creating more open
and critical feedback, encourages risk taking and diversity, provides more and continuous
opportunities to learn, and reduces workload (Voutas 1999).
• Teachers are encouraged to consider collective school beliefs, values and knowledge and the
influence of these on school organization, policy and practice: `A school's philosophy is the
foundation stone for quality teaching and learning in a quality environment', and Voutas
(1999:16) warned that without a shared vision a school has little or no direction. This shared
vision contributes to the culture of a school. Opportunities for school staff to reflect and
possibly reconstruct beliefs and values related to student rights and education will affect
how teachers think about schooling, their students, the curriculum and their own teaching
approach (Carrington 1999). Increased collegiality and cooperation between staff result in
organizations where all participants are recognized as having knowledge to share with
others.
 Index for inclusion

The Index for Inclusion is designed to support schools in a process of inclusive school
development and was developed in the UK at the Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education (CSIE)
in collaboration with the University of Manchester and University of Christ Church College
Canterbury (Booth et al. 2000). The Index provides a framework for school review and
development on three dimensions: school culture, policy and practice. `It is important to remember
that the dimensions overlap: developments in school cultures require the formulation of policies and
the implementation of practice' (Booth et al. 2000:10). The Index for Inclusion enabled teachers
and the school community to become involved in the process of school development and change.
Each dimension of the Index is divided into a number of indicators. `The indicators represent
statements of aspiration against which existing arrangements can be compared in order to set
priorities for development' (Booth et al. 2000: 11). Following each indicator, a number of questions
can be used to encourage thinking about various issues related to inclusive education. The intent is
threefold: (1) to establish existing knowledge, and understandings about culture, policy and practice
in the school, (2) to consider priority areas for school and teacher development, and (3) to manage
and document the process of change. There are five phases in the Index process:

• Phase 1: Starting the Index process.

• Phase 2: Finding out about the school.
• Phase 3: Producing and inclusive development plan.
• Phase 4: Implementing developments.
• Phase 5: Reviewing the Index process.

Description of this study

This paper reports on the use of the Index for Inclusion in a collaborative project between
Queensland University of Technology and a large primary school. The first author (from
Queensland University of Technology) worked as a critical friend, peer mentor and researcher in
the school. She worked in the school for one day in most school weeks of the school year. The
second author worked as the learning support teacher in the school, peer mentor and researcher. The
role of critical friend included leadership in whole staff in-service sessions, mentoring of individual
teachers, provision of information and resources, and involvement in planning and development
meetings. In contrast, the peer mentoring relationship requires a more equal relationship between
colleagues in which both participants have knowledge and skills of value.

Setting
The school was selected for two reasons. First, staff expressed an interest in teacher and school
development for improving learning and participation for all students in the school. Second, the
researchers and school were able collaboratively to access funding for the project. The school is one
of three state primary schools located in one of the fastest growing areas of Australia. Located in
Queensland, the suburb has been rated in the top 10% of the most disadvantaged areas in
Queensland. A lack of public transport, community services and employment opportunities have been
identified as the major problems facing the area. Consequently, the school in this community
addresses a range of complex social and community issues. Students attend the school from
Preschool to Year 7. The school incorporates one of the largest Special Education Units (for students
with significant disabilities) in the state as well as a Special Education Development Centre (for
students with significant disabilities from birth to preschool age) and 2 Preschool Units. The school
enrolment is 730 students with a further 100 children attending the Preschool.

