Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Inclusive Australian school clusters:
bringing them in from the outback

Associate Professor Heather Jenkins
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
h.jenkins@curtin.edu.au

Anjie Brook
Principal Consultant, Inclusive Education
West Australian Department of Education & Training (WA DET)
Perth, Australia
Anjie.Brook@det.wa.edu.au

Overview

The Australian Outback can be a lonely place where individuals live and learn erratically in the absence of a social group. Similarly, for teachers and pupils who are isolated in classrooms, or marginalised from their peers, school can be a painful exclusionary experience. The decision by school leaders to become a more inclusive school can also be isolating if the prevailing educational ethos is to exclude the less able, the unruly and those who are different in order to maintain the achievement-oriented majority.

Within the West Australian government school sector, the majority of students with disabilities have attended Education Support Centres, which have encouraged a degree of “integration” with adjacent schools, but maintained student enrolment through the Education Support system. This fostered a system where the integration of students with disabilities depended on the goodwill of adjacent schools. In 2001, the WA Education Department reviewed the education of students with disabilities and decided to trial a more inclusive approach in the Canning Education District. The appointment of a District Coordinator (Anjie Brook) to lead the inclusion process was a significant commitment to the proposed new model, which focused on school clusters as the functional unit. A school cluster, comprising one secondary school and its local feeder primary and Education Support schools, is an existing school grouping that clearly benefits from a thematic strategic plan. The Index for Inclusion was selected as an appropriate conceptual and methodological framework to assist schools to explore their inclusive school development and initiate inclusive practices.

This paper outlines the strategies designed to initiate and sustain more inclusive cultures, policies and practices for all students, first in one cluster and now extending across four clusters   within the District (26 schools in total). A significant goal of the project is to ensure that inclusive school development becomes self-sustaining, since it must be responsive to different school populations and initiatives, and experience over the period from 2002 to 2004 has given considerable insight to the factors that promote sustainable inclusion.

The outcomes from the project indicate that this has been achieved gradually, with a range of strategies that reflect the social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainability: strong social networks within clusters; reviews of school environments to develop inclusive, safe and stimulating learning environments; allocation of financial, administrative and material resources to support school activities. Indicators that schools are becoming more inclusive as they progress through the phases of inclusion are revealed by their choice of goals which embrace a wider vision of inclusion for the whole school community. Different schools have selected themes to combat bullying, develop better induction processes, or to implement values education and Friendly Schools programs. Some participating schools have experienced significant barriers to implementation and the articulation of these barriers has further informed the project. Overall, the commitment to the cluster school model has built the District capacity and is inherently inclusive in style, to the benefit of those principals, teachers, pupils and parents who once fought lone battles to embrace those who inhabited the outback of our education system. This paper outlines the progress towards inclusion, built on a cluster model which reflects existing school networks, and explains how the initiatives have become more self-sustaining and have built the capacity of the District Education Office to respond to inclusive reforms over extended time frames.

Background

Within Western Australia, the concept of inclusivity is a significant feature of the legislated West AustralianCurriculum Framework for Kindergarten to Year 12 Education (Curriculum Council, 1998). The implementation of the Curriculum Framework has been accompanied by a range of policy and educational initiatives from the WA Department of Education and Training (WA DET) that have supported the principles and practice of inclusivity. One of the most significant of these has been the Review of Educational Services for Students with Disabilities in Government Schools (2001), leading to the identification of seven key principles and twenty recommendations identified in Pathways to the Future (2004) that will support the future of inclusive education within state government schools.

The Index for Inclusion

A key feature of these policy initiatives has been the acknowledgement that schools will require significant support and resources to implement many of the recommendations associated with inclusive schooling. During 2002, the Centre for Inclusive Schooling initiated an Inclusive Education Project, designed to investigate the appropriateness of the Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools (Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughn & Shaw, 2002) as a tool to assist government schools in Western Australia to identify and address issues surrounding inclusivity.

The Index for Inclusion describes a whole school approach that is flexible and enables school communities to decide their own priorities for change, based on surveys and analysis of the school priorities. It was designed to promote the strong involvement of students, teachers, principals, and parents, and defines inclusion broadly as the processes that minimize the barriers to learning and participation in school. Implementation of the Index is based on an action learning cycle, and requires participatory action learning among all the school community members.

