Utilizing the Critical Inclusive Praxis: The voyage of five selected school principals in building inclusive school cultures

Culture

With reference to culture, the principals stressed their belief that collaboration and communication were two of the major factors in building an inclusive school culture. They established that they supported and encouraged a collaborative culture that promoted collective decision-making in their schools and the larger community. The principals agreed that the development of strong partnerships with parents, in conjunction with a collaborative school team, were fundamental to the successful implementation of change initiatives within a positive school culture:

The school culture is a very collaborative culture. The expectation is that we make team decisions, and the community expects to be part of the decision-making in a way that is different from other schools. It is a good thing; it is not negative. I think the biggest thing I have done at this particular school is promoted and supported and actually expected decision-making to be collaborative and with a team. I practice that myself. (Jane)

There is a lot of partnership with the parents: We include parents in our building to volunteer, and so they are in the library, they are in the resource room, they are in the classroom, and they are in the hallways. They are constantly involved, so it is really that everyone is giving it that family atmosphere. (Mike)

These principals maintained open communication lines between and among staff, students, parents and the community in their efforts to meet the needs of the students in their schools. Some of the principals built SOS systems to communicate and work with groups and help problem-solve major concerns within the school:

Every adult in the building has that icon, they just click on the student that they want, that they have that concern about; it is like raising your hand [in that your message] automatically goes to the case manager. The case manager goes in with a very tight timeline and like that day, [or] if they are away, [then] the next day, the case manager will talk to the teacher, gather information, like a triage type of approach. All those structures are getting everyone involved and bringing clarity to what their roles are and bringing values to their piece. The SOS was there to ensure that we have accurate information . . . ; that is part of what we really espouse to our staff, but culturally, it is to also create that inclusiveness, to bring everybody on the same page. (Chris)

These findings support the research of Schein (1992), who indicated that through a myriad of daily interactions, careful reflections and conscious efforts, school leaders can shape positive school cultures. The findings lead to an understanding that teachers and students are more likely to succeed in schools with cultures that encourage hard work, commitment to value-based ends, attention to problem-solving and a focus on learning for all students (Peterson & Deal, 2009, p. 11). In this kind of environment, Peterson and Deal (2009) describe that the culture of the school reinforces collaborative problem-solving, planning and data-driven decision-making (p. 12). Affirming this position, these school principals promoted an inclusive school culture through partnerships that were based on constructive relationships.

Each principal agreed that building strong and positive relationships was crucial to creating an inclusive school culture. The principals encouraged staff and students to be positive in their schools and to relate with one another with care and affection. Staff members were encouraged to demonstrate constructive attitudes with students in and out of the building and to provide support for them. The principals believed that this kind of positive, supportive and collaborative environment built an inclusive culture:

It starts with a lot of smiling. It starts with being happy! It is very hard to be positive around others who are negative. And I believe it is incredibly important for the principal and school administration to not just be positive but to be seen to be positive. Let’s just start simply with smiling. (James)

We ask our teachers to greet their kids, to be there in their classroom when the kids arrive and not have the kids come in to a locked door and you show up later and let them in. It shouldn’t work that way. We want our kids to know that they are welcome . . . We try to make sure that the building is a positive place to be. (Mike)

These findings also support the research of Deal and Kennedy (2000), who indicated two characteristics of a strong culture: (a) as a system of informal rules, culture spells out how people are to behave and (b) as well, culture may enable people to feel better about what they do, and thus, they are more likely to work harder (p. 17). The principals utilized a positive relationship-building approach to encourage staff, students and parents to take responsibility for supporting one another in the school community.

The principals in this study are attuned to a vision of their schools that emphasized that everyone takes responsibility for the students under their care. The literature provides support for these findings, as various authors noted that a school’s culture directs the focus of daily behaviour and increases attention to what is considered important and valued (Deal & Kennedy, 2000; Peterson & Deal, 2009). The school culture influences and shapes the way that teachers, students and administrators think, feel and act (Peterson & Deal, 2009). The principals promoted an environment where everyone was supported to be accountable for one another. They also created various initiatives that provided for students’ needs, such as the Seven Habits initiative that was developed in the school that allowed teachers and students to take responsibility for themselves:

We are seeing already the beginning of a major change where students are taking on more responsibility for themselves, the teachers are taking full responsibility for themselves, and they are really learning to work together, basically living the Seven Habits. We have seen a huge drop in absenteeism; it’s been hugely successful but throughout that we have been talking to kids saying, ‘You don’t get to blame your parents if you don’t come to school; you don’t get to blame the school: you are responsible for coming to school’. At the same time, we are taking responsibility for it too, because it’s a joint effort. If I had to describe the school culture now, I will say it’s really quickly developing into a culture of leadership while taking responsibility for oneself. (James)

There is a breakfast program; there is a lunch program; and there is lots of programming that is offered to students here for all the needs, all the concerns, and all the challenges that they have. So, I mean there is certainly a high degree of care in this building based on the programs that are offered. (Chris)

These change initiatives developed a culture of commitment and a high degree of care for students in the school. Peterson and Deal (2009) indicated that ‘school culture impacts what people pay attention to (focus), how they identify with the school (commitment), how hard they work (motivation), and the degree to which they achieve their goals (productivity)’ (p. 10). The principals attended to the vision of the school and supported everyone to achieve the school goals.

The principals thus stressed their belief that they are charged with the responsibility of creating an atmosphere that is supportive of everyone and of crafting an environment where everyone can thrive. Chris integrated the sustainable renewal process in his work in order to build an inclusive school culture. The process moved the state of affairs of the school culturally from the existing form to an improved state for current and future needs. This process involved five steps: culture versus structures, response to intervention, strategic abandonment, growth versus fixed mindset and form follows function. As noted by Chris, culture requires good structures, but structures will not lead to re-culturing unless there is a good change process. These concepts were used by the principal to develop an environment where everyone feels valued, safe, respected and included.

