Professional and organisational socialisation during leadership succession of a school principal: a narrative inquiry using visual ethnography

Trudie Steyn firstname.lastname@example.com
Department of Educational Leadership and Management
University of South Africa
PretoriaSouth Africa

Professional and organisational socialisation during leadership succession of a school principal: a narrative inquiry using visual ethnography
9464B5C08F1994925F7FBE7FA36A2223narrative inquiryprincipal successionprofessional and organisational socialisation
Leadership studies on principal succession show that new principals are required to address numerous challenges when adapting to a new school context.This paper, on a study that used a qualitative research design, reports on the professional and organisational socialisation of a new principal in a South African primary school during the first three years of the principal's appointment.Data were collected through a number of interviews and photographs and were presented in the form of a reflexive story.The principal's story illuminated the socialisation process and illustrated how he made sense of his role as a new principal of the school and the way in which he addressed the challenges in the school.The findings emphasised that socialisation in principal succession can be complex and varied, depending on factors such as the principal's personal characteristics and the school context.

Introduction

Various leadership studies indicate how school principals play a key role in the quality of education in schools (Bush, Kiggundu & Moorosi, 2011;De Villiers & Pretorius, 2011;Drysdale, Goode & Gurr, 2009).It is only recently that these studies have started to focus on principal succession (Bartlett, 2011;Berrong, 2012;Martinez, 2007;Meyer, MacMillan & Northfield, 2009;Meyer & Macmillan, 2011).According to Bengston, Zepeda and Parylo (in press) principal succession is 'unavoidable' and the socialisation of new leaders 'inevitable'.For the purpose of this study principal succession can be defined as the replacement of a school principal by a new principal due to retirement, resignation or promotion that results in changes in organisations and in the people in these organisations (Glasspool, 2007).

A few studies report on principal succession in schools.Berry (2004) and Zepeda, Bengston and Parylo's studies (2012) for example, attempted to understand how school systems planned and managed principal succession.The study of Glasspool (2007) focused on the way in which professional and organisational socialisation influenced first-year principals in specific contexts.Martinez's study (2007) on principal succession focussed on the perceptions of secondary school principals regarding factors, procedures and strategies that could assist them with leadership transition.Meyer et al.'s study (2009) addressed the impact of principal succession on teachers and their work.In a follow-up study Meyer and Macmillan (2011) found that various factors such as teacher morale, trust, loyalty and teacher efficacy had negative and positive implications on the performance of teachers before, during and after the new principal took over.

The consequences of principal succession affect many aspects of schools, such as the appointment and transfer of principals, the role players in the school and educational managers who draw up policies to enhance the positive impact of principals on schools (Hart, 1991).However, Meyer and Macmillan (2011) and Zepeda et al., (2012) indicate that very few studies on principal succession within the first few years after a principal's appointment have been undertaken.Moreover, the growing concern to sustain quality principalship in all schools where principals are replaced by new principals necessitates a study on principal succession in order to inform policy, school practice and future studies about strategies to plan for effective principal succession in schools (Garchinsky, 2008;Zepeda et al., 2012).This is also relevant in South African schools where the quality of education is of the utmost importance.

This article reports on a study on principal succession within a South African school in which a new principal replaced his predecessor who retired in 2009 after more than two decades in office.The school received the prestigious inviting school award from the International Alliance for Invitational Education during the predecessor's reign.It is an urban, Afrikaans primary school which is situated in a middleclass community in Gauteng.At the time of the study, approximately 10% of the learners were exempted from paying school fees and more applications for exemption were piling up.The school catered for Grade R to Grade 7 and offered approximately 70 extracurricular activities.The new principal was appointed at the beginning of 2010.The researcher was of the opinion that the influence of the new principal could have a great impact on the school considering the many years the previous principal was in office.The literature provides examples of "negative" influences of newly appointed principals, although "positive" impacts have not received enough attention (Oplatka, 2004:55).The study, which was part of other studies on principal succession, focused on the first three years after the new principal was appointed at the school.It built on the data collected during the principal's first year in office.The research question that emerged in the study was: How did the principal perceive his professional and organisational socialisation within the first three years of his principalship at the school?

Conceptual framework: Professional and organisational socialisation

Since principal succession is a process of development rather than a single experience the theories on professional and organisational socialisation provided a foundation for this study.Professional socialisation is regarded as the process whereby the incumbent becomes a member of a particular profession and who then develops "an identity within that profession" over some time (Parkay, Currie & Rhodes, 1992:45), while organi-sational socialisation is viewed as the process whereby a person acquires the skills to fulfil a particular organisational role in a specific setting (Saks & Gruman, 2011).

Although the principal in the study was previously a high school principal and a member of the teaching profession, his experience of a primary school was "totally different" to him.As such using professional socialisation as a lens to study the principal's socialisation is appropriate.This study in particular drew on the seminal work of Parkay et al., (1992), who identified five stages of professional socialisation in which to comprehend principal succession (Parkay et al., 1992:54-59):

• Stage 1: Survival.During this stage principals experience "shock", frustration and professional inadequacy while their personal concerns and professional insecurity are high (Parkay et al., 1992:56).• Stage 2: Control.The primary concern of principals during this stage is to set priorities and to get in control of the "overwhelming flow of new demands" (Parkay et al., 1992:57).• Stage 3: Stability.In this period principals handle management tasks effectively and they attempt to develop a "sober" approach to enhance and facilitate significant changes in the school (Parkay et al., 1992:58) A second lens, organisational socialisation, that draws on the prominent work of Garborro (1987) was used to interpret the results of the study.Garborro (1987:20-21) identifies chronological stages of learning and action that new principals face in this socialisation phase.

(1) Stage 1: Taking hold (first six months).Deep learning occurs during this period when the new principal uses orientation within the school context to sets priorities for developing the organisation.(2) Stage 2: Immersion (6-12 months) occurs when deeper diagnosis and learning occur, although only few changes are made within the school.Hart (1991) views this phase as the period when principals must adapt to their new position at the school and the new school culture.(3) Stage 3: Reshaping (12-21 months) takes place when some major changes are usually implemented.(4) In stage 4: .This is when previous changes are assessed so that corrective actions can be taken.(5) Stage 5: Refinement (27-36 months) is a period when little additional learning occurs.Considering the challenges new leaders are confronted with, this transitional process becomes critical since the nature of socialisation has a meaningful impact on newcomers to the organisation.Moreover, socialisation into a new leadership position is centred on the social interactions of people and organisations (Bengston et al., in press), which, according to Hart (1991) may be overwhelming.

Research Methodology

In this qualitative study a narrative inquiry was used to focus on the socialisation of the new principal (Fouché & Schurink, 2011).It involved in-depth data collection methods that explored principal succession in a "bounded system" (Creswell, 2007:74) -a particular school over a period of time.These methods included a number of narrative interviews with the principal (Fouché & Schurink, 2011), including obtaining photo-elicitation data (Epstein, Stevens, McKeever & Baruchel, 2006;Ortega-Alcázar & Dyck, 2011) and school documents.The first two narrative interviews were conducted during the second half of the first year after the new principal was appointed at the school.Another three narrative and two photo-elicitation interviews were conducted during the principal's third year in office.The narrative interviews in particular focused on the principal's experience of the socialisation process and included questions such as: "How did you experience your appointment as a primary school principal?";"How do you describe your leadership style?"; "What influence has the school had on you personally and professionally?";"What influence has your leadership had on the staff and learners since your appointment in 2010?" and "What changes have you made since your appointment?"To prepare for the photo-elicitation interviews the principal was requested to take photographs of changes which were the direct effect after he took office at the school and which best revealed his experience of the socialisation process.According to Kobayashi, Fisher and Grapp (n.d.) photographs are an important means of collecting and analysing qualitative data.They help in the retrospection of lived experiences of participants and by combining photographs with other forms of data collection ensures contextual validity through triangulation (Kobayashi et al., n.d.;Schulze, 2007).The photographs were developed by the researcher and thereafter used during the photo-elicitation interviews to explore the principal's views on his socialisation into the new role as principal.The principal was requested to explain the changes revealed in the photographs and to explain his particular role in these changes.Field notes were taken during the interviews and e-mails with the principal elaborated on the stories of the principal.The study occurred within the natural setting of the principal, the primary school, and informed consent was obtained from him to participate in this study.