The Index assumes a social model of disability, asserting that disability is a consequence of the interaction of social practices with impairments, pain, chronic illness and other sources of human difference (e.g. race, religion, gender). The social model does not deny the existence of impairments of intellect, mobility, communication or sensation, but adopts the view that the impact of these impairments may be significantly reduced by attending to the social contexts in which individuals with impairments are expected to function. The learning and social participation of individuals with impairments may therefore be improved by modifying social environments to minimize the barriers that impede successful outcomes for all members of the social community.

The Index process is based on action research cycles and contains five phases (Booth et al., 2002):

Phase 1 Getting started with the Index: The school development planning team establishes a co-coordinating group, and appoints a school-based coordinator. The group informs themselves and the rest of the staff about the Index concepts, materials and methods for gathering together knowledge about the school from all members of the school's communities.

Phase 2 Finding out about the school: The coordinating group undertakes a detailed exploration of the school and the identification of priorities for development. Surveys are undertaken with staff, students and parent.

Phase 3 Producing an inclusive school development plan: The coordinating group, after extensive consultation with all members of the school community, produces a school development plan to reflect inclusive aims and the particular priorities identified in phase 2.

Phase 4 Implementing priorities: Implementation and support for the plan is undertaken.

Phase 5 Reviewing the Index process: The coordinating group reviews the school’s progress in developing inclusive cultures, policies and practices. This is intended to create a basis for making adjustments and changes to the original plan so that it best fits the schools needs and circumstances.

Within the Western Australian government schools sector, the Canning Education District was invited to conduct the Inclusive Education Project because it built on the success of their implementation of the Students at Educational Risk (SAER) policy and practices (Department of Education, 2001). The project was resourced over the period 2002-2004, with the appointments of a District Coordinator, four Cluster Coordinators and twenty six School Coordinators to lead the processes. The resourcing supported a modest time commitment from the Coordinators (e.g. 0.2FTE for the District Coordinator) and schools received up to a maximum of five days funded teacher relief. The resourcing was intentionally designed in this way to ensure that schools and clusters would also commit some funds and in-kind resourcing to support the project. If the Project had been funded on a lavish scale, there was a risk that schools would perceive that the Index could only be implemented with a high level of funding, which is not the case. The commitment of some funding was important, both to support the leadership and initiation of the project, and to indicate that the DEO and the Centre for Inclusive Schooling valued the project in a tangible way. A cluster model was adopted, where a cluster is defined as a secondary school and its feeder primary and education support schools, to promote collaborative action among groups of schools with geographic proximity and existing networks. The Index materials to support the project were initially trialled in one cluster, and the success of this trial led to three more clusters joining the program.

Rationale for the Cluster Model

The cluster model of primary and education support schools linked to a central secondary school is a fundamental structure within the WA government education system. It is a structure that is inherently a part of the District Education Office (DEO) governance system, and consequently many functions of the DEO are organized on the basis of school clusters. For example, Student Support Services are allocated to clusters, with school psychologists appointed to clusters to reflect the service delivery model. School principals meet on the basis of their cluster membership, and networks associated with key policies often reflect cluster-based structures. The Students at Educational Risk (SAER) policy has been organized around clusters, and the success of the SAER policy implementation in the Canning DEO was a key factor in selecting Canning as the place for a trial of the Index for Inclusion. School clusters also reflect local needs and the requirements of the neighbourhood, and school cluster networks often accumulate local wisdom regarding the impact of community issues such as socio-economic factors, local employment patterns, and family or ethnic feuds that are important background knowledge for teachers in their understanding of their pupils’ needs. The appointment of a District SAER Policy Coordinator, Anjie Brook, to the Inclusion Project, with a 0.2FTE role as the Inclusion Coordinator, therefore made good sense in establishing the Inclusion Project.