The principals established that the leadership of the principal was a key factor in building a positive and inclusive school culture. They utilized different leadership approaches depending on the situation in order to serve the needs of everyone in the school. The principals all agreed that they could not have achieved a strong, positive and inclusive school culture without utilizing a servant leadership approach, modelling positive behaviours and paying attention to the concerns of everyone. The principals supported the research that contends that strong, positive school cultures do not just happen; they are built and shaped by those who work in and attend the school and by the formal and informal leaders who encourage and reinforce values and traditions (Peterson & Deal, 2009). Mike and Blaine explain:

We really take a mindset of servant, so we are there to serve. We are professional educators, but we are there to serve, so that goes further than what anyone can imagine, just because you are constantly putting yourself in a position of humility. Humility is not self-deprecation or anything demeaning, but it is a relational disposition towards the person beside you and the child that you are teaching, and the authority above you as well. (Mike)

Modeling is huge; I have to put that as number one. So, here is an example; I mean, I have been told several times since I have been here, that it is only been a month of school and how impressed people are with me knowing people’s names. And I mean the biggest work that I have [yet] to do is learning all kids’ names, and I am not sure that is achievable or not, but if you want to build positive culture in a building, everybody is referred to by name, everybody knows that they are a person, and everybody feels that belong as a result of that. That makes me think about this school; I mean I recognize that it is big, but that should not be an excuse for not going to that effort to make sure that we know each other here. (Blaine)

Huber (2004) also indicated that school leadership serves as an appropriate standard for staff and students by modelling desired dispositions and actions and enhancing others’ beliefs about their own capacities and their enthusiasm for change (p. 5). These principals displayed sincerity and communicated their dispositions in building inclusive cultures. Peterson and Deal’s (2009) work supported this finding, as they explained that sturdy, positive cultures are rich in purpose and abundant in tradition and meaning and that they are supported and nourished by school principals who deliberately and consciously reinforce the best that the school and its staff can become (p. 8). The principals utilized these approaches to leadership to build and sustain a strong, positive and inclusive school culture that supported the needed changes.

Change

The principals in this study agreed that the implementation and management of change is a function of leadership in the school. The change initiatives in the schools often started with these principals, and they were influential in leading the changes. As Fullan (2007) indicated, the school principal is key to the process of change, particularly to changes in the underlying culture of the school. The principals engaged teachers in dialogue, encouraged them to read books on proposed change initiatives and held meetings with teachers to earn their support before embarking on innovations:

In the second year that I was here, we started to look at assessment and started to read more about assessment. I started my first twitter account; I started to follow people who are instrumental in thinking about assessment and I joined [them]. It is a Canadian group called Canadian Assessment for Learning Network (CAFLN) and that includes some of the people here in North America who are central in the thinking about assessment. So, that change initiative [in our school] really began with me; nobody else was petitioning for it but I started to think about . . . some of the things we do that are not just sustainable.

I started to bring it up with the teachers in the staff meeting; that is where the conversation started was with the teachers and I brought readings to them, DVDs, photocopied articles, chapters out of this book that showed how you can do assessment differently and over the course of a year, we eventually said, ‘We’re going to do something’. (James)

These findings are supported by Fullan and Hargreaves (2013), who noted how teacher development and successful implementation of innovation are associated. The principals also agreed that effective implementation consists of alterations in curriculum materials, instructional practices and behaviours and beliefs and understanding on the part of teachers involved in a given innovation, which is also supported by the work of Fullan and Hargreaves (2013). The principals acknowledged that the change initiatives in their schools were successful as a result of teachers’ support and involvement.

Evans (1996) and Kin and Kareem (2015), together with Peterson and Deal (1998), all noted that change is an ever-present feature in organizations and has become a constant in school life. This resonated with the principals as they engaged in processes of change that led to constant efforts for improvement in their schools. They believed that change has to be continuous in the field of education and that the principal is charged with the responsibility of envisioning and moving the school in the right direction. Having said that, however, the principals also established that the change was successful because of the support they received from teachers and parents on every aspect of the change process. They encouraged input from both teachers and parents and developed more collaborative working relationships between the school and parents with reference to the introduced change:

We [must] continually look at change but it is not change for the sake of change; it is the strategic abandonment; it is that whole culture of improving. Find out where you are, where do you want to be, always have a clear vision, and [articulate] the non-negotiables and our responsibility that all students are improving. (Chris)

The findings support the research of Calabrese (2002), who elaborated four ways that school principals can use to promote change: encouraging participation, providing ongoing professional development, encouraging failure and story sharing (pp. 79–80). These findings from the field research also agreed with Kotter’s (1998) writing, as he identified two skills leaders can use to understand the change process: building coalitions and creating a vision (p. 30). As a result of this practice, the principals were able to attend to concerns of teachers and parents.

The principals were responsive to teachers’ and parents’ apprehensions. They created opportunities for teachers and parents, as well as the larger community, to voice their concerns. They utilized different methods to provide support for engaged voice in the school community. All the principals afforded time to listen to everyone’s concerns. They also sent letters home to explain the change initiative and process and created avenues where people expressed their worries (e.g. via letters). Paying attention to concerns allowed teachers and parents the time to understand the reasons for and realities of the new change initiative:

I knew we had to do this [start the initiative], and I got the teachers to understand that first. I taught for 26 years, and I knew what their reservations were going to be. I had lived the life of a teacher, and they knew that. I listened to the teachers when they said they are ready to do it [start the initiative]. And we needed to do exactly that, we needed to provide opportunities for voice: . . . hearing their concerns, being able to share their concerns, and at the same time we acted on those concerns and that made everyone feel supported. (James)

Also recognizing that everybody responds to change differently, so you have to allow those people that are slower to respond; you have to work with the people that are into it, and focus on them, but don’t give up on the others. Let them be brought along, you know, so that [involves] a lot of working with individuals, listening, providing all the support that you can. (Jane)

The literature by Fullan (2007) supports the principals’ beliefs about the importance of an empowering and collaborative work environment, an environment wherein teachers and parents believe they are important and where their voices are heard (p. 241). The principals’ understanding, dispositions and skills allowed them to support a good structure where all stakeholders worked together and addressed resistance to change (Fullan, 2007).