Narrative inquiry is an appropriate approach to professional development (Clandinin, Pusher & Orr, 2007;Gough, 2008), which includes principal socialisation.Through analysing stories, narratives provide an understanding of personal and professional educational experiences (Clandinin et al., 2007;Clandinin & Huber, in press;Johnson, 2009).The narrative inquiry included a visual approach and often relied on an image-based social inquiry (Clandinin & Huber, in press;Clandinin et al., 2007;Emmison, 2011) which was used to stimulate and study the principal's knowledge construction and meaning of socialisation of the new principal.This study is yet another response to that of Møller and Eggen's study (2005:335) which viewed leadership "practice" as a narrative which may be useful in understanding and exploring the complexity of school leadership practice, in particular in the case of the principal's socialisation into his leadership role.

The researcher adopted an interpretivist approach to gain an understanding of the principal's experiences (Nieuwenhuis, 2010).She used the photographs to stimulate conversation with the principal about his professional and organisational socialisation, of which six were purposefully selected for this article.The recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into English.An embedded analysis was used to identify the key themes in order to try to understand the principal's views on his socialisation into his new leadership role (Creswell, 2007).The researcher coded the participant's interviews from a storytelling perspective and this involved "big gulps of text" (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004:2) that were often supported by the photographs in this article.The trustworthiness of the collected data was attained by collecting multiple forms of data over a period of three years.

Findings

Background to the school and new principal

The principal's predecessor took office in 1982 and he retired at the end of 2009.The new principal was appointed in 2010.This new principal had been the principal of a nearby high school and his two sons had previously attended the school in the study.This implied that the principal had developed constructs of the previous principal and the school prior to his appointment (Kelly & Saunders, 2010).As valuable as these experiences were, they could not prepare him sufficiently for the post.Recalling his experience as high school principal, which also revealed his leadership approach, the principal explained: "I was … definitely a bit autocratic as far as the school work and academic work were concerned".

When the new principal had heard about his new appointment, he felt "very threatened".He had "no illusions about the fact that he had big shoes to fill … Mr X [the predecessor] is really a legend and he makes a person feel inferior … He was a formidable principal".As proof of his admiration for his predecessor, he showed the Photograph 1 A child hugging the principal researcher a photograph of the ceremony where his predecessor had received a "Laureate award" in 2011 and he himself put the jacket on his predecessor.During his first year at the school, the principal often had to remind staff that he was Mr Y and not Mr X.He had to "prove things to myself and yet also be myself".He nevertheless believed that it was relatively "easy" to take over the reins with so many processes in place.Already during his first year in office, he could see that teachers were "accepting" him as the new principal.He, however, realised that he had to adapt his leadership approach.

I had to make a concerted effort not to walk in here and handle these guys in the same autocratic manner.These guys also come from a system where things were done differently.They worked with a principal who did things differently than what I do.The personal and professional influence that the school had on the new principal during this first year in office was remarkable.He explained:

As a person, I found myself … My relationship with my wife, children and Creator has improved.I have become softer where I was previously strict and task oriented … My own children were amazed when they saw the children hugging their father's knees (photograph 1).The principal referred to an occasion in which a mother remarked that her son had also seen the change in him.According to the boy the principal had such a deep frown on his face on the first day at school, which scared him, but "the frown was now gone".

From the start the principal realised that to steer the school, he had to start with a new vision and mission of the school which were previously "too big and elaborate" and "to make it the best school".The finalised vision and mission "were almost totally Photograph 2 The vision of the school new".The vision and mission statements were framed with a background that portrayed the life and growth of the school.The vision (photograph 2 translated) reveals the ideal for the school: "The barefoot, fun, performance school with a Christian character that strives towards excellence and aims to develop each child in totality".

Although the principal was initially hesitant to bring about great changes, he carefully observed how the school functioned.During his first year he noticed that parents tended "to interfere" in areas of the school, which he acknowledge with "respect and piety" for his predecessor.As a result, he inter alia changed the rules regarding their behaviour on the sports field.He considered himself to be "very task oriented" and preferred to set measurable objectives.He explained: "I decided that parents should no longer be allowed onto the field.They should sit in the pavilion."This led to apprehension by staff and parents although he believed that these new rules since then worked "very well".

The principal acknowledged that he had to adapt his approach to teachers and "handle them with care" since they had "very, very thin skins" and took criticism personally.It bothered him that the school was a "bit laid back" in some areas and he "hated" it when the school was not successful in what it proclaimed to do.He tried to be a "nice guy", but he also wanted to "take a stand" and to "deliver good service".As such he considered himself to be "accessible" and preferred to involve people in decision making.However, he noted that he was a "bit of a 'control freak'" who often had to make unilateral decisions "to ensure that everything is done right".

Already in his first year, the principal realised that many learners had emotional Photograph 3 Tables and chairs in the tuckshop problems that influenced their performance.Due to budget constraints, one counsellor was appointed in his first year, while another counsellor was appointed in his second year.They also assisted parents with problems in the school.Apart from addressing the learners' emotional needs, the principal adapted the menu of the tuck shop.Healthy foods, on a weekly menu, were served and tables and chairs were fitted so that even parents could enjoy food and beverages (see photograph 3).

The operation practices that concerned the principal included the academic performance, the so-called "core business" of any school, the financial system and the road patrol system.His primary concern was the academic focus on which he placed a very high premium.It also explained why the new principal expected teachers to be qualified to teach their subjects, which were often not the case in the past.The principal first focused on monitoring some systems, which included checking examination and test papers of teachers.He instituted weekly tests and included a mid-year examination.Subject heads were responsible for monitoring teachers' work and everything was "double checked and revised".He explained:

My predecessor, the wonderful man that he was, did not peer over people's shoulders … he trusted them … it was a crisis for me; we had to work very hard to combat this attitude about their academic work in and among the staff.Previously, teachers had worked "very isolated" and each grade was on "an island".He instituted a system which addressed continuity and communication between grades and which, according to him, improved tremendously.He said:

It was a huge leap to get the cooperation of the staff.But it has been sorted … it has made a huge difference.I am very proud of I t… although many teachers cried crocodile tears in my office.The principal felt so strongly about his strategy that he considered it a case of "adapt or die".At the end of his first year, three teachers had resigned -which he experienced personally, although no teachers resigned during the next years which he considered to be positive.

The principal's "greatest challenge" was to decrease the number of learners in the Mathematics classes to 15 per class.Since the school did not budget for this in 2010, only Grade 7 learners benefited from it.The performance then raised to 75% and the smaller class system was extended to Grades 6 and 7, which worked "fantastic".He mentioned that the average for learners from this school who wrote the entrance examination at a nearby high school was above 80% compared to the grade average of 40%.The principal believed that the academic focus shifted "180 degrees" and the fact that the school was among the Super 12 as far as academics were concerned made him "very excited".He elaborated:

You can walk around on the school ground any time.It is quiet and everyone works hard.The children have bought into the approach … It's a source of pride for them to work hard.His strong academic focus had some consequences for the staff and learners: the learners were only allowed to participate in sports if they performed according to their intellectual ability, while the teachers could coach a team if their class performance was satisfactorily.Although this had caused initial apprehension, "it worked like a bomb".

As part of his focus on academic performance, the principal protected and supported teachers in executing their teaching responsibilities.He regarded it as his responsibility to "protect" hard-working teachers from the criticism of unfair parents.He gave parents the "bigger picture" when they voiced their complaints about teachers.The school also equipped teachers with resources (such as laptops, interactive white boards and data projectors) and provided appropriate workshops to accomplish their teaching tasks successfully.

Another operational change that occurred in the school was in respect of the financial control system.Already in his first year, the school succeeded in getting 97% of school fees -which they managed to maintain.He attributed it to the improved communication with parents.Moreover, to assist parents in supporting their children, the school placed homework on the school's website a week before it was due date.

A third operational change was that the reward system for learners had been expanded.He "inherited" the system, but regarded it as type of a "sausage machine".This system was extended to senior learners and he put his personal "touch" on it by spending much more time with learners bringing their books to his office.He also made "golden stickers" with his name on it which he affixed in their books and which Photograph 4 Assorted sweets for learners' rewards the learners "valued".This adapted system worked very well -he even gave "better sweets" than his predecessor -something that the learners "liked" (photograph 4).The previous reward system which he regarded as "snobbism" was also expanded to include more than the top 10 learners -approximately 175 out of 200 learners were in academic teams.Learners became "more dedicated to their academic work" and they "loved" the reward system.

Another system that the principal took over was the "remarkable" value system, which was based on the values of faith, hope, love, integrity and excellence.This system was described in some previous studies (Steyn, 2007;Steyn, 2010;Steyn, 2012a;Steyn, 2012b).He did not intend to change the values, but rather to enforce them.He explicitly inculcated values by focusing on a particular value for two months in the year.Each of these values, with appropriate symbols, was displayed in the hall (see for example Photograph 5).The school started with the value "love" (with a heart symbol).He explained: "We started this whole thing [love value] about the man who asked Jesus what the greatest commandment is: 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and the second, which is just as important, that you must love your neighbour'".On Valentine's Day, the learners brought so many gifts that the foyer was almost stacked to the roof which was "amazing".