Details of the Participating Clusters

The Thornlie Cluster of schools is quite diverse (see Table 1).   The Cluster can be divided into two geographical areas: Thornlie and Canning Vale.   The schools in the Thornlie area are on average over 30 years old whereas the schools in the Canning Vale area have all opened in the last six years with the newest school opening in 2002.   The schools vary in the number of students attending and number of teaching and non-teaching staff.   The Education Support Centre (ESC) shares a campus with the primary school.   All schools have students with a full range of abilities and disabilities attending.  

Table 1: The Thornlie cluster of primary, education support and secondary schools  

The Kelmscott/Roleystone cluster of schools is a mix of semi-rural schools and schools that serve outer-suburban housing estates (see Table 2). It has one of the largest Senior High Schools in the Perth metropolitan area, and meets the needs of a student population from a wide range of socio-economic, indigenous and ethnically diverse families.

Table 2: The Kelmscott/Roleystone cluster of primary and secondary schools

Table 3: The Cannington cluster of primary, education support and secondary schools

The Kent Street Cluster contains four primary schools and three Education Support schools; the senior secondary school associated with this cluster was engaged with other important issues in 2003-2004 and it was not appropriate for it to join the project at that time. Each of the three Education Support schools has a history of segregated provision for students with moderate to severe disabilities, and their initial motivation has been to utilize the Index for Inclusion methodology to critically examine their own practices as a precursor to developing links with mainstream schools. The four primary schools serve very different populations. South Perth Primary School is located in one of the most affluent inner city suburbs, and many of their primary students will attend independent fee-paying secondary schools, while Bentley Primary School draws on one of the most economically deprived areas of Perth and is characterized by students from many single parent and long-term unemployed families.

Table 4: The Kent Street cluster of primary and educational support schools

It is evident from this brief overview of the clusters that resources such as the Index for Inclusion must be extremely flexible and adaptable if they are to be applied successfully across such diverse schools, students and school community characteristics.

The strategies, sustaining factors and capacity building indicators that are described in the following sections have been summarized from systematic feedback, surveys and interviews that have been conducted in 2002, 2003 and 2004 with participants in the project. The themes that have emerged are crystallizing as key features within the West Australian context and we share them as the outcomes of our learning and participation in the international movement towards more equitable and inclusive education for all.

Strategies to initiate more Inclusive Cultures, Policies and Practices

To initiate the project, the District Coordinator organized four inservice days, with the requirement that the principals and nominated school-based coordinators must attend these meetings if they wished to be part of the Inclusion Project. Resources to enable schools to employ relief teachers were provided, underlining the significance and value of these meetings. The four sessions were:

1. Training Day 1 : Introduction and overview of the project; the meaning of Inclusivity; the role of the Index for Inclusion
2. Training Day 2 : Getting started with the Index: provision of resources including a copy of the Index, a CD-ROM and a Resource File to assist schools to start raising awareness and appoint a school-based reference group.
3. Networking Day : An opportunity for school-based coordinators and the cluster coordinators to talk about their progress in an informal setting; to work on the survey questions and tailor the terminology and items to reflect local needs; to discuss and organize the process by which schools would distribute the surveys, return them to the District Office, who provided the resources to collate the outcomes, and generate individual school reports.
4. Professional Development Day : When the collated survey results were available, principals and school-based coordinators attended a fourth session at which they examined the collated outcomes and selected priorities for intervention. A planning sheet template was developed to assist this progress. The District Coordinator tried to restrict the schools to nominating one goal for intervention with respect to each of the Indicators i.e. inclusive culture, policy and practice, but it was often very difficult to convince them that modest ambitions were appropriate!

Strategies to Promote Sustainable Inclusion

Sustainable community development, defined much more widely than the school or educational community, has traditionally sought to achieve a balance between social, environmental and economic goals, and these three dimensions have been referred to as the “pillars of sustainability”. Applied to the school community, this approach suggests that if educational reforms such as the move towards inclusion are to be sustained, then the social, environmental and economic dimensions of school life must be consistent with inclusive policies and practices.