Managing change was an important part of the work that these principals did during the change process in their schools. They understood that everyone reacts to change differently, and while working through the change process, they experienced different reactions from various groups, from staff members; students; and, in some cases, parents. The principals’ responses corroborated the work of Zimmerman (2006), who indicated that the first step in overcoming resistance to change in schools is to determine who is resisting the change and why (p. 239). They recognized that some staff members reacted negatively to change out of fear, that others may not like the hard work of change and/or that they had formed alliances with someone who was resisting the needed change:

People who resist change, you always have to remember, no matter what they say, that it is all about fear. It is all about fear always. They can say it is because we did that 10 years ago and it didn’t work; they can say I have got too much work to do; they can say all they want but at the bottom line, it is fear. And if you keep that in your mind, it helps you to be less fed up with them. (Jane)

There was a lot of objection because parents and kids [often] don’t like change and we didn’t have the time like we do in staff meetings; but again I created the flyers and the presentation and met with kids and explained it to them, and we met with parents and explained it to them. Now most people will say, why would you ever do it the other way? But that has taken all of the last two years to convince them; but we are there [now]. (James)

There was some resistance around that [initiative], but again people supported it when they start seeing successes. It was all built on enhancing the capacity of the people in that [initiative], so teachers are going through and making sure that they have the skills around guiding reading centers, all of those pieces. (Chris)

As noted from the literature, attitudes towards change are a variable that have been linked to the degree of staff acceptance of new procedures (Zimmerman, 2006). Zimmerman (2006) elaborated several reasons why people have difficulty with change: (1) failure to recognize the need for change, (2) habit, (3) previously unsuccessful effort at change, (4) fear of the unknown, (5) security, (6) perceived threats to teachers’ expertise, (7) threats to their power relationships, (8) threats to social relationships and (9) threats to their resource allocation (pp. 239–240).

The school principals managed these reactions as they worked through the change process. They used different techniques to provide support and encourage stakeholders to accept the needed change. Flyers, presentations, dialogue and pressure and support, as well as stakeholders’ involvement in every stage of the change process, were the methods used by the principals to get everyone committed to positive change initiatives. These findings support the research of Kotter (1998), who indicated that successful school leaders must work with staff to figure out the challenges around change and what to do to resolve those issues. The principals encouraged change readiness by being sensitive to teachers’ potential change barriers, as noted by Zimmerman (2006). As school leaders, these principals were responsible for school change and also for mobilizing the search for solutions to removing change barriers and focussing their schools in the intended direction.

Leadership

Harris (2005) and Huber (2004) indicated that school leaders enhance the performance of their schools by providing opportunities for staff to participate in decision-making about issues that affect them and for which their knowledge is crucial. The principals in this study established that they could not have done the work alone. Although the principals have the leadership capacities that recognize and attend to the need for ongoing individual decisions, they acknowledged that their best work emanated as a result of involving all stakeholders. The principals worked with groups to establish and implement the vision for their schools. They collaborated with all constituents, particularly in shared decision-making so as to serve the needs of everyone, while working to find solutions to challenges in the school:

One thing I am good at is making decisions. I can make decisions and I can stick to them, but I want those decisions to be based on what is good for [the school], not what serves me. But I think [the staff] would describe me as decisive. I think they would say that I have a clear planning mind, beginning with the end in mind. (James)

[I am] willing to consider shared decision-making, absolutely; decision-making based on research. I think people would describe me as solution focused. I think they would tell you that I am all about finding positive solutions, collaborating, and compromising. (Blaine)

These findings support the work of Davies (2005) and Harris and Lambert (2003), who indicated that sharing leadership responsibilities help schools to become more inclusive and self-reflective because more people are exchanging important information, discussing issues and making decisions collaboratively. These findings also support the research of Mulford (2003), who indicated that student academic outcomes are likely to improve where leadership resources are shared throughout the school community and where teachers are empowered in the areas important to them (p. 38).

The principals provided support for teachers and students in their schools, particularly in matters affecting them. They afforded intellectual stimulation, encouraged reflection and challenged their staffs to examine assumptions about their work and reconsider how it could be performed, an approach supported by Leithwood and Riehl (2003, p. 4). The principals thus agreed with the research of Leithwood and Riehl (2003) that indicated that school leaders provide individualized support by showing respect for staff members and concern about their feelings and needs. The principals acknowledged that the teachers were faced with a lot of challenges; however, these principals provided support for teachers by taking actions to resolve those challenges and providing teachers with what they needed to succeed in their schools. The principals believed in modelling, which they utilized to provide support for everyone in the school. They also encouraged individuals’ input and celebrated individuals’ strengths in their schools:

I am very supportive because teachers will find themselves in many different situations, with parents or students, and occasionally with each other but not very often. My job is to support them, to back them up, and I believe in that, and because we believe in a win-win philosophy backing them up doesn’t have to mean somebody else loses. It is all about saving face for everyone and making sure everybody walks away happy. (James)

I do my best to support the teachers, to get them what they feel they need to do the best job they can, to be [present] in their classrooms, to know their students, to know them [i.e., me knowing the teachers], to show that I care about them. It has to be through action; talk needs to be backed up with action. And sometimes, it is just to stop in the morning to say, ‘Good morning, how are you?’ and at the end of the day, ‘How was your day?’ It is just those little things, that they know that I care. When I ask what they need, and they tell me that, and then it is going to be followed up. And I do my best to get them what they need. (Mike)

Huber (2004) supported this finding and explained that school leadership serves as an appropriate example for staff by modelling desired dispositions and actions and enhancing others’ beliefs about their own abilities and their zeal for change (p. 5). These leadership styles assisted the principals to provide the needed support for everyone in their schools.