Photograph 5 The value "love" Photograph 6 Fresh flowers in the foyer A few structural changes occurred during the new principal's years in office.He regarded the foyer as a "real old-fashioned school foyer": unfriendly and uninviting which he changed "drastically" by refurnishing it and making it "brand new".A fresh bowl of flowers became part of the welcoming message to visitors (see Photograph 6).The principal explained how also they "drastically" changed the five administration Photograph 7 The new garden on the school grounds offices, the financial office, the front office of the administrative staff and his secretary's office.The school also built a double storey building, an administration block (see Photograph 7) and converted the Kids Development Academy Hall into more classrooms.Although the school had previously cherished the gardens, the principal added more gardens to beautify the premises (see Photograph 7) and they planned to build a new grade R "school" on the premises.

When reminiscing since his appointment at the school, the principal stated that he felt much more confident and "very nice" about himself and what he had been able to achieve.He acknowledged that the school faced numerous challenges, but he felt "good" about the changes he had been able to make.

Discussion

It is evident from the findings that a change in leadership had significant implications for the new principal, especially after his predecessor's length of service and the "institutional memory" that was left in the school (Rothwell, 2010:10).The new principal was, however, at an advantage due to his previous experience as a principal and because he had been a parent at the school before his appointment.Martinez (2007) indicates that a principal's familiarity with a school is helpful in the transition process.Moreover the transition to his principalship was eased because he succeeded wellrespected principal (Glasspool, 2007).He nurtured the value system he "inherited" and only desired to more explicitly inculcate these values in the school's programme.

The principal acknowledged the positive impact that the school had on him.Reciprocal-effects models in particular hypothesise that relationship between the principal and the features of the school are interactive, which implies that principals adapt to schools and change their behaviour and thinking over time (Kelly & Saunders (2010).It was in particular his leadership style that the principal realised he needed to be adapted.However, as in Garchinsky's study (2008:127), the principal experienced some challenges in becoming a more "collaborative leader".

Since a school's culture develops over many years, a new principal is not in a position to change it within the first year of his/her principalship (Berrong, 2012).It is typical of stage 1 of professional socialisation (Parkay et al., 1992:56) that a new principal experiences some shock and feels threatened, which was also revealed in this study.The findings of the study also concur with stage 1 of organisational socialisation (Garborro, 1987:20) in that the new principal's adjustment in the school was characterised by careful observation.He preferred not to make major changes during this stage (Meyer et al., 2009).The principal realised that he had to show his personal commitment and vision through various actions and behaviours and that he needed time to understand how the school functioned and to get to know the staff, parents and learners (Kelly & Saunders, 2010).

During stage 2 of professional socialisation (Parkay et al., 1992:57) and stage 2 of organisational socialisation (Garborro, 1987:20), deeper diagnosis and learning occurred regarding certain aspects in the school in order to get control of the school.This study indicated that although the principal viewed the school as successful, he saw room for improvement (Kelly & Saunders, 2010).The principal realised that a number of changes were required to ensure school excellence, in particular with regard to academic performance and its related changes.This study confirmed the findings of Garchinsky (2008), Glasspool (2007) and Martinez (2007) that principals regarded academic performance as the main purpose of leadership and that they regarded it as their responsibility to supervise the quality it.More assessment opportunities were scheduled and teachers' work was monitored since the principal understood the learning needs of the learners from his experience as a high school principal.Instituting collaboration between staff members who worked as islands was a challenge which the principal successfully implemented (Berry, 2004;Kelly & Saunders, 2010).

Although there was initially some apprehension for the unknown from loyal staff members (Kelly & Saunders, 2010), it was particularly during stage 2 of both professional socialisation (Parkay et al., 1992:57) and organisational socialisation (Garborro, 1987:20) that the principal's task orientation led to tension and some resistance from teachers.Tension can be created if the practices the new principal suggests are not consistent with or fit the norms of the school culture (Meyer et al., 2009).It was evident that teachers in this study had previously developed a certain way of executing their duties in the same school.Apart from this, the leadership styles of the two leaders differed significantly.Berry's findings (2004:106) show that an "opposite leadership style" from the predecessor and previous systems in the school could have an impact on the principal, which was also evident in this study.The new principal believed that his predecessor had often not been strict enough.Being task oriented, the principal for example changed certain rules for the sake of school excellence.Although the principal experienced interpersonal relationships challenging (Glasspool, 2007), he succeeded in building professional relationships that eventually led to enhanced teacher commitment (Meyer et al., 2009), parent commitment and learner commitment.

During stages 3 to 5 of professional socialisation (Parkay et al., 1992:57) and stages 3 to 5 of organisational socialisation (Garborro, 1987:20-21) more fine tuning of certain changes in this study occurred.It was also evident that the principal's selfconfidence developed as he succeeded to achieve occupational identity (Kelly & Saunders, 2010) and the operational processes became more effective.It was in particular the improved academic performance that the principal valued.Another operational change included an improvement in the financial system, when more parents successfully paid their school fees.The principal acknowledged parents' concerns, but he was firm in protecting the school and teachers from unreasonable parents so that the teachers could concentrate on their core business (Martinez, 2007).

With important operational systems in place, the principal focused on the physical environment of the school, which included new buildings, extra classes, changes in some parts of the school gardens, alterations to the tuckshop and its menu, and some structural changes and interior design modifications in the foyer and administrative offices to make the school more inviting.According to the philosophy of invitational education, the physical environment is a "socially constructed support system" which sends powerful messages to role players that they are trusted, cared for (Purkey & Siegel, 2003:117).The principal's focus on making the physical environment "more welcoming" is confirmed positively by Hargreaves and Fink (2004:10).Purkey and Siegel (2003:117-118) in particular state that "Invitational Leaders keep a close eye on how to make things happen through the physical environment, for places that add to, or subtract form, respect for people" since people are very sensitive to the physical environment.

Conclusion

The findings of the study showed that principal's socialisation into a new school can be challenging and that there are various factors that may influence the professional and organisational socialisation of principals.They also revealed that a principal can function at different stages of socialisation simultaneously, depending on his personality and previous professional experience.The following conclusions derived from the study: • The principal showed a strong task-orientation that developed from his previous more autocratic leadership style as a high school principal.

• The new school context, with its inviting and caring character, had a positive influence on the principal's leadership practice with the result that the principal's leadership style changed to a more collaborative approach to leadership.He nevertheless maintained his task orientation and stood firm with regard to the academic performance in the school.• Although the principal in the study was careful not to make drastic changes initially, he regarded it as important to address aspects that hindered quality education in the school.His stance inspired him to address certain operational aspects of the school, which included the academic quality in the school and structural changes to accommodate the growing number of learners in the school.• The principal's previous experience as a principal and his maturity enhanced his wisdom in taking action and this led the school towards higher levels of academic performance.He clearly emphasised both teaching and learning by cherishing relationships and maintaining a balance between high expectations and efficiency along with care and performance.It is recommended that strategies need to be identified to nurture and support the socialisation process of new principals.It implies a clear understanding of the challenges they face during the socialisation process.

Although this study was exploratory in nature and it may be useful for new principals to address the challenges related to their socialisation, two directions for further research can be identified.First, to broaden the study in order to include diverse new principals of different countries, school types and geographical locations.In particular more studies among newly appointed principals, especially those in disadvantaged communities in South Africa, are required to determine how such principals experience socialisation as described in this study.Second, to employ a longitudinal study so that certain trends in the socialisation of new principals can be determined.Third, if the socialisation of principals is a global concern, it is important to develop an appropriate instrument to measure principal's socialisation.Once such a socialisation pattern is determined, it may lead to an enhanced understanding of principals' socialisation -which may have a critical impact on the quality of principal succession.