Social Dimensions to Sustain Inclusive Initiatives

Social dimensions of the Inclusion Project which have contributed to the self-sustaining nature of the initiatives have included a range of strategies. From the outset the inter-relatedness of the cluster models has provided social strength. Each school appointed a School Based Coordinator to lead the process in the school.   This coordinator had specific responsibilities to fulfil this role, and provided both formal and informal leadership for the project. From the group of school based coordinators a Cluster Coordinator was appointed. The key responsibility of this role was to provide local support to each school and to maintain the integrity of the Index process and to ensure the cluster was responsible for the process. The District Coordinator supported the schools by providing professional learning, resources and materials, and guided the Cluster Coordinator in their role. Within this structured relationship, no single coordinator needed to feel isolated or “stuck” when confronted with problems.

In practice, it has also been found that the cluster model of implementation has supported the development of collegial networks amongst the participating schools. Formal and informal networks have supported a continued commitment from the school based coordinators to lead the process. Collegial networks have enabled effective sharing of information, resources and materials. The Cluster Coordinators have regularly visited schools, communicated and helped to solve problems, which has ensured that all school based coordinators have maintained personal contact with their leader. School-based coordinators have reported that they welcomed the regular contact and that these strategies have reduced feelings of isolation within schools. An important consequence of the effective, positive collegial relationships is that each school based coordinator has felt safe and secure in bringing forward issues to the group and working through solutions in a collaborative way. Collegial links have continued to develop over a period of three years and continue to flourish.

Environmental Dimensions to Sustain Inclusive Initiatives

The term “school environment” may have several interpretations, and in this paper we have interpreted it widely, to mean both the physical and the educational environment of the school. Some examples of modifications to the physical environment which have promoted inclusivity have included:

• Improved parking and drop-off/pick-up facilities - designed to improve parental access and encourage parental participation in school activities;
• Improved playground facilities and the development of a fitness track - designed in response to the students’ requests for more sociable and participatory play areas;
• Painting and decorating of the school - an aspect of reinforcing courtesy, respect and the valuing of the school environment;
• Structuring of the secondary teachers’ offices and work desks into one large area, rather than in independent departmental areas - this was done prior to participation in the Inclusion project, but its success in promoting a collegial and inclusive work environment has surprised more traditional secondary teachers, who generally sit within the mathematics, history or art department areas, for example, in splendid isolation from one another.

The educational environment has been made more inclusive in schools in similarly diverse and creative ways. Some examples include:

• Focusing on the inclusivity of the West Australian Curriculum Framework, and raising teacher awareness of the extent to which this mandated approach values diversity among pupils;
• Raising teacher awareness of the strength of the outcomes-based learning approach which is integral to the Curriculum Framework, and which enables schools to choose contextually appropriate learning topics and material to achieve learning outcomes via different learning pathways;
• Students have realised that some students receive different treatment from teachers because their needs are different
• An extensive emphasis on reducing bullying in schools, in response to survey returns from parents and students which enhanced staff awareness of the dimensions of this problem;
• Participation of senior students in the school-based reference groups has provided an important model of inclusive participation in decision-making;
• Improved strategies for communication, not just between home and school, but also (in response to identified concerns), among teachers, and between teachers and administrative staff
• An increased frequency of whole-school activities, including a Friendly Friday activity that includes all the school community in pastoral care groups (from the principal through to the pupils and support staff and school gardeners - everyone!)

The success of these activities has ensured that their continuing implementation is reinforced by a wide range of community members who benefit from the more inclusive outcomes.

Economic Dimensions to Sustain Inclusive Initiatives

The economic or resource-based pillar of sustainability has an important role within education systems, since the accountability of educational leaders is under increasing scrutiny. The commitment of resources is a clear sign that the activity is valued; without resourcing, it simply becomes one more demand on school staff and will not be sustained as the school year intensifies. The Canning District Education Office, with support from the Centre for Inclusive schooling, has made a strong and visible commitment of resources to the Inclusion Project, as the following examples illustrate:

• Financial support to enable the District Coordinator to devote time (0.2FTE) to the role, independently of her other duties;

• Financial support to each cluster to fund 0.2 position of cluster coordinator for 6 months initially and then again in phase 5 for 10 weeks;
• Financial support has enabled translation of survey forms into 8 languages, generation of computer readable surveys, generation of school reports, teacher relief for professional development and the generation of networks, resources and materials;
• Schools are required to demonstrate support to the process through school development planning and budgetary allocations, to ensure implementation of the index is not dependant on district funding alone;
• A significant library of resources, implementation files and a CD-ROM of activities have been developed to support schools in the process.