The principals believed that they were both approachable and visible so as to provide the needed support for staff and students in the school. They utilized these leadership dispositions to encourage interactions, increase input and build leadership capacities that promoted an inclusive school culture:

I think they will say that I have a sense of humor. I do love to laugh, and I am afraid they would say that I love to tell stories and I do. I can go on and on and I tell them just to tell me to stop talking after a while. (James)

I believe that they would say that I strive for clarity and that I am friendly. I am on the surface humble. I don’t think people would know that I don’t like the limelight. In fact, I shy away from that and I try to position teachers into those spots, again to build capacity. (Chris)

The findings support the research of Hughes, Ginnett and Curphy (1995), who noted that leadership is a social process shared among all members of a group (p. 43). The principals agreed that leadership is not restricted to the influence exercised by someone in a particular position or role and that followers are part of the leadership development as well (see Hughes et al., 1995, p. 43). The data confirmed the work of Bogler (2001), who elaborated that school principals who are successful in their roles have used a wide range of methods to influence and motivate their staffs to bring about changes in their school cultures. In this work, the interviewed principals utilized different leadership approaches to serve the needs of everyone in their schools.

Two of the principals noted specifically that they practised servant leadership to attend to the needs of staff and students in their schools:

I would describe [my leadership style] as servant leadership. [It is] very personable, [I] try to communicate a lot. I try to have as much face-to-face conversation as I can, whether it is informal or formal. I try to keep [a] sense of humor. I try to inspire people by constantly having a perspective and a talk that is filled with hope, that is filled with perseverance, [and] that is filled with a caring tone and kindness. I want to be someone who can mobilize a group of people with the zeal and passion that I carry, understanding that they have different gifts, passions, and talents that I do not have. So that reciprocity, where you give and they give and so that no one ends up being burnt out because you are constantly being filled up by someone, and so I try to do that. It is serving but it is not servant; it is servant leadership. (Mike)

I would say that I try very hard to be sensitive to what they [teachers] need . . . I believe the classroom teachers are the backbone, resource teachers serve classroom teachers, administration serves classroom teachers, the secretary serves classroom teachers, and so on. They [the staff] are the ones with the responsibility for leading kids every day. We better make sure that we serve them. I ask myself every day, How can I make their lives better? How can I help them to feel more supported? How can I help to nudge them when they need a nudge? (James)

The literature by Greenleaf (1995) confirmed the practice of the principals that a servant leader is a servant first and that after making that choice, one may come to aspire to lead (p. 22). The research work expounds that this form of leadership begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve (Greenleaf, 1995). These principals were sensitive to the needs of teachers and students and were committed to supporting and serving those needs, as well as removing barriers that served as obstacles to success. The principals agreed with the research of Greenleaf (1995), who indicated that this form of leadership is manifested in the choice taken by the servant to make sure that other people’s highest needs are being served.

The principals demonstrated empathy for staff and students through understanding their own and others’ personal values and beliefs and understanding that there are different views. In that work, the principals assisted staff and students to achieve to their potential by exchanging ideas and inspiring them to a higher level of motivation:

I think just that balance of communicating clearly worked, while we are having conversation and explaining what I wanted to accomplish while still hearing everyone; but the challenging part was the good arguments, like when you hear good arguments from [the stakeholders] on both sides of things. So I think my leadership [style] came through just in my ability to be patient and my ability to listen for [a] very long time on an issue, [with] lots of communication but still making a decision. (Mike)

You need to be humble but you need to be extremely confident inside. You don’t want to be second guessing yourself with those challenging situations but you never want to expose that confidence other than in how you handle the situations. (Chris)

These findings support the research of Greenleaf (1995), who explained that servant leadership is more easily provided if the leader understands that while serving individuals is important, the most crucial aspect involves serving the values and ideas that help shape the school as a covenantal community (p. 22).

Two of the principals indicated their understanding of the different approaches to leadership by varying their styles to suit the situation, while remaining consistent to the underlying cultural values of the school. The principals utilized the value-based, situational approach to meet the needs of staff and students, as well as the school community. They recognized the impact they had on individuals in the school, and they applied this awareness to honour everyone in a way that is respectful of each person’s moral values and beliefs:

I practice all kinds of leadership styles based on the needs of the situation. Sometimes you need to be strict; other times you need to be softer. I always think about the situation and then I listen; I figure out what people need. What we always fight against is the disconnect between what you say you believe in and your practice, but I would say that how you can reduce that disconnect is by always remembering your fundamentals and keeping that at the core of all of your leadership practice – your beliefs and your values. Try to always bring yourself back to that [the fundamentals]. But I would say my leadership style would be situational. (Jane)

[You] really [have to] be careful that you don’t bog yourself down with too many perspectives, but I am considerate of all perspectives. I am comfortable with shared leadership, absolutely. I am very comfortable with that role, as opposed to keeping everybody down because I have to be at the front. In fact, I don’t think you can survive in a job like this if you don’t embrace the idea of building capacity. My leadership style is practical, thoughtful, and reflective. (Blaine)

The principals’ approaches to leadership support the work of Huber (2004), who advised school leaders to be aware of how influential they can be and to use the opportunity given to them judiciously (p. 3). Gurr, Drysdale and Mulford (2006), as well as Riley (2013), all noted that successful leadership is underpinned by core values and beliefs. Gurr et al. (2006) expounded that these values and beliefs inform the leaders’ decisions and actions, as well as their underlying visions (p. 381). The field research findings also support the work of Bush, Glover and the National College for School Leadership (NCSL, 2003) that indicated that leadership needs to be grounded in firm personal and professional values (p. 4). The principals noted their belief that leadership begins with the personality of leaders, expressed in terms of personal values, self-awareness and emotional and moral capacity (see Bush et al., 2003, p. 5).