Principal succession: trends and impacts. Doctoral dissertation. C Bartlett, 2011United States of America: University of Houston

School systems' practices of controlling socialization during principal succession: Looking through the lens of an organizational socialization theory. E Bengston, S J Zepeda, O Parylo, 10.1177/1741143212468344Educational Management Administration and Leadership. 2013. February

The relationship between principal turnover and student achievement in reading/english language arts and math grades six through eight. Doctoral dissertation. D A Berrong, 2012United States of America: Liberty University

Succession to school leadership: challenge and response for principals. Doctoral dissertation. B A Berry, 2004TexasA&M University

T Bush, E Kiggundu, P Moorosi, Preparing new principals in South Africa: the ACE: School Leadership Programme. 201131

Narrative inquiry. D J Clandinin, J Huber, International Encyclopaedia of Education. Mcgraw, Baker, Peterson, New York, NYElsevierMay 2012in press. 3rd ed

Navigating sites for narrative inquiry. J Clandinin, D Pusher, A Orr, Journal of Teacher Education. 582007

J W Creswell, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CASage Publications20072nd ed

Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society. C Daiute, C Lightfoot, 2004Sage Publications, IncThousand Oaks, CA

Democracy in schools: are educators ready for teacher leadership?. De Villiers, E Pretorius, S G , South African Journal of Education. 312011

An Australian model of successful school leadership: moving from success to sustainability. L Drysdale, H Goode, D Gurr, 200947

Conceptualizing visual data. M Emmison, Qualitative research. Issues of theory, Method and Practice. Silverman, LondonSage20113rd ed

Photo Elicitation Interview (PEI): Using Photos to Elicit Children's Perspectives. I Epstein, B Stevens, P Mckeever, S Baruchel, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 532006

Qualitative research designs. C B Fouché, W Schurink, Research at grassroots: For the social sciences and human professions. H As De Vos, Strydom, & Fouché, Csl Delport, PretoriaJL van Schaik Publishers20114th ed

Planning for the Continuity of a School's Vision and Culture before Leadership Succession Events. Doctoral dissertation. J J Garborro, Garchinsky CR. 1987. 2008Harvard Business School PressUnited States of America: Drexel UniversityThe dynamics of taking charge

Socialization of Pennsylvania high school principal succession. Doctoral dissertation. T S Glasspool, 2007United States of America: University of Pittsburgh

Narrative experiments and imaginative inquiry. N Gough, South African Journal of Education. 282008

The seven principles of sustainable leadership. A Hargreaves, D Fink, Educational Leadership. 6172004

Leader succession and socialization: A synthesis. A W Hart, Review of Educational Research. 611991

Narrative inquiry and school leadership identities. G C Johnson, 10.1080/13603120902814664International Journal of Leadership in Education. 122009

The use of photography in operations management research. K Kobayashi, R Fisher, R Gapp, June 2009

New heads on the block: three case studies of transition to primary school headship. School Leadership and Management. A Kelly, N Saunders, 201030

Principal succession in high socioeconomic status secondary schools. J A Martinez, 2007United States of America, CACalifornia State University Channel IslandsMasters thesis

Principal succession and the micropolitics of educators in schools: Some incidental results from a larger study. M J Meyer, R B Macmillan, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy. 1172011. 27 March 2013

Principal succession and its impact on teacher morale. M J Meyer, R B Macmillan, S Northfield, International Journal of Leadership in Education. 122009

Team leadership in upper secondary education. J Møller, A B Eggen, School Leadership and Management. 252005

Introducing qualitative research. J Nieuwenhuis, First Steps in Research. Maree, PretoriaVan Schaik Publishers2010

The arrival of a new woman principal and teachers' self-renewal: reflections from life stories and mid-career teachers. I Oplatka, Planning and Changing. 352004

Migrant narratives of health and well-being: Challenging 'othering' processes through photo-elicitation interviews. I Ortega-Alcázar, I Dyck, Critical Social Policy. 3212011

Professional socialization: A longitudinal study of first-time high school principals. F Parkay, G Currie, J Rhodes, 10.1177/0013161X92028001003Educational Administration Quarterly. 281992

Becoming an invitational Leader: A new approach to professional and personal success. W W Purkey, B L Siegel, 2003Humanics Trade GroupAtlanta, GA

Saks AM & Gruman JA 2011. Organizational socialization and positive organizational behaviour: Implications for theory, research, and practice. W J Rothwell, Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within. New YorkAmerican Management Association2010284th ed

The usefulness of reflexive photography for qualitative research: A case study in higher education. S Schulze, South African Journal of Higher Education. 212007

Adhering to the assumptions of invitational education: A case study. G M Steyn, South African Journal of Education. 272007

G M Steyn, Skoolhoof se perspektief op professionele ontwikkeling: 'n enkele gevallestudie. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe. 201050

Reflections on school leadership focussing on moral and transformational dimensions of a principal's leadership practice. G M Steyn, Journal for Christian Scholarship. 48

A narrative inquiry into the leadership practice in a South African school through a servant-leadership lens. G M Steyn, http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-32-0-000-12-Web/JSS-32-2-000-1 2-Abst-PDF/JSS-32-2-151-12-1321-Steyn-G/JSS-32-2-151-12-1321Styen-G-M-Tx%5 B4%5D. 27 March 201332

Examining the planning and management of principal succession. S J Zepeda, E Bengston, O Parylo, Journal of Educational Administration. 502012


Inclusive education: a case of beliefs competing for implementation

Adrienne Meltz email@example.com
Department of Education Management and Policy Studies
University of Pretoria
South Africa

Chaya Herman
Department of Education Management and Policy Studies
University of Pretoria
South Africa

Venitha Pillay
Department of Education Management and Policy Studies
University of Pretoria
South Africa

Inclusive education: a case of beliefs competing for implementation
D65FD372EC717A478E11C06765485CCFconditional inclusionemergent economic contextsinclusive educationJewish community schoolKurt Lewin's theory of planned change
The study explored the understanding and implementation of inclusive education in an independent Jewish community school; a school with a community ethos of care and belonging, whose context is, by definition, exclusionary on the grounds of a particular social category -religion.However, this exclusionary agenda positioned the school as inclusive on the grounds of strong communal values.Nevertheless, the school struggled with difference and diversity despite its purportedly strong communal spirit and religious culture.Further, it is arguable that the challenges encountered by the school may be indicative of the emergent economic context of South Africa where aspiration is often thwarted by economic realities.This study relied on qualitative methods of data generation such as insider interviews, personal accounts and document analysis.The participants were drawn from four stakeholder groups, namely, teachers, parents, middle managers and top managers.Guided by Lewin's theory of planned change, the study identified four belief systems which influenced the way inclusive education was both understood and practised in this school.The study argued for the recognition of the importance of different belief systems in the implementation of inclusion in South Africa.

Introduction

We report the findings of an exploration and analysis of the way in which policy on inclusive education was understood and implemented at a Jewish community school in South Africa.

The study was conducted within an educational context, namely, a community school that is, by definition, exclusionary on the grounds of a particular social category -religion.However, it was as a result of this exclusionary agenda that the school was viewed as inclusive on the grounds of its strong communal values.In light of this, the expectation would be that all children of a particular religion would be welcomed with open arms at the school.The crux of the study is that this was not the case.Despite the apparent strong communal spirit upheld by a strong religious culture, the school community struggled with the concepts of difference and diversity of ability.The investigation highlighted the difficulties of individual change as well as planned change within a community school.Accordingly, it represented a specific effort to explore the many challenges constraining the implementation of inclusive education policy.Regardless of the social justice model adopted by the new democratic government in South Africa, the constraints of an emerging economy are visible in the microcosm of the school.The options available to the school were constrained by severe financial limitations coupled with increasing demands from the community.These demands were underpinned by parental awareness of the value of education in a precarious global economic climate and an emergent economy such as South Africa.

Background

Prior to democracy in 1994, the dominant discourse in South African education was the medical deficit model, or 'individual model'.It is termed individual because of its understanding of disability as an individual condition (Terzi, 2004) and regarded a medical deficit model as it borrows terminology and practices from the medical domain in order to assess children's limitations against developmental and functional norms (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).

This discourse had its core within special needs and disabilities and was evident among supporters of special schools and segregated education.Being a deficit model it regarded the individual as needing to be cured outside the regular education system.Deficiencies in the system were ignored and those operating it were absolved of all responsibility, thus attaching the cause of deficiency to the individual and not the system.This discourse influenced exclusive practices in education for decades and resulted in a prevention of access to mainstream education, for many (Naicker, 2006).

Subscribers to this model view normality or "ablesim" as being the perfect body and any deviation from ableness results in disability and a diminished human state.They have a collective belief that impairment is inherently negative and, if not ameliorated, cured or eliminated, it should be silenced (Campbell, 2008).This model creates social categories which assume a causal relation between individual impairment as deviating from human normality and disability which is viewed as a restriction in abilities to accomplish tasks (Terzi, 2004).These social reactions to impairment, which result from the methodical exclusion of disability from schools and other social environments, produce a cycle of normality, difference and procedures to cure which are strengthened by the dual system of special education and regular education (Hamre & Oyler, 2004).Education strengthens such practices by the building of special schools and the training of special teachers and by making the disabled the objects of endless testing and measurement.Education includes in as much as it excludes and the belief in a "common referent" or norm against which disability is measured (Graham & Slee, 2008:281) pervades education, while simultaneously limiting the range of possibilities for inclusive education (Slee, 2001).