Participants
A dual approach was taken to professional development in the school: staff meeting activities for the
whole staff, combined with a small group approach (voluntary) where personal professional
development needs were met in a more intensive way. Data were collected in staff meetings, which
included 48 teaching staff and three administrators, including the principal. The small group of
teachers who participated in the study included two preschool teachers, two part-time grade two
teachers who were working with one group of students, and one teacher from the Special Education
Unit.
Data collection
The ongoing conversations and practices associated with the collection and review of data in the
Index process can be described as action research. Action research is a cyclical process in which
action alternates with critical reflection (McNiff et al. 1996). This model acknowledges that new issues
may emerge and develop during the study and mirrors the complexity of working in school
environments.
Data collection methods included focus group interviews, surveys and reflective journals (first
and second authors). Data analysis was both inductive and deductive in nature so that themes and
categories that emerged were compared with descriptive survey data. The analysis was further
influenced by the literature that informed the research so that there was constant comparison across
and between categories and phenomena (Strauss and Corbin 1994). Interviews were transcribed and
imported into Q.S.R. NUD*IST (Non-numerical, Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching and
Theorising) (Richards and Richards 1994) for coding. Reflective journals were also imported into
Q.S.R. NUD*IST Survey data were collated and presented descriptively. This type of research design
can assist in the `construction of meanings of inclusion and creating the practices that are said to be
inclusive' (Clough and Barton 1995: 12). The case study data reported here were collected within the
context of a larger research project. Only selected data have been reported.

Journey of learning

Users of the Index are encouraged to adapt and create their own ways of using the materials in the
process of school and professional development (Booth et al. 2000). This section will document the
process and stages of the professional development journey for the study participants and
researchers. Data collection, findings, reflections and actions will be documented for each stage of
the process. Consideration has been given to the key aspects of the Index process: identification of
professional development needs, development of a plan of action to meet those needs, and
implementation and review of the process.
The journey of professional growth and learning described here began with a series of meetings
at the school (Phase 1: Starting the Index process). The first author, second author, deputy principal
and principal established a collaborative relationship aimed to address the professional development
needs in the school. Individuals in this group familiarized themselves with the Index and the
associated process stages and discussed the school and community.

Reflection:

We have found that different people in the school have joined the coordinating group for discussion
and planning at different points in time. For example, the school guidance officer was involved in
planning staff group activities related to staff and student interactions. The coordinating group
understood that it wasn't always possible for a larger group of people to meet. Parents and
students have not been involved yet in any formal way in planning associated with the Index,
however the coordinating group believe that there will be time later for greater collaboration in the
school community. (first author)

This second phase of the process (Finding out about the school) was used to collect information
about the school to help set priorities for development. This stage is an important part of the process
to ensure ownership and commitment to the programme of school and staff development.

A full day of meetings took place between the critical friend (first author) and the whole staff on a
pupil free day. Staff were organized into three groups of year levels and teaching areas. The first
author facilitated each group with the following focus: (1) short presentation of a model for
professional development incorporating the Index and including plan for whole staff activities, and
small group voluntary activities; (2) identification of barriers in the school that impede student learning
and participation; and (3) brainstorming of focus areas for staff and personal development in the
school. Each session was introduced by the principal who established links to current Queensland
State Education priorities and initiatives. Each group worked with the critical friend for 1.5 hours. Data
were collected from each group in the form of a written record of the barriers for learning and priorities
for professional development. An example of data indicating priorities for professional development
issues are presented in table 1.
 Table 1. Examples of priorities for professional development

Description of Priorities for professional development Link to Index

group of teachers dimension issues

A: Preschool and need to refocus on time spent in preventative behaviour management practice
Years 1-3 strategies rather than too much time spent on reactive behaviour culture
management strategies
strategies for development of social skills to increase on-task behaviour, policy
anger/frustration management, communication skills practice