Two of the principals noted that they utilize a small group discussion technique to understand parents’ concerns and also to address parental fears about any changes in the school:

When it comes to a difficult issue, my basic rule of thumb is to keep your group small. If you have a large community meeting on multiage [for example], it never goes well, ever, on a topic because you will have four to five people with a rant on, and that sort of takes everyone down on a wrong road . . . I think your best work comes with smaller groups. (Jane)

I believe that part of the definition of true leadership is knowing when you need help, knowing when you need support with finding answers, as opposed to forging it alone, thinking because I am the leader, I have to have the answers so I will have them. No, you turn to [people], . . . finding and using or utilizing the expertise that surrounds you, absolutely. (Blaine)

The literature by Burke (2014) supports the principals’ beliefs that leading change needs to start with changing behaviours, including one’s own, and with changing people’s mental sets or frameworks for thinking about the addressed change. These particular approaches to leadership allowed the principals to provide solutions to individuals’ concerns inside and outside of the school. The principals supported and utilized shared leadership approaches to work with staff and students in their schools, as well as with parents. These findings also support the research of Tongeri and Anderson (2003), who indicated that principals who share leadership responsibilities with others will be less burdened than principals who attempt the challenges and complexities of leadership alone (p. 168). The principals believed that shared leadership is crucial to school success. It makes the job of the principal more manageable, increases teachers’ contributions and participation and enhances student achievement (see Harris, 2004, p. 6; Harris & Lambert, 2003, p. 56; Spillane, 2006, p. 343). The principals utilized different leadership approaches with teachers, students, parents and the school community in their work to build inclusive school cultures.

Inclusion

The principals in this study encountered common challenges in their work in building an inclusive school culture. The participating principals identified poverty, racism, labelling and conflicts around diversity as concerns that they encountered within their school community. They indicated that, occasionally, attitudes of staff, students and parents posed a challenge for them during times of change. Two principals experienced issues connected to poverty in their schools. One principal believed some of these issues stemmed from the impoverished parents’ lack of consciousness of the value of education. Many of these parents had not experienced what a full education can offer, and as such, some had passed the mindset on to their children and that had led in some instances to students’ absenteeism from the school:

[In my current school it is] poverty and a lack of educational history/background in the families. I can say it’s a mindset in the families that school does not really hold much for them [families]. If you haven’t had any personal experience of what a full education can give you, why would you believe that it’s possible for you and your kids, if you have never had that personal experience? Poverty is what gets in the way here. I can say it is directly a challenge for inclusivity, in that those are the ones we struggle with the most to get to school. We have tried to increase the value an education by putting a value on it and saying, you lose its [benefit] if you don’t attend. (James)

Sometimes opinions, frustration, fatigue – and I say frustration and fatigue because the challenges to an inclusive school culture would be that there is a staff or a group that is frustrated, and tired from spending so much energy helping a particular group or helping that kid, and they ran out of gas; that is a challenge. There also can be some beliefs that can come through the door from home, some cultural beliefs can come in the door about their view of other cultures, which is difficult to work through. (Blaine)

One of the things is that teachers become overwhelmed. So the challenge is to get the supports in so that the teachers feel supported whether it is a child with excessive, or poor behaviour, or it is a child in medical need, like in a wheelchair, and there is an EA with them all day, or a child with significant learning difficulty. It is supporting that teacher and helping them feel prepared. (Jane)

However, the principals developed a supportive structure that communicated the value of education and that connected with students and parents to increase their understanding of the benefits of education. The findings support the research of Riehl (2000), who indicated that schools embody a complex array of understandings, beliefs and values that find legitimacy through their acceptance by the broader public and that these elements (i.e. understandings, beliefs and values) are coded in school structures, cultures and routine practices. The data confirmed that the development of inclusive structures and practices must be accompanied by new understanding and values for such development to result in lasting change (see Riehl, 2000).

The principals established that it was crucial to challenge themselves and their staff to examine their beliefs and attitudes, reflect on their behaviours and be mentally and emotionally stable whenever they are in the school. The principals acknowledged that teachers needed adequate support to develop and sustain a growth mindset in the school. They encouraged their staffs to reflect on their attitudes and focus their energies on every student under their care:

It is supporting that teacher and helping them feel prepared; . . . focusing a lot on how important it is to have a growth mindset, to believe that everybody is capable of growth . . . Everybody can do art, everybody can be creative, and everybody can play sports and get to be good at those things. So, we talked a lot about growth mindset. (James)

Reflecting on your own behaviour, putting yourself in check, making sure you have the right mindset when you come into the building and just where you need to be . . . Sometimes that is hard to do because all the other parts of life are happening around you, but you have a job to do, and the focus needs to be on the kids. (Mike)

These findings support the research accessed from the literature that explained that building and sustaining an inclusive culture is a complex and ongoing process that requires continuous self-examination and thoughtful reflection by leaders and all members of the organization (Wasserman, Gallegos, & Ferdman, 2006). The findings also support the work of Theoharis and Scanlan (2015), who indicated that if the schools are to serve the common good and promote social justice, the principal needs understanding, skills and dispositions to provide support for the success of teachers, students, parents and the community. The principals adapted practices and strategies (e.g. dialogue) that allowed reflections on individuals’ attitudes and that supported positive ways that enabled everyone to succeed in the school community.