The birth of democracy in South Africa and the emergence of political activism of disabled people's movements globally brought a shift in ideological thinking from the medical deficit or individual model to the social mode based on principles of social justice.The social model defines disability as the creation of particular exclusionary social and economic practices and structures rooted in cultural attitudes and seeks to dispel the understanding that there is a causal relationship between impairment and disability (Terzi, 2004).

Oliver (1996( in Terzi, 2004) ) argues that the social model does not deny the problem of disability but pinpoints it within society.Put in another way disability is seen as being enforced on disabled people in addition to their impairment by a repressive and discriminating social structure.The social model rejects the basic concepts underpinning the medical or individual model and according to Oliver (1990in Terzi, 2004) tackles marginalisation and discrimination by removing the disabling barriers produced by dominant social and cultural institutions.It deconstructs and disputes these barriers by aiding in understanding (Terzi, 2004).

The social model is based on principles of social justice which according to Schugurensky (2010) would characterize a society as one which aspires to the principles of equity and solidarity, which values and understands differences and which places high value on human dignity.Artiles, Harris-Murri & Rostenberg (2006) imply that social justice views pervade the discourses on inclusion and are the means to achieve equity for students with disabilities.They argue that the social justice model is not merely a traditional model with individualistic views of allowing access, or communitarian views of being socially responsible, but a transformative model where underlying ideological and historical assumptions of difference are examined, where practice is deliberately negotiated, where marginalization is critiqued and discredited, where merit based school cultures are questioned and where resources are distributed in a nurturing and meaningful commitment.

Based on social justice being transformative, one of the guiding principles of the social model therefore, and in direct contrast to the medical model of diagnosis, is the principle that attitudes, values and beliefs in society cause disability, and therefore society needs to be treated and cured (Johnstone, 2001and Oliver, 1996in Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).

By incorporating the principles of social justice, the social model sees education as the catalyst for overcoming the prejudicial attitudes of society towards people with impairments (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).According to Winzer and Mazurek (2010), this model is the chief principle upon which inclusion is founded and, says Johannessen (2010), is about action taken to ensure that equity in education and freedom from discrimination are achieved.

In education, the social model is operationalised by means of inclusive schooling (Winzer & Mazurek, 2010).This model views education more broadly as a vehicle for overcoming prejudicial attitudes towards disabled people in society (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).According to this model, education would comprise very different practices from those provided in terms of the medical deficit model and would need to undergo a significant change in principles and practices when providing for disabled children.Accordingly, curriculum approaches, classroom management and the ethos of all stakeholders would have to change in order to rupture current stereotypical and discriminating attitudes.Furthermore, this model envisages an environment in which segregated schooling would be replaced with schools that are accessible and provide space and structure for participation by all (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).

The above models provided the substance for the argument that the discourse one adopts carries powerful messages for practice.For example, a medical deficit stance views understandings of inclusion entrenched in normative discourses as promoting tolerance rather than inclusion.On the other hand, the social model argues that disabilities and difficulties should not lessen equal access and participation in education and society, and contends that, through inclusive education, equity in education and society could be achieved.Similarly, the study on which this article is based suggested that one's mindset influences action; in this case, the practice of inclusive education.Returning to South Africa, inclusive education became a possibility after the first democratic elections in 1994, when the Bill of Rights raised expectations in this regard.The elections in South Africa coincided with the Salamanca Statement and the guiding principles of this document, produced under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1994, spoke to the prevailing philosophy in South Africa that schools should accommodate all children (Greyling, 2009).South Africa was thus faced with the challenge to change from the past unsatisfactory and separatist educational experiences (Nel, Müller, Hugo, Helldin, Bäckmann, Dwyer & Skarlind, 2011) to an inclusive education system (Department of Education (DoE), 2001).

To address this challenge, in October 1996 the Ministry appointed a National Commission on Special Needs in Education and Training (NCSNET) and a National Committee on Education Support Services (NCESS).Their joint findings resulted in a recommendation that the South African education system foster the development of inclusive and supportive centres of learning.And so, in 2001, Education White Paper 6: Special Education: Building an inclusive education and training system (WP6) (DoE, 2001) was published.

The White Paper emphasises that all learners can learn and are entitled to support.It suggests that education structures could meet the needs of all learners, acknowledging and respecting their differences by changing attitudes and environments (Hay & Beyers, 2011).

Yet, despite WP6, inclusive education practice is not happening consistently or at all in South Africa.Pather (2011) argues in this regard that the tensions between the beliefs of those with the individual-deficit mindset and those with the social mindset are evident in the challenge of translating policy into practice.

Currently, both the above discourses are still playing out in South African education with some children included in, while others are excluded from, mainstream education.Inclusion appears to be practised in pockets within South Africa and as Basson (2011) found that different degrees of inclusion were being practised even within the same school.He concluded that teachers' inclusive practices are likely to be sustained over a short to medium period as teachers employ practices they have learnt.They then tend to revert back and draw on the personal practices entrenched in their own teaching repertoire.

One may argue that the belief of exclusion became entrenched in the national psyche and many South African teachers, who are currently teaching, were trained in and began their teaching careers within a paradigm that held fast to the idea of the correctness of exclusion.In support of this, Pather (2007) found that mainstream teachers, especially those who were born and brought up in a context which centred on two separate systems of education, assumed that disabled learners were better provided for in special schools.

It therefore appears that the eradication of apartheid did not mean the end of conservatism in education.A consequence of this was inhibited growth in a shared inclusive school philosophy (Engelbrecht, Oswald & Forlin, 2006).Walton (2011:243) emphasises the role of the community in supporting inclusion.She refers specifically to schools in poor areas which are characterised by "ubuntu" in spite of the fact that they have very limited resources.Ubuntu is the African philosophy of being that says, "I am because we are, or I am fully human in relationship with others", and emphasises cooperation and the sharing of resources.

It would seem that in some cases a community has the power to influence the practice of inclusion.This study entered the debate by exploring the implementation of inclusive education in a community school.The question that was asked was why implementation was difficult in a school in which one would assume inclusion would be a natural occurrence.

The context

The school in the case study was established in 1960 to serve the local and growing Jewish community in a suburb of Johannesburg (Herman, 2004).It is community funded and governed and therefore engages in inclusive education separately from state policy.The governing body, the South African Board of Jewish Education (the Board), was established in 1928 and its functions are to control, coordinate and inspect schools, while representing the Jewish community in educational matters.The Board's main and fundamental objective is to ensure that as many Jewish children as possible receive a Jewish education regardless of financial or academic ability.The fact that the school is a Jewish community school means the majority of children and parents are bound together by their Jewish faith and its way of life, whereas the staff are racially and religiously mixed.

As an independent school and a member of the Independent Schools Association of Southern Africa (ISASA), the school is cognisant of and bound by the Constitution of South Africa and WP6, meaning that it should include children who experience barriers to learning wherever possible and wherever it is educationally realistic (ISASA, 2002in Kruger & Yorke, 2010).

Financially, the school is not entitled to a government subsidy and is reliant on fees and on the community's contributions.Furthermore, the school, as an independent school, is competing in a marketplace where academic norms and standards are the benchmark.

The school is homogenous by its nature as a faith-based school but it is typified by academic diversity.Sitting next to one another in classrooms are learners who experience barriers, highly advanced learners, learners who underachieve, learners from diverse economic backgrounds and learners with preferred modes of learning.

We acknowledge that within the context of the study and when talking about inclusion, we referred only to the learners who needed intensive academic support.At the time of the study about 14% of the learners in the school were experiencing barriers to learning.These learners were catered for by the Academic Support Department (ASD) which offers support to small groups of learners using the pullout system, as well as facilitation in the classrooms.In addition to support, the department offers enrichment during the school day to a few high achieving learners.

Over the years the school has built up a reputation of being a small nurturing school which puts a lot of effort into the learners.Structures, such as regular meetings and case conferences on the needs of all the learners, have added to its reputation.As a result the school had been described as inclusive in organisation.

The parents in the community have facilitated the process of inclusion by withdrawing their children from remedial schools and applying at the school.The increased enrolment applications and the subsequent influx of learners who experience barriers subsequently precipitated the emergence of some resistance to the change.Furthermore, an imposing standards agenda, pressure to achieve the correct learner balance and labelling or marginalisation of learners added even more tension to the school population.The change ultimately resulted in some teachers embracing the arrival of the children from remedial schools, while others complained that it was difficult to teach children on different levels in the same class.

