Search results

In this chapter the authors explore what it means to be an inclusive school leader through a discourse that focuses on “out of the box” approaches in preparing future school leaders to push the envelope of inclusive leadership practice. The purpose of this chapter is to (a) define inclusive education and leadership; (b) describe prevailing theoretical frameworks for leadership in inclusive education and build on emerging theories of inclusive psychology and inclusive pedagogy; (c) identify promising practices for leadership in inclusive education; (d) identify emerging understandings of leadership roles in inclusive education; and (e) suggest recommendations for policy, practice, and leadership preparation. In both the USA and the UK, contrasting and polarizing discourses that focus leaders’ attention on attainment and performance for pupils and appear to compete with the leadership role in including (i.e., effectively educating) those students who are known to have achievement gaps (e.g., those with disabilities). Alternative perspectives are offered that frame leadership for inclusive education in terms of broader concepts such as “leadership for learning.”

The purpose of this paper is to describe culturally responsive methodology as a way to develop researchers. The aims is to illuminate the dimensions of culturally responsive methodology such as cultural and epistemological pluralism, deconstruction of Western colonial traditions of research, and primacy of relationships within culturally responsive dialogic encounters. An overarching question is: “How can we maintain the original integrity of both participants and researchers and their respective cultures and co-construct at the same time something new?”.

Five case study narratives are described in order for readers to understand the range and types of studies that have been undertaken within a culturally responsive framework. The contributors represent emerging as well as veteran researchers, Indigenous as well as non-Indigenous cultures, practitioners (i.e. teachers in the school systems) as well as teacher educators (i.e. that is teachers within colleges and universities).

The major issues raised in this paper (knowing one's self and being willing to develop new methodologies) can help to inform those who aspire to research “with” rather than “on” Others.

This paper offers an ontology that is not framed from western traditions. Using reflexivity, criticality, and other epistemological links, the authors show methodological negotiators who invent, craft, personalize, and navigate their methodology and methods specific to the context and participants with whom they are working. They challenge unexamined assumptions in research methods. It is hoped that this paper can contribute a more respectful and humble way of working with all peoples.

The overarching purpose of this paper is to empower K‐12 educators, colleagues in teacher education programs, and educational leadership personnel to address social justice issues within communities where divergent perspectives abound.

The authors use a discursive method to uncover the historical and theoretical differences between global education and inclusive education, identify the ways in which the two fields are complementary, and propose strategies for education leadership personnel that build on the commonalities and best practices of both fields.

The authors argue that the two fields have essential elements that can and should inform each other. They term this intersection “inclusive global education”. They integrate the concepts from global education and inclusive education to define inclusive global education as a pedagogical and curricular stance, a way to honor the diverse cultural, linguistic, physical, mental, and cognitive complexities of all people, and a process that puts problematization of social justice issues at the center of leadership and teaching/learning activities.

Whereas global educators traditionally focus on learning to understand and come to respect the cultural, social, and political “other”, the traditional focus of special educators is to empower students to gain self‐respect. The authors argue that the first step involves a discourse that allows people with equally compelling but different views to learn to problematize issues of social justice. Once this first step is taken, inclusive global educators can come to agreements within diverse communities as to how to address local or global social justice issues. The authors further argue that global educators and special educators combine their knowledge of both fields. Together, global inclusive educators can forge pedagogical content knowledge that bridges the gap between affirming one's own identity and maintaining unity with the whole, and exemplifies a robust notion of social justice.

The authors believe this is the first attempt to integrate the conceptual and theoretical assumptions of two divergent knowledge bases (global education and inclusive education).