Dialogue with their staffs, student body and within their school community was a significant strategy and important practice that the principals utilized to address the issues that might threaten inclusion (e.g. poverty, racism, labelling and diversity in behaviour). The principals communicated with staff, students, parents and the community about the importance of having a growth mindset. The principals in this study addressed the issues that challenge inclusion directly. They held meetings with teachers and students to discuss how they were to behave with one another in the school. They included attention to racism explicitly in the students’ handbook. Some of these principals initiated changes in policies and procedures, as well as engaging in ongoing open and honest conversations, to address the issues around inclusion. They also encouraged parents to communicate with their children concerning the appropriate way to act in the school. The principals also engaged staff, students, parents and the school community in many educational initiatives regarding behaviour issues and explained to them about the kind of supports available to those students who feel victimized and/or invisible. One principal explained how he organized a focus group discussion that encouraged students’ voice on matters related to them:

What can [we] do that is going to get student voice in this? So their first reaction was to have all the students, like for them [students] to make all the decisions. Instead, I asked questions to help them get focus groups, get in students from all grades, all demographic backgrounds, different classes, things like that, brought them into the focus group. What came out of that [the focus groups] were some definable actions that I supported. The student body saw the student council as having voice, the students saw themselves as having voice, and the school was able to use resources in the appropriate way. (Chris)

These findings support the work of Ryan (2003), who noted that school principals could employ a variety of rhetorical and dialogical strategies in communicating new meanings, such as official ceremonies, public relations events and meetings (p. 171). The principals’ beliefs were supported by the literature on inclusion that indicated that addressing the problem of representation necessitates that multiple perspectives be entrenched in the academic discourse, knowledge and texts of the school (see Ryan, 2003, p. 17). The data support the research of Parker and Day (1997), who confirmed the role of the instructional leadership as supportive, facilitative and/or catalytic. The principals were committed in their role and built appropriate, supportive and protective environments.

The principals in this study promoted a supportive atmosphere for teachers with regard to issues around inclusion. They acknowledged the struggles that teachers had concerning students with severe behaviour problems, and they provided support for teachers by helping to design a separate behaviour plan for individual students to address these challenges:

Inclusion issues mostly focus around students with severe behaviour problems. What I found is that kids with huge behaviour issues are the ones that teachers start pushing back against. One child can just create havoc in a room, causing so much stress for a teacher. So, I think when you need to address the issue of inclusion, you need to acknowledge the struggles of the teacher. Acknowledge that, and you need to put in supports. But here is the bottom line [that you explain to students and parents]: we don’t keep those kids out of school. It is inclusion; it is law in Manitoba. Those kids are in schools and are being provided with what they need . . . You have to have a separate behaviour plan for them . . . We have to figure out what to do here. It is not a matter of kicking them out. (Jane)

The field data corroborated the work of Kugelmass (2003), who pointed out that inclusive education aims at removing social exclusion that is a consequence of negative responses to diversity in race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender and ability (p. 3), and, it might be added, sometimes in behaviour as well. The findings also support the research of Theoharis and Scanlan (2015), who explained that inclusion involves the removal of barriers that might avert the enjoyment of human rights and requires the establishment of appropriate supportive and protective environments.

Another principal removed all forms of labels on students that accompany ‘levelled’ support in the school. He discouraged the labelling of the types of support students are receiving and created a supportive environment where all students, regardless of academic ability, felt safe, valued, respected and included:

In terms of the student services piece, changing ways that students are labelled [would help us toward inclusion]. Sometimes our structures in schools – where students will have labels to indicate what type of support they are receiving – sometimes it can be quite explicit, like level 2, level 3; sometimes it can be a grey designation; sometimes it can be in the courses they take. Removing some of those [labels] will be the best examples that create that more inclusion . . . Let us make sure they have the support to be successful though, not changing the outcome. (Chris)

The data support the literature that expounds that through acknowledgement and support, an inclusive school community provides meaningful involvement and equitable access to its benefits by everyone (see Manitoba Government, 2015, para. 2). These findings support the Manitoba Government’s (2015) ‘Philosophy of inclusion’, which indicates that inclusion is a way of thinking and acting that enables every individual to feel accepted, valued and safe (para. 2).

The principals built a safe and caring environment that allowed members of the school community to express their feelings rather than being silenced by constraining cultural norms of the school community. They afforded time to listen to everyone’s concerns and addressed everyone’s worries within the school community. The principals encouraged openness and open-mindedness and demonstrated that it is acceptable to express one’s opinions candidly and respectfully. They created an environment that allowed individuals in the school to express their feelings without the fear of punitive actions. The principals utilized both formal (e.g. meetings and surveys) and informal (e.g. casual conversations) avenues that enabled staff, students, parents and the school community to contribute to the development of the school:

People talk about an open door policy; I try to keep it open unless there is a meeting going on here where it needs to be closed. Otherwise the door is open and everybody is always welcome. I make the time to listen to everyone. I make the time for both staff and students. They just need to talk and be listened to, and [have me willing to] hear stories. I think it is just putting in the time . . . They have as much of my time as they want any time they want. I will never say no . . . If you want people to express their voice, you have to give them time. (James)

In those cases you have to, not only in words but in actions, show that you are receptive to that [their concerns], that you hear. You use language to show that you hear and understand; [and also] listening to what they say, repeating what they say, demonstrating that you understand, as opposed to saying, this is why [we do it another way]. You show that you are using their information in the process, the same type of process we talked about before [i.e., sustainable renewal process]. (Chris)

You have to provide that opportunity. They have to feel comfortable with you and that comfort starts with me as the leader of the school. I can help to create that culture that it is okay to share openly and honestly your concerns and that that would be a very good thing. That would be a culture of openness, a culture free of being chastised for a thought that you might have; also modeling what is acceptable to talk about; open mindedness – all of this is in the spirit of open mindedness. (Blaine)

These findings support the work of Ryan (2003), who elaborated that in inclusive schools, all members of school communities are involved or represented in equitable ways (p. 18). The principals agreed that such a process is inclusive in that everyone has the right and the opportunity to be heard and to contribute (see Ryan, 2003). The principals promoted an environment where everyone is inspired to contribute and committed to addressing any challenges to inclusive practices in their school community.