Consequently, this community school was faced with a dilemma: its shared values of membership, loyalty and care (Strike, 2000) on the one hand, and the reality of some children within the community being denied access to mainstream education based on learning differences, on the other.This challenge was addressed in the study and it was found that change in practice needs to follow a change in attitude towards children who experience barriers to learning.In this regard we turn to Lewin's theory.

Theoretical framework

The findings were theoretically framed and linked to Lewin's planned approach to change, including field theoretical and group dynamic theories.His theoretical position provides an understanding of behaviour and change (Burnes, 2009).

Lewin's analysis assumes that beliefs represent an individual's principles and drive the possibility and consequences of action in an individual's phenomenal world.Principles and the cognitive views of an individual's world are represented by beliefs.Thus, beliefs are powerful forces which include an individual's attraction and aversion to their own and other groups and standards, their feelings regarding status differences and authority, and their reactions to approval and disapproval (Benne, 1976).

Lewin contends that the individual is always seen in terms of the group and underlying his model is the concept of a force field, which consists of opposing forces holding group processes in a state of equilibrium (Kippenberger, 1998).Lewin termed this force field a quasi-stationary equilibrium which was in a constant state of change (Burnes, 2004).

In this study, the various forces created four different discourses in the community, vying for dominance over the individual's thinking and understanding of the meaning of inclusive education.The study found that each belief system provided its own understanding of inclusion.

Methodology

The inquiry was conducted as a qualitative case study embedded in an interpretative paradigm.Merriam (2009) maintains that researchers conducting qualitative research would be largely interested in how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences.

This paradigm assumes a relativist ontology that suggests there are multiple realities and that the researcher and partici-pant co-create, co-construct and co-inform these realities and understandings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

Semi-structured interviews were held with four stakeholder groups consisting of teachers, parents, middle managers and top managers.Twenty-seven participants were interviewed individually for about one hour.The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.Document analysis was also undertaken and consisted of perusing past principals' logbooks, the Board's documents, minutes of meetings and correspondence.These documents were used to triangulate data so as to enable a rich and deep understanding of the issues examined.

Atlas.ti -computer assisted qualitative data analysis software -was used to code the data.Once coded, the narrative method was used to tell the "storied lives" (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klinger, Pugach & Richardson,2005:197) as, through collaboration and developing relationships, Connelly and Clandinin (1990) believe people feel free to construct their stories.In this way the voices of the stakeholders were allowed to emerge.

Findings

Based on the analysis the argument was that apart from the medical deficit model and the social model (diversity), two additional discourses, the pragmatic discourse and the community discourse, impacted on the implementation of inclusion education.These discourses vied for dominance and resulted in fragmented and conditional inclusion.The following section will be divided into a description of the four discourses and will be followed by a discussion which highlights the discourses vying for dominance and the link to Lewin's theory.The following discourses will be addressed: special education, pragmatism, diversity (social justice) and community.

Special education

Supporters of a special education model believe that children with innate conditions achieve above or below the grade-level norm, and that this poses a problem in both school and society.In order to improve significantly or to catch up to their peers, they will need to receive specialised, intensive and individualised instruction provided for in separated settings (Brantlinger, 1997).

The Board's initial vision for the school entailed a separate school or self-contained classrooms and was not to promote inclusive education.As Charles, one of the Board members reported, it was their intention to have "a fully running special needs school" on the campus.Although a strong marketing drive, which addressed the dwindling learner numbers at the time, invited Jewish children from remedial schools to attend the school, an inclusive approach was never intended.

It would seem that there was an ironic turn of events for the school when it began developing in an inclusive direction.Charles believed that the school was "going too far on this"[and questioned] "...are we moving too quickly on it?"He challenged the current model at the school and the structure of the ASD, which was an inclusive model, "the model here is not the right model...and if we went and staffed this department in a different way, we [would] have different results in the school."

Charles' main goal remained to include Jewish children who experienced barriers to learning socially and he explained, "I'm all for them being in our environment, participating, so they are part of sports, part of assemblies and part of plays".He was initially concerned about the social marginalisation of children who went to remedial schools but this became tem-pered and his view became progressively more aligned with separate education.Accordingly, not all learners who experienced barriers were to be part of the mainstream classrooms at the school.

In the special education discourse the classroom symbolises a "fictional" centre (Graham & Slee, 2008:279), a space into which certain groups are brought and where powerful normative domains are constructed which protect it and define its exterior.At the centre, a socially constructed desirable normal subject resides and defines deficit conceptualisations of the other than normal object who resides on the margins waiting to be normalised.In this superficial inclusive environment, shaped by education and society, domains of interiority and exteriority are derived (Graham & Slee, 2008).

In school classrooms, conceptions of this 'centre' are manifested and epitomised and differences highlighted and reinforced.Children with learning impairments have to fit into the space constructed for them by normative, imperious and dominant discourses (Ngcobo & Muthukrishna, 2011).As Katherine a middle manager stated:

"I think that if you know that your structures can cope with it, yes take them in, but if we know that our structures can't, we know that it's going to be putting that much extra pressure and that's not fair."Katherine believed that inclusion was about children fitting into the current structure and did not mention access or accommodating children's needs.She felt that if the current space denied certain children's needs, these children would require a remedial school.Sarah, a teacher, was also unable to see the benefit of "this setup".She reflected a special education approach and thought that the school "should almost have a remedial school within the school".From what she had noticed at a remedial school, "it's a very intimate environment the teacher gets to every single child".

Sarah acknowledged that if learners were too heterogeneous or had "psychological problems [and] learning problems", they would need separate tuition.Brantlinger (1997) echoes this and argues that some mainstream school structures, which are homogenous and view learning as developmentally linear, do not cater to diversity.

This special education approach saw a system for these learners as being one with a separate identity, boundaries, staff, budget and authority, which the school was not able to provide.This discourse, which is bound by the norm, limits the possibilities for inclusive education.

Pragmatism

The second approach, the pragmatic approach, is one which endeavours to interpret a belief or perception by tracing its practical consequences.Proponents of this approach are attracted to concreteness, to facts and action, and to power (Menand, 1997).

Pragmatism appeals to particulars, to positivism and to emphasising practical aspects.It shows disdain for verbal solutions and useless questions (Menand, 1997) and, rather, respects structure.

Andrew, a parent, was concerned with structures at the school.He believed that inclusion could only happen in "a structure where there is both the teachers and the class structure that allows for inclusive children or for inclusive education.My understanding is that the school doesn't really have enough resources to do that effectively".

Despite showing regret at having to turn children away, Andrew said, "it's sad if they couldn't come, but if there weren't resources to deal with their issues, there's nothing we can do about it".Andrew lamented that it was more about resources as an end result and less about the rights of the child: "it's not a human rights issue it's an issue of what the school is geared to dealing with...it's about the resources that are available and the structures available".

Andrew also struggled with the disproportionate ratio of learners to good teachers which had seemingly resulted in benchmark scores being "lower than [they] should be".He thought this indicated "an [unbalanced] correlation" and believed the reason to be too many "special needs children" being accommodated within the framework of the school's available resources.Jordaan and Jordaan (1989) posit that a person's truth is determined by the practical consequences of the plan in which they choose to believe.Accordingly, Barbara, another parent, also seemed influenced by balance and realistic, sensible and practical attitudes.She too measured the value of an idea by its consequences and was driven by what she believed were practical consequences and their bearing on the school.

Her concern was with the ratio of learners who experienced barriers to neurotypical learners and wondered if "the school [would] be better if we had 10% or 15% of special needs kids".She thought that perhaps "we could have a school that attracts all of them, but I genuinely think you need some kind of boundaries in terms of numbers".

A pragmatic approach to inclusion was dependent on issues such as school reputation, balance between resources and numbers of children and pedagogical considerations.Despite the intention by stakeholders to cater educationally for as many Jewish children as possible, there were choices as to which child was in and which child was out.Inclusion was understood as a balance between a pragmatic world of resources, infrastructure and balance, against an ideal world of belonging and equality.These values and meanings were embedded in the thinking of some stakeholders.However, setting cut-off points and exceptions to inclusive education weakened it and served to instil both old and new forms of segregation.