classroom organization strategies for group work behaviour and practice

independent learning behaviour
The data from all groups were collated and (1) presented to the school administration team for
future action, and (2) used to inform the development of whole school and focus group professional
development activities. Identified needs from each group were targeted as priority for whole school
development and influenced the choice of Index activities used in staff meetings.
The coordinating group used the collated data to develop a plan for whole school development
and focus group professional development. Priorities for whole staff development activities were: (1)
collection of views concerning staff perceptions of the school culture, and (2) discussion and sharing
of views concerning policies and practices in the school specifically relating to staff-staff interactions,
staff-student interactions and student-student interactions.
Priorities for focus group development were taken from the priorities for each group such as those
reported in table 1. Participation in the focus groups was voluntary and teachers were grouped in
similar year level groups with the addition of some specialist staff. This paper briefly reports on the
data collected for the first focus group (Preschool, Grades 1-3, and special education staff) and
focused on supporting classroom teachers in the creation of an inclusive classroom environment in
which learning and participation are maximised. Figure 1 outlines the process of Phases 1 and 2 of
the Index followed by Phases 3 (plan), 4 (implement) and 5 (review).
Phases 1-3 involved a cyclic and spiral process incorporating the phases of planning,
implementation and review for whole staff and the focus group teacher development. This process
reflects the action research model (McNiff et al. 1996) and is linked to the critical friend and peer-
mentoring roles and the journey of learning experienced by all. The first focus group session ran over
5 weeks concurrently with the planning and implementation of whole staff professional activities. The
authors in their roles of critical friend, and peer mentors to each other and to the teachers, were
continually learning from each other and growing professionally. The processes of planning,
implementation and review were constantly swirling in cycles and spirals in the complex environment
of school.

Phases 1 and 2

Figure 1. Cyclic and spiral process incorporating the five phases of the Index process.

Focus group professional development

Focus groups were voluntary and individual teachers controlled the pace and specific path of their
learning because they were provided with opportunities to access information and develop a degree
of control and ownership over their learning. There were five teachers in focus group one. The model
incorporated group time facilitated by the critical friend, professional dialogue and sharing with peers,
visits and collaborative planning with the critical friend and with each other as peer mentors, and
individual planning and reflection time. Some relief from teaching duties was provided for teachers at
different stages in the process. Data were collected in each stage.

Reflection: Being in control of their own learning provided an initial hiccup for members of the first
focus group. After volunteering, teachers needed to adjust to the notion that they were directing
their own learning-that they were not being told what or how or when to learn. Open
communication was fostered and members were strongly encouraged to feel comfortable and
express opinions and thoughts on issues. (second author)

A small sample of interview data demonstrates the perceived advantages in using the Index
processes that encouraged collaboration and participation in the teacher development process
incorporating the role of the critical friend.

As well as these chats, it's been really wonderful just having the one-on-one talks with you (critical
friend). I think I tend to be stuck on the same ideas and strategies because of what worked last
year even though it hasn't been working this year. (special education teacher)

I have really valued the time to be able to share and chat and be able to talk to you (critical friend)
individually, to be able to access things that I wouldn't normally know about or get to learn about. I
think sometimes you can feel quite isolated, like sometimes just the chance to be able to talk
to people and be able to say: `Hey, yeah, look you're not the only one with hassles and
whatever'. (preschool teacher)

Whole staff development activities

Whole staff development activities were designed for staff meetings during the year. These have
been described as Index Activities that were designed by the present authors. The activities
included adapted questions from the indicators in each dimension. In this section, two examples of
Index activities are presented with the associated data to inform ongoing development and learning
for the school staff.

Index activity one

The critical friend presented a seminar to the staff entitled `Enhancing Learning and Participation' in
the first term of the school year. This presentation (1) reviewed some of the barriers to learning that
were identified in Phase Two of the Index process; (2) provided an opportunity for staff to discuss
their understandings about inclusion; (3) provided information about the Index process; (4)
suggested some ideas that can be used in the classroom to provide learning programs for a diverse
group of students; and (5) collected data from the whole staff on their views about the current
school culture.
Two formats were used to collect data from staff about their views on the culture of the school.
A short survey was constructed using a selection of questions that were modified from the Index,
Dimension A: Creating Inclusive Cultures; Indicator 2.2: Establishing Inclusive Values. The
questions were selected and modified. The aim was twofold: to acquaint all staff with the Index
process, and to gather data about staff values related to inclusive schooling. Results are presented
in table 2.
The values related to supportive school community and collaboration with staff received
agreement from a high percentage of staff. For example, 84% of staff indicated that the building of
a supportive school community is as important in the school as raising academic achievement. Two
other questions received a high percentage of agreement from the staff: 65% of staff believed there
was a strong value in the school to minimize inequalities of opportunity and 78% of staff believed
that staff shared a wish to accept students from the local community irrespective of background.
These data supported staff commitment to inclusive school development in the school.
Table 2. Data from Index activity one, survey

Indicator a 2.2 Establishing inclusive values Indicator a 2.2 Establishing Yes

Not sure (%)
No
inclusive values (%) (%)

Is the building of a supportive school community seen to be as important as

84 9 7
raising academic achievement at XXX School?