Challenges

The principals in this study encountered some challenges in their work in building an inclusive school culture. However, they addressed these challenges with positive attitudes and created deep understandings in staff, students and parents to resolve these conflicts in the school and within the school community. The principals established a win–win position in their schools and created a conducive environment where everyone thrived:

Win-win situation: we try to find that in everything we do. Seeking first to understand. We get to know our kids and encourage them to be patient. What kids go through at home can be challenging. This might have nothing to do with the teacher or school. We find ways for kids to win at school. (James)

An example of a conflict that James addressed in the school that was between a parent and the vice-principal in the school. The parent questioned that her child was placed in a class with a particular student in the school, and there was disagreement between the vice-principal and the parent around the issue. The principal had to intervene by demonstrating the right attitude and creating a mutual understanding with both the vice-principal and the parent to reduce the tension:

You need to give people a chance to process what is really going on and to de-escalate because when the vice principal talked to that mom, they were butting heads; they were already yelling. It was not ugly, but they are already butting heads and, if one wins the other loses. We talk about the emotional bank account, the vice principal will get to make a deposit into the mother’s emotional bank account, the principal will get to make a deposit into the vice-principal’s emotional bank account; there is the win for [both of] them. You are helping them to see that there is a different way to win. (James)

The field data support the work of Parker and Day (1997), who indicated and affirmed that the school principal is charged with the responsibility of fostering a school climate in which all members share a clear understanding that the school stands for the success and achievement of all students (p. 84).

The principals also approached every conflict as an opportunity to learn and embraced it to strengthen the purpose of the school. They displayed a calm and non-confrontational style in their work to understand and address conflicts in their schools. The principals also recognized the emotional needs and the personal opinions of staff members and students as they worked to create an atmosphere that allowed staff, students and parents, as well as the school community to feel safe and open to share their concerns. The principals addressed conflicts in their schools directly in an atmosphere of care and respect, while they attended to the feelings and thoughts of all stakeholders. They created a meeting place that was safe for conflict resolution for staff, students, parents and the school community. The principals maintained an objective atmosphere that reduced bias and discouraged animosity in the school community:

If someone comes into [my office] and [is] aggressive . . . and I react the same way, then they are less likely to come in and be able to express that [conflict in a positive way]. Again try to understand what they are saying and what their motivation is around that [position], what led to that. (Chris)

We have to deal with it [conflict] head on; we have to deal with it directly; and we have to make sure that we are sensitive to the feelings and thoughts of all parties. We have to deal with it quickly to make sure that there is safety and that the situation is secure and everybody is safe, but in terms of decision-making, we take our time. Some decisions are pretty significant; very rarely on a day-to-day basis do we have decisions that need to be made on the snap, within seconds. Conflict between colleagues, coming together as a group: a conflict that existed between staff or misunderstanding, what I did: 1) You try to create a meeting space that is safe for all parties. 2) You are trying to maintain an objective atmosphere where it doesn’t become personal, and it doesn’t become anything hurtful, that kind of thing. And, 3) everybody has their chance to share their concerns but then all parties are involved in the resolution, as opposed to [me saying], ‘I am going to decide; this is how I am going to handle it and this is what I need you to do’. (Blaine)

The way I address conflict in my school; if it is with another staff member, then it is always private. I try . . . and establish that I care for the person in the sense that it is not about me, and that it is not only about them either, that it is something bigger and so if we can work together on what it is, then we can make the school a better place. I want the person to understand why I am talking, so I address it directly but hopefully in that context of caring and respect, and the bigger picture of how is it going to affect the student, how is it going to affect the school; and [also talk] face-to-face. (Mike)

The findings support the research of Barton (2009), who explained that through a proactive approach to addressing safety issues, students develop both academically and socially (p. 3). The principals promoted safe schools where teaching and learning were conducted in a welcoming environment free of intimidation, violence and fear (see Barton, 2009, p. 6). This environment provided an educational climate and culture that fostered a spirit of acceptance and care for everyone in their schools.

Another principal occasionally utilized the knowledge and skills of an expert to find solutions to conflict in the school. This principal elaborated that some situations necessitated the use of a mediator from outside of the school. Particularly in circumstances where the principal had connections with a staff member, it was difficult to remain objective in resolving a conflict. The principals also engaged in dialogue that was non-confrontational in their work to address conflicts in the school:

There are other times that I have actually brought in a mediator, because if I have a strong relationship with teachers and I want to keep that intact, it is very hard to be a mediator. You dabble around it, but we [have] brought in a mediator from the outside [at times]. (Jane)

Jane provided an example of a conflict that was addressed in the school using a mediator. She explains that she had a specialist come to the school to gauge how the teachers were using assessment tools and that some teachers did not understand the concept behind the new assessment process, but she could perceive some conflict from the teachers from the conversation she then had with the expert. Given what she learned, she then engaged in conversation with the teachers to find remedies for their areas of concerns:

So, anyways, we talked it through and I got to a point when I said to them, ‘It sounds to me like we have a few teachers not applying the procedures correctly. Why don’t we hold a mini workshop to review guidelines and our expectations?’ And I said [afterwards], ‘Now we have a base-line; everybody knows [how to score assessments correctly]’. So that in November if teacher B is not doing it correctly, then I go to them directly and say, ‘We all understand how to score this assessment, apply them, and do the process’. That is how I managed that conflict, talking and thinking about how we can go about solving this conflict [in a way] that is not confrontational. (Jane)

The field data support the findings of Sautner (2008), who indicated that it is important that school principals create cultures that support healthy interactions and problem-solving (p. 156). The data also support the literature from Scanlan and Johnson (2015) that calls for respectful alliance among educators, families and community groups that value relationship-building, dialogue across differences and the sharing of power in pursuit of a common purpose in socially just, democratic schools (p. 167). As well, the findings support the research of Ryan (2003), who explained that if principals are to promote inclusive education, they need to initiate, foster, sustain and reciprocate a dialogue of respect for differences in ways that everyone in the school is allowed to have opinions (p. 171).