Social Model

The third approach, a social justice approach to inclusion, embraces all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexual orientation, language, socio-economic status and any other aspect of an individual's identity that might seem different.Supporters of this view have a vision of an inclusive and equitable society, which takes into account a broad range of diversity beyond disability (Polat, 2011), and sees inclusion as the educational ideal which is promoted through schools.Samantha, both a teacher and a parent at the school, felt it's vitally important that social justice and diversity be promoted by creating a human rights culture where all are respected especially in this particular privileged environment.This she felt could be achieved by exposing children to a larger diverse population.

the only way we can become tolerant is by including all kinds of people and being exposed to all kinds of people...I have always felt that my kids have been privileged enough to go to a private school and being at a Jewish school only exposes them to such a small population of privileged people...if they could be exposed to some kind of difficulty, to people with some difficulties, it would be so good for them to develop them as whole proper human beings (Samantha).Taysum and Gunter (2008) argue that social justice is more than taking diversity into account and simply means equality of opportunity, which, for Dave, a middle manager, was vital.He believed that inclusivity meant we have to create a vehicle for a child to become great in his own capacity...It's growing people and if there is no opportunity or a place for a child to go to that has a disability, how on earth does he or she grow?Like Dave, inclusive education was understood by some stakeholders to mean that the actions of society can disable people (Hodkinson & Vickerman, 2009).In South Africa in particular inclusive education is explicitly viewed as a means to address issues of social justice, inequality and human rights.Samantha said:

[There is] such a need for fairness and everyone should be given an equal opportunity no matter who and what you are…I mean who are we to judge, who are we to play G-d and say who can come into our school, who can't come into our school, who's worthy enough and who is not worthy enough?Lana, a parent, challenged the pragmatic approach to conditions and concerns of compromised standards.She suggested that inclusion is rather about quality education which is dependent on the quality of the teachers."I think that those kids themselves shouldn't compromise the education.If a teacher is well trained and equipped and knows how to handle it, there should be no issue at all" (Lana).

She saw inclusion as a form of schooling which "attempts methodologically and pedagogically, all ways to try and facilitate learning and bridge differences".

This diversity discourse (social justice), the basis for inclusion, is in direct contrast to the special education and pragmatic approaches.Stakeholders who believed in this approach started to believe in this discourse through their personal experiences with disability, for example Dave, who had grown up with a disabled father.They viewed inclusion as benefitting all learners and advocated inclusion as a means to remove the injustices of the past and the present by encouraging learning and selfgrowth within the community.Inclusion involves major changes in the educational system and it is hard to see how such changes could be accomplished without the diversity ethos of the people involved.

Community

According to McMillan (1996), community means a sense of belonging together, a feeling of trust that comes from shared experiences.Membership provides an audience where one sees oneself mirrored in the responses of others.Simply being Jewish opened the door to membership of this community.

According to Dave, a middle manager, all Jewish children would benefit from being a part of the Jewish community, by having an identified and accepted "place" within the community.He believed community is about "really working together to make sure that everybody in the community has a place, a sense of belonging and can function".

The community members have rights and the school has the responsibility to afford them their rights.Maree, a parent, also recognised that it was the right of any Jewish child to attend the school, "regardless of where that child is on the academic scale, that child…should have a chance of having a Jewish education too".

Other parents like Cheryl agreed that as a Jewish school it should not be "losing Jewish children to remedial schools".Cheryl described how her son, who experienced barriers to learning, had been included in the school "and it has been fantastic.It has enabled him to be at a school with his brothers, his cousins, have an identity, being part of…[Jewish life] socially.It's changed him completely".Strike (2000) contends that all people want to belong.Furthermore, Omoto and Snyder (2002) state that, by belonging and by having a heightened and broadened sense of community, personal efficacy may be effected.Social support and a caring environment increase feelings of confidence, optimism and self-esteem.It is as if community provides collective selfesteem.

Cheryl confirmed this when talking about her son being included.She described how being part of a community can empower and described how "[inclusion] completely, absolutely works…if there's that real support…it has been amazing it has been empowering".Shields (2000) argues that currently the notion of schools as homogeneous communities with shared beliefs, norms and values is inadequate.She maintains that schools are highly complex and heterogeneous and suggests that where there is difference in a community there is not a set of established norms; consequently members of a community need to develop norms together with openness and respect and to create a "community of difference" (Shields, 2004:38).This applies to the school which despite serving a culturally and religiously homogenous community school, the school was also of a particular kind of 'community of difference' with regard to academic ability.

Religion and culture, a homogenous Jewish centre, the "glue" (Strike, 2000:618), was taken as a given; however, differences of another kind, differences of ability posed unnegotiated and unconstructed challenges for the community.The question thus emerges as to who and/or what drove the implementation of inclusive education.

Discussion

It would seem that the Board's intention was to follow the special education route, yet this discourse was strongly mixed with the community discourse, because they needed to bring Jewish children to the school, and the pragmatic discourse, because they needed the fees.Inclusion therefore happened by default and caused discomfort for some.The Board provided a good example of where the four discourses were conflicted and could not be separated, thus indicating the complexity of the issue.As there was no formal inclusive education policy from the Board the pragmatic discourse appeared to set the standard by providing conditions and parameters under which inclusion could be provided and how much inclusivity would be accepted.It seemed to cohere with the community discourse of care although not for all.The social justice discourse suggested that all children were welcome yet these beliefs caused disequilibrium as it expected the community discourse to live up to the idea of abandoning the created norms and conditions.Also in conflict were the special education beliefs and the community discourse of togetherness although special education beliefs protected the community discourse from children who could not fit into the "norm".On the ground however, teachers, parents and middle management needed to deal with the change.

Subsequently, change towards inclusion occurred at the school not because of the group but because of individuals.It was evident that the continual admission of learners who ex-perienced barriers resulted in either change or resistance to change, depending on the perceptions of various individuals.

While special education beliefs (medical discourse) sanctioned the status quo of separateness and discredited inclusion, these beliefs conflicted to a large extent with the community discourse of togetherness.Yet this discourse provided the privileged educational status quo demanded by the community.Consequently, the special education belief protected the community discourse by excluding children who were not able to fit into the "norm".This belief, according to Soudien and Baxen (2006), views disability as being associated with deficiency.The study revealed that some teachers like Sarah constructed learners who experience barriers as being better off in separate settings.She could not understand "if you've got a school like [Remedial School] why we would want to change".This resulted in children being lumped together in a classroom without a change being made to either the curriculum or attitudes.This is termed "locational inclusion" (Hodkinson, 2010:62) and essentially means that the child is included physically, while being subliminally excluded from participation unless the child is able to fit into the current structure.

Diversity (social justice) beliefs promote unified educational systems and inclusion.Such beliefs in this instance, however, tested both the strength of the community discourse and the trustworthiness of its elements of caring and acceptance.The diversity discourse caused disequilibrium in the school as it expected the community discourse to live up to the idea of abandoning the created norms and conditions.The community discourse of care and unqualified acceptance was not able to fit into this paradigm and instead managed it by silence.

And so, instead of "locational inclusion" (Hodkinson, 2010:62), according to Dave, a middle manager, this discourse implemented inclusion, "under the radar".Inclusion did not become an item for intense discussion at the school, but rather as Dave describes, "it sounds absolutely weird that what we can be successful in [is]...not open…it's not an avoidance, but it's a protection... [rather] than openly discussing it, [as we] potentially have folk that [might] sabotage it".It would seem that it was only a small passionate group of people who decided on and practised inclusion.Although volition alone was not able to effect systemic change, Fullan (1996) argues that change by individuals has the opportunity to affect the system despite the system.

The pragmatic discourse, on the other hand, dealt with inclusion with conditions and the impact of this conditional inclusion set by the pragmatic discourse accelerated its power and constituted a threat to inclusion.Andrew, a parent, believed that the problem of balance had culminated in a decision to cap the intake of children from remedial schools to the school.For him this quota was the only way to balance the numbers and prevent a completely "open door policy" which would tip the balance.

Because there were no shared values, goals and beliefs regarding difference (Shields, 2004), the pragmatic discourse appeared to set the standard.From the start the discourse of pragmatism provided the conditions and the parameters under which inclusion could be provided.The community did not allow inclusive education to thrive, so individual discourses stepped in, in order to manage it.Eventually the individual beliefs became more powerful than those of the group.

Ultimately the community was faced with a dilemma.The community discourse was bound by constitutive values that did not allow for expulsion.Advocacy and conflict between indi-vidual beliefs challenged the value placed on education and, without a clear strategy in place for the inclusion of all Jewish children, change took place irregularly and erratically at the school.