Is the fostering of collaboration between staff seen to be important at XXX School? 87 9 4

Is there an emphasis on valuing difference rather than conforming to what is

42 49 9
normal at XXX School?

Is there a shared value to minimize inequalities of opportunity at XXX School? 64 27 9

Do staff share a wish to accept students from the local community, irrespective of
78 11 11
background?

The second part of the activity involved teachers writing a sentence or phrase to describe the
culture of the school. The aim was to establish shared understandings between staff. Examples of
data collected in this part of Index Activity One are reported in table 3. Data generally support the
inclusive values reported in table 2. However, there is also evidence of the challenge and stress
involved for these teachers in their roles as teachers with such a diverse group of students.

Table 3. Selected data, staff understanding of the school culture

Examples of staff understandings of the school culture

A school that has a diverse community-social, emotional, economic, etc.-that strives to cater to the
needs of our students (as much as financial setbacks may undermine our efforts)

Tolerant of differences; mindful of children's needs (e.g. background-culture, family situation); special
needs; serious commitment to intervention; positive environment (e.g. many awards for positive
behaviour)

Children of this school are very challenging and often unappreciative, but if the staff are supportive
and understanding of one another we may make a difference to some of them

Index activity two

This activity was planned by the coordinating group in response to high levels of staff stress related
to managing student behaviour in the school. This activity aimed to address the need for staff to
share understandings and collaboratively identify priority areas for development in staff-staff inter-
actions, staff-student interactions and student-student interactions in relation to behaviour
management issues. The activity required staff to work in groups of four to five teachers from
across the school. To facilitate this process, staff were provided with a handout for the session with
different coloured sticker dots in the corner. Groups were then arranged according to colour. This
process ensured that groups were mixed from across the school to facilitate discussion and share
the diversity in understandings across the school.
Table 4. Index activity two data for group four

Behaviour management: policy and practice Yes Not sure No

Question 1:
Are there meetings involving staff, students, parents/carers and others that 99
attempt to deal with problems flexibly before they escalate?

Question 2:
Are responses to the behaviour of students always to do with education and 9 9
rehabilitation rather than punishment?
Question 3:
Is there a shared view of what constitutes bullying between staff, 99
parents/carers and students?
Question 4:
Can the behaviour of students be related to their need for power? 99

Table 5. Group discussion data for group four

Question Comments
number

1 We have processes that aim to deal with the problems involving staff, students, and parents/carers
before they escalate (Note: these are not always successful and depend on individual parties'
attitudes.)
Yes, these occur regarding learning needs, physical and emotional needs, and behaviour
management. These meetings occur at different levels (e.g. parent-teacher) or can include outside
agencies where appropriate
Yes, unanimous response. The focus of behaviour management is to do with education and
2 rehabilitation. Not punishment-consequence of behaviour choices. We have a problem with
`always' in the question. We TRY to make consequences educational in rehabilitation
No, there is not a shared view of what constitutes bullying, i.e. parents/ teachers/students varied
3 views.
No, but there is a shared view as far as staff is concerned but this does not always extend to
parents and children
4 Some behaviour could be related to power. Not all behaviour is related to power-emotional
response. Some is attention-seeking, etc. Child-to-child could be a power response-only model of
power they have encountered.
Yes, students have problems because of either a feeling of too much or too little power or control

There were two groups working on each area and each group was provided with four to six
questions taken from selected indicators in the Index and asked to place each question in an A4
document holder to indicate yes, no or not sure. The document holders were clipped together with
the recorded notes taken from the group (one member was a scribe). This process ensured the
data from each group were comprehensive and collated for analysis. An example of data collected
in this activity is shown in tables 4 and 5. The data in table 4 indicate that both groups of teachers
agreed with questions 1 and 4, and both groups disagreed with question 3. The examples of the
discussion for each question are recorded in table 5. The comments provide more depth to the
decisions made by the groups of teachers. For instance, in question two, the second group chose to
vote `not sure' because they did not `like' the meaning of the word `always'.