Some principals have recognised that the Index process assists in the preparation of the School Development Plan and the School Review Framework, a significant accountability requirement in which schools are required to report against the four key objectives of the WA Plan for Government Schools 2004-2007. When principals understand that the Index process complements and supports their leadership and governance roles, then it is both valued for its contribution and more likely to become integral to school leadership activity in the long term.

Building the Capacity of the District Education Office

Within the school improvement literature, there has been growing acknowledgement of the importance of ‘capacity building’ which involves the strategic development of the school community and its external support agencies to ensure that change becomes an integral process and is therefore sustained over time (Potter, Reynolds & Chapman, 2002). The importance of sustaining inclusive schools is a key priority of the Pathways to the Future report, and the convergence of these views has emphasized the value of examining inclusive practices through the lens of a capacity building framework.

Capacity Building Framework

The term ‘capacity building’ in the current context of building more inclusive schools refers to the developing capacity of the school to sustain its inclusive culture, policies and practices over time. Four key factors have been identified as predictors of sustainability for agencies embarking on new projects (O’Hanlon, Ratnaike, Parham, Kosky & Martin, 2002):

1. Workforce development
2. Organizational development
3. Resource allocation
4. Development of partnerships

In addition, a study validating the Index for Inclusion for the Australian context within the state of Victoria (Deppeler & Harvey, 2004) has noted that Leadership and Curriculum are important factors associated with the adoption of inclusion within schools. Leadership is consistently identified as a key contributor to educational innovation, and may be defined with respect to its role in the change process as “…concerned with the formal and informal leaders who foster organizational coherence and also develop and preserve the kinds of relationships within a school that promote organizational learning” (Retallick & Fink, 2002, p.93). Curriculum is defined in the West Australian context as “… all the learning experiences provided for the student. It encompasses the learning environment, teaching methods, the resources provided for learning, the systems of assessment, the school ethos and the ways in which students and staff behave towards one another. All of these provide experiences from which students learn.” (Curriculum Council, 1998, p.16).

These factors have been added to the capacity building framework outlined above, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the factors associated with the sustainable development of inclusive schools. The resulting framework therefore provides a coherent basis for recognising those factors which strengthen or detract from the capacity of the Education District to respond to inclusion initiatives and to sustain them over the longer term.

Leadership

The leaders of the Inclusive Education Project were defined as the formal and informal leaders with designated responsibility for implementing the Index for Inclusion process. In general terms, this included the District Coordinator, the Cluster Coordinators, the School-based Coordinators, and the School Principals. The roles of the Coordinators proved to be critical in supporting and driving the project. Where school-based coordinators were not genuine volunteers or the position was not sustained, then it was unlikely that systematic inclusion initiatives were sustained. The role of the school principal was also found to be critical. When principals were committed, there was more likely to be evidence of strategic resource and staffing decisions that supported inclusive partnerships among the curriculum and student support services within the school.

Difficulties arose when the school leadership framed “inclusion” to mean all students except (1) those with disabilities, and (2) those with very challenging behaviours. This was more common among secondary than primary principals, and the challenge of building genuinely inclusive schools within the complexities of the secondary structure is not yet resolved. Similarly, the belief among some principals that building inclusivity is a further burden added to an overloaded work schedule, rather than viewing inclusivity as integral to all school functioning, has detracted from progress in some schools. An uncritical acceptance of the view that “our school is inclusive”, without testing the assumption against the evidence of teachers, students and parents also proved to be problematic. Finally, if school leaders de-valued the action research process as a legitimate means for implementing and evaluating educational innovation and change, then the Index for Inclusion was unlikely to be implemented in a sustained manner.

Organizational development

This factor builds capacity by strengthening organizational support for the project, through activities such as articulated support and recognition from management, formation of advisory   groups, new policy development, an organizational culture of support, “good fit” with school priorities, absorption of processes into everyday practices, and the systematic development of problem-solving capacity among members of the school community.