According to Fullan (1996), change needs shared vision and leadership.In terms of the school, there was no shared vision, only contradictory individual discourses pulling away from and pushing towards norms.Neither "top down nor bottom up" strategies are able to work by themselves: the top and bottom must work in combination (Fullan, 1996:421).The fundamental challenge experienced by the school was that entering into open discussion and establishing a shared vision would threaten the community discourse with diversity.

Hence, the concept and practice of inclusive education at the school came from within the individual beliefs and there consequently appeared to be no community resistance, even though some of the beliefs contradicted the principal community belief.This was probably because there was no need to resist while there was a perception that the pragmatic belief was the gatekeeper of inclusive education, and while the muted diversity approach to inclusion appeased the community conscience.This resulted in a fragmented change where all those involved represented and implemented whatever they felt according to their own beliefs, personal experiences, abilities or skills.

The result was that the various discourses were pulling groups in different directions with their own conditions, but there was no dominant group thinking that could initiate and sustain the change.This explains the tolerance under silence that Dave describes, which was a way of allowing inclusion to continue.He said that inclusion had to continue "under the radar" in order for it to succeed.

Accordingly, silence was the undercurrent of the debate around inclusive education, a silence which gave the community discourse a safety net against cynicism and being undermined.However, there was little consensus among the belief systems regarding the inclusive education principles; the polarised views of diversity and pragmatism were not able to rely on the community discourse to unite them and were, in fact, divided even further.Despite all this, inclusion filtered into the school by individual teachers and, although it was only practised in pockets, it made a profound impact on the whole.

Scholars in the field such as Pather (2011) have raised important questions for the implementation of inclusion in the broader South African educational system and include: What beliefs inform our personal understandings of inclusive education?This study yielded four beliefs or discourses which informed the understanding of inclusive education and its concomitant practice.This accords with Lewin's theory which argues that beliefs drive actions and control their significances within an individual's world.The four discourses exemplified and drove actions towards or against inclusive education and proved to be powerful forces which limited or freed behaviour change.

It would seem that difficulties such as lack of commitment, lack of funds and poor management are seen to be responsible for the delay in the implementation of inclusive education.In an emerging economy with severe financial limitations, these constraints were visible in the microcosm of the school.Moreover, the educational demands made by the community in an uncertain global economic climate were indicative of the fact that aspirations and beliefs (discourses) are often let down by economic realities.

Conclusion

This paper examined the understanding and practise of inclusive education at a Jewish community school.The study discussed here found that, at the school, the process of inclusion came about through the interplay of a multiplicity of forces (Kippenberger, 1998), which divided opinion on inclusive practice and resulted in dominant and minor practices of inclusion, or no inclusion at all.Beliefs displayed authority as such that they determined action (Coghlan & Jacobs, 2005) and, in turn, the implementation or non-implementation of inclusion.Perhaps, as Lewin's theory suggests, there has to be group change in order for the individual to change.Perhaps, as Fullan and Miles (1992) suggest, new personal meaning must be a learning process which takes place on a guided and shared journey.Or, as Shields (2000) would have it, perhaps community does not require similarity; communities must think about differences, they must enter into negotiation and conversation and form an understanding of difference.

Yet, without shared goals and a belief in social justice, total inclusion did not take place in this community school, whose discourse seemingly resembled the discourse of inclusion and social justice.Indeed, inclusion occurred in pockets based on teachers' individual beliefs, life experience and skills.Moreover, silence was the result of not discussing and bringing the different discourses into the open.

It is therefore concluded that the four belief systems identified here influenced the way in which inclusive education was both understood and practised in this school.Accordingly, the study argues for recognising the importance of different belief systems as well as the importance of open discussion, in the understanding and implementation of inclusion in South Africa.

Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes on discourses, assumptions, and the road ahead. Theory into Practice. A J Artiles, Harris-Murri N &rostenberg, D , 200645

Adaptation, evaluation and inclusion. R Basson, Africa Education Review. 822011

The processes of re-education: An assessment of Kurt Lewin's views. Group and Organization Studies. K D Benne, 19761

Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. E Brantlinger, Review of Educational Research. 6741997

Qualitative studies in special education. E Brantlinger, R Jimenez, J Klinger, M Pugach, V Richardson, Exceptional Children. 7122005

Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A Re-appraisal. B Burnes, Journal of Management Studies. 4162004

Reflections: Ethics and organizational change -Time for a return to Lewinian values. B Burnes, Journal of Change Management. 942009

Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. F K Campbell, Disability & Society. 2322008

Kurt Lewin on reeducation: Foundations for action research. D Coghlan, The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science. 4142005

Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. F M Connelly, D J Clandinin, Educational Researcher. 1951990

The discipline and practice of qualitative research. N K Denzin, Y S Lincoln, Sage. Department of Education (DoE) 2001. Education White Paper 6: Special needs education. Building an inclusive education & training system. & Ys Nk Denzin, Lincoln, Thousand Oaks, CA; PretoriaDoE2000Handbook of qualitative research

Promoting the implementation of inclusive education in primary schools in South Africa. P Engelbrecht, M Oswald, C Forlin, British Journal of Special Education. 3332006

Turning systemic thinking on its head. M G Fullan, 1996Phi Delta Kappa77

Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. M G Fullan, M B Miles, Phi Delta Kappan. 731992

An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion. L J Graham, R Slee, Educational Philosophy and Theory. 4022008

Reaching for the dream: Quality education for all. A J Greyling, Educational Studies. 3542009

Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms: Learning from a collaborative enquiry group. B Hamre, C Oyler, Journal of Teacher Education. 5522004

An analysis of the South African model of inclusive education with regard to social justice. J Hay, C Beyers, Africa Education Review. 822011

Prophets and profits: A case study of the restructuring of Jewish community schools in Johannesburg, South Africa. C Herman, 2004PretoriaUniversity of PretoriaPhD thesis

Inclusive and special education in the English educational system: Historical perspectives, recent developments and future challenges. A Hodkinson, British Journal of Special Education. 3722010

Key issues in special educational needs and inclusion. A Hodkinson, P Vickerman, 2009Sage PublicationsLondon

Pedagogical ethics for teaching social justice in teacher education. Bgg Johannessen, Globalization, education and social justice. Zajda, DordrechtSpringer2010

W Jordaan, J Jordaan, Man in context. JohannesburgLexicon19892nd ed)

Planned change: Kurt Lewin's legacy. T Kippenberger, The Antidote. 341998

Collaborative co-teaching of numeracy and literacy as a key to inclusion in an independent school. D Kruger, C Yorke, South African Journal of Education. 302010

Sense of community. D W Mcmillan, Journal of Community Psychology. 2441996

Pragmatism: A reader. Menand L1997Vintage BooksNew York

Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. S B Merriam, 2009Jossey-BassSan Francisco, CA

From policy to practice: A South African perspective on implementing inclusive education policy. S Naicker, International Journal of Whole Schooling. 312006

N Nel, H Müller, A Hugo, R Helldin, Ö Bäckmann, H Dwyer, A Skarlind, A comparative perspective on teacher attitude constructs that impact on inclusive education in South Africa and Sweden. 201131

The geographies of inclusion of students with disabilities in an ordinary school. J Ngcobo, N Muthukrishna, South African Journal of Education. 312011

Considerations of community: The context and process of volunteerism. A M Omoto, M Snyder, American Behavioural Scientist. 4552002

Demystifying inclusion: Implications for sustainable inclusive practice. S Pather, International Journal of Inclusive Education. 115-62007

Evidence on inclusion and support for all learners in mainstream schools in South Africa: Off the policy radar?. S Pather, International Journal of Inclusive Education. 15102011

Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. F Polat, International Journal of Educational Development. 312011

The heteronymous university and the question of social justice: In search of a new social contract. D Schugurensky, Globalization, education and social justice. Zajda, DordrechtSpringer2010

Creating a community of difference. C M Shields, Educational Leadership. 6172004

Learning from difference: Considerations for schools as communities. C Shields, Curriculum Inquiry. 3032000

Inclusion in practice: Does practice make perfect?. R Slee, Educational Review. 5322001

Disability and social change: A South African agenda. C Soudien, J Baxen, BS Watermeyer2006HSRC PressCape TownDisability and schooling in South Africa

Schools as communities: Four metaphors, three models and a dilemma or two. K A Strike, Journal of Philosophy of Education. 3442000

. A Taysum, H Gunter, A critical approach to researching social justice and school leadership in England. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. 322008

The Social Model of Disability: A Philosophical Critique. L Terzi, Journal of Applied Philosophy. 212004

Getting inclusion right in South Africa. E Walton, Intervention in School and Clinic. 4642011

Including students with special needs: Implications for social justice. M Winzer, K Mazurek, J Zajda2010

Globalization, education and social justice. SpringerDordrecht