Summary and future directions

The data presented here indicate that the Index for Inclusion provides a useful framework for
professional development related to inclusive schooling. Development in this project occurred on
two fronts: at a whole school level through an analysis and revisiting of the beliefs and values
underpinning policy and practice at the school and at an individual level through the enhancement
of teachers' knowledge and skills. The Index process clearly encourages communication and
collaborative problem-solving between members of a school community. One of the authors of the
Index, Mel Ainscow, has previously spoken about the need for collaboration and development of a
common language with which teachers can talk to one another about teaching practice. The Index
process has been enhanced by the professional development model cultivated in this collaborative
university and school partnership which engaged teachers in professional dialogue at a number of
levels. The combination of the roles of critical friend, peer mentors and use of the action research
model of cycles and spirals (McNiff et al. 1996) has ensured a depth of learning for all involved in
the process.
The findings from this case study are significant in the ongoing development of models of
review and development of school culture, policy and practice for more inclusive schooling.
Importantly, the focus on curriculum, pedagogy and staff pupil relationships have contributed to the
extension of teachers' practices in teaching, learning and assessment to meet the needs of diverse
learners. In addition, the enhancement and maintenance of a culture of innovation and high teacher
morale is an ongoing aim of the second stage of this study. This ongoing process will ensure that
this model for inclusive school development addresses school culture, policy and practice through
collaborative reflection and learning that will result in improved outcomes for teachers and students.

Acknowledgement
The paper was adapted from a paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in
Education, Freemantle, Western Australia, December 2001.

References
Ballard, K. (1995) Inclusion, paradigms, power and participation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson and A. Milward
(eds), Towards Inclusive Schools (London: David Fulton).
Bines, H. (2000) Inclusive standards: current developments in policy for special educational needs in
England and Wales. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 21-33.
Booth, T, Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion
(Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education).
Carrington, S. (1999) Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 3, 257-268.
Carrington, S. and Elkins, J. (2002) Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in
secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17, 51-57.
Clough, P. and Barton, L. (1995) Introduction: self and the research act. In P. Clough and L. Barton
(eds), Making Difficulties: Research and the Construction of Special Education Needs
(London: Paul Chapman), pp. 1-15.
Education Queensland (1999) 2010 Queensland State Education (Brisbane: Education Queensland).
Gersten, R. and Brengelman, S. U. (1996) The quest to translate research into classroom practice.
Remedial and Special Education, 17, 67-74.
Hattam, R. (2000) Remembering teachers' learning in the devolving school. Professional Magazine,
17, 21-23.
Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W L., Huling-Austin, L. and Hall, G. E. (1987) Taking Charge of Change
(Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
Hughes, H. W. and Anderas, J. (1995) How to manage change. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
24, 28-31.
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, F. P. (1994) Team Development, Team Training. Joining Together
(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).
Luke, A. (2000) Report of the Literacy Review for Qld State Schools (Brisbane: Education
Queensland).
McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. (1996) You and Your Action Research Project (London:
Hyde).
Phillips, V. and McCullough, L. (1990) Consultation-based programming: instituting the collaborative
ethic in schools. Exceptional Children, 56, 291-304.
Richards, T. and Richards, L. (1994) QSR NUD*IST (California: Alladin Systems).
Schein, E. (1992) Organisational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
 Sebba, J. and Ainscow, M. (1996) International developments in inclusive schooling: mapping the
issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 5-I 8.
Skrtic, T. M., Sailor, W and Gee, K. (1996) Voice, collaboration, and inclusion. Remedial and Special
Education, 17, 142-157.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1994) Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin and Y.
S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks: Sage), pp. 273-285.
Voutas, M. (1999) Reculturing in a school context: embracing the change process effectively.
Practicing Administrator, 3, 14-17, 43-44.

View publication stats