The principals addressed issues of bullying through awareness and through empowerment of bystanders in their schools. The principals identified bullying as a widespread, persistent and serious problem in schools (see Sautner, 2008, p. 138). They encouraged and focussed on empowering bystanders to speak up whenever they experience and/or witness any form of bullying in the school. The principals promoted anti-bullying awareness (e.g. through presentations, the Day of Pink initiative, students’ handbook, fliers and school website) that provided information and enlightened everyone about the dangers of bullying. The principals worked with staff to design strategies and methods to empower students who were bullied in their schools and while affording support for the victims, also acknowledged that all parties needed support (see Barton, 2009). The principals provided safety and disciplinary interventions to confront issues of bullying in their schools. One principal also encouraged positive relationship-building to reduce unpleasant behaviours, a practice that also discouraged bullying in the school:

I think our basic philosophy is to try to empower by-standers because most bullies are very good at it; they are very good at being subtle and doing it where they won’t be seen or in a way that the victim isn’t going to speak up. The kids see other kids doing things and we have talked a lot with our kids about their responsibility to speak up and say something. We support, for example, the Day of Pink initiative, which is an anti-bullying initiative. We talked about what the consequences can be for both bullies and victims if bullying is allowed to continue, and how they have a responsibility to their peers to speak up on behalf of not just the victim but also the bully, because bullying can make lives miserable. (James)

It takes a ton of levels of intervention, so you need school-wide education of kids around what bullying looks like, how to deal with it, give kids strategies. So you need that whole school-wide [approach], so [that] the education piece happens. The focus for us is the by-standers or what we would called the ‘up-standers’; that is kind of a new term they talk about for kids, and really focusing on them because they are key to getting bullies to stop. (Jane)

So, I mean in general, we do bullying awareness or anti-bullying in our school. We have some presentations that we do, and some information that we send to parents, as well, and put it in our school handbook and also on the school website. You have to handle it quickly, I feel like, in terms of timely fashion. Put the discipline in place and the safety plan in place and check in with parents and students in the following weeks and the weeks to come, too, just to make sure you follow up, and with the teachers. Make sure that there is no evidence of re-occurring in or outside of the classroom. (Mike)

The data support the work of Sautner (2008), who indicated that if the purpose of the education system is to foster and maintain respectful, responsible behaviours in students, educators need to develop such character traits in themselves and others. The principals in this study were committed to creating environments that are safe and inclusive of students across multiple dimensions of diversity (see Hernandez & Fraynd, 2015).

Significance of the study

This study deepens our collective understanding of how principals negotiate the political dynamics within their schools and vary leadership styles to encourage and sustain an inclusive school culture. In these times of global interaction and global conflict, it is critical for school leaders to learn how to develop school communities that bring people together and that encourage positive, supportive relationships. This study could serve as a guide for principals who desire to negotiate the critical dynamics of diverse schools and create just and democratic schools.

The study illustrates the compatibility of the accessed literature and the field research, rather than each conflicting with the other. The five included elements in the Critical Inclusive Praxis lend meaning to the study because the selected principals were able to connect their experiences within the framework, which was also associated with the literature, as they addressed how they went about building a strong, positive and inclusive school culture. This confirmed that the concept of the Critical Inclusive Praxis was the appropriate model for this research.

The conceptual framework, thus, also enhanced credibility of this research work as it helped the author to engage in deep, meaningful dialogue with the participant principals. The selected principals turned out to be a good sample for this research because they embraced the theoretical framework as a vehicle for the research, and they were willing to engage in critical dialogue with the author. In doing so, they increased our knowledge of the dynamics of a Critical Inclusive Praxis and helped in understanding how they constructed inclusive cultures within their schools.

The study also pointed to the importance of building strong and positive relationships within the school community as that informed the work of the selected principals. The principals recognized the need to nurture people, inspire people, pay attention to people’s concerns and build relationships of open-mindedness and care. The principals were able to demonstrate the Critical Inclusive Praxis approach that created a school culture where everyone worked together in harmony and where everyone valued one another. This research study established that relationship-building is significant to all of the five elements within the conceptual framework.

Recommendations for further studies

The study leads to some recommendations for further research in this area. Based on the delimitations of this study, it is important to broaden the participation to involve more females and extend the demographic areas to include large urban centres. It would be valuable to compare the outcomes of this research to future research if extended to involve more participants overall and include larger as well as inner-city schools.

The framework utilized in this study elaborated what the principals are doing well in building inclusive school cultures. The author recommends further investigation of the challenges that school principals faced to sustain a Critical Inclusive Praxis during times of change. Research in this area would strengthen our understanding about some of the pitfalls and/or intense, ongoing challenges that leaders may face in building and sustaining an inclusive school culture.

Another area for future research is to do an accompanying quantitative survey utilizing the Critical Inclusive Praxis, including the five aspects: culture, change, leadership, inclusion and challenge. Similar but more expansive short-answer questions might be included in the survey. This combination of qualitative and quantitative research approaches would allow more and deeper understanding concerning what we know about the framework. This initiative could further validate and authenticate the framework as a theoretical and a practical guide to construct an inclusive school culture and/or illuminate other approaches to consider.

It is important to see how other elements might fit into the concept of the Critical Inclusive Praxis. I suggest perhaps including relationship-building as an additional element in the framework to see how school leaders would embrace this aspect in their work in constructing socially just and democratic schools. Although relationship-building permeates all five aspects of the existing model, still it may be advisable for future research to include relationship-building to see how it might be addressed on its own in the framework so as to better understand how principals build inclusive school cultures.