Organisational development with respect to inclusive culture, policies and practices was promoted when there was collegial acknowledgement among staff that the principle of Inclusivity is consistent with a wide range of sectoral and school policies and priorities. An established pattern of the utilisation of objective data to inform school decision-making was a strong feature, as was an organisational culture that supported transparent practices of review, reflection and revision with respect to new initiatives. A school ethos that explicitly valued student learning and participation across all levels and areas of school life was more likely to experience positive outcomes from participation in the Inclusion project than schools in which academic achievement was the highest and most conspicuously valued attribute.

The failure to establish and sustain a school reference group, with membership drawn from all representatives of the school community proved to be a weakness within a few schools, and schools which were destabilised by high staff turnover rates or lacked consolidated operating procedures could not sustain genuine inclusive initiatives beyond their initial interest.

Workforce development

The capacity of an organisation to sustain reforms is strengthened substantially by addressing staff training and development. This may include the provision of information, skills, procedures, and training programs for staff; the commitment of staff to the project; the conscious reframing of existing practices; and staff adaptation of the project to the local context. When schools had well-resourced opportunities for professional learning and networking in school time, the project made good progress. Among secondary teachers, the conscious re-framing of secondary teaching approaches to acknowledge the diverse ability levels and learning styles of the contemporary secondary student population was a significant strength in implementing more inclusive classroom practices. Surprisingly, it also emerged from interviews with secondary staff that the valuing of primary educators’ experiences of inclusion by secondary educators was helpful in developing inclusive initiatives at the secondary level.

Conversely, the rejection of primary educators’ experiences of inclusion by secondary educators who believed that it was irrelevant to the challenges within secondary schools obstructed the development of inclusive networks, but demonstrated that secondary networks are an important source of validation for secondary teachers. It was also difficult to progress the inclusion agenda when teachers adopted a “one-size-fits-all” teaching strategy and believed that specialist Education Support teachers and aides were required to teach students who are disabled. The intense demands to manage students with very challenging behaviours were so dominant in a few schools that this priority over-ruled all other types of reforms. However, attribution of student problems to the students and their families, without consideration of the consequences of the interaction of student characteristics with the social practices of the school (i.e. rejection of the social model of disability) was not helpful, although it was understandable within schools that struggled with a high incidence of challenging and aggressive student behaviour. Advocates of inclusion need to demonstrate that their espoused practices can meet this problem effectively if they are to win over those who have been threatened, harassed or assaulted by such students.

Curriculum

If reform is to be sustainable over time, then the learning experiences provided for the student, within the context of the local curriculum framework, must be compatible with the general thrust of the reform. For the promotion of more inclusive schools, this means that the learning environment, teaching methods,   resources provided for learning, systems of assessment and the school ethos must promote the learning and social participation of all pupils, regardless of ability, ethnicity, impairment, socio-economic status or other factors that have previously been associated with inequitable opportunities for pupils.

The informed implementation of the outcomes-based WA Curriculum Framework, with an appreciation for the flexible and contextually appropriate adaptations possible in teaching, learning and assessment, was a clear strength consistent with inclusive practices, although this approach continues to exist in tension with the standards agenda in education. The increased utilisation of information technology as a platform for student engagement in learning and expression of learning outcomes also proved to be an asset in promoting more inclusive teaching and learning approaches. Some difficulties were experienced among secondary educators at the post-compulsory levels of education (i.e. Years 11 and 12), because the curriculum is perceived to be quite limiting for students with restricted learning difficulties within inclusive secondary contexts, and this issue remains a challenge in many educational jurisdictions.

Development of partnerships

The school community is an important feature of neighbourhood life, and integral to inclusivity is the notion that schools will blend more effectively with other community groups. Evidence of this type of inclusivity is given by the formal or informal strengthening of existing relationships with external agencies, development of new networks, collaborative activities, interest from other agencies, and signs of community interest and support for the school. The cluster model of implementation fostered a high level of collegiality and this was repeatedly noted as a strength and asset of the project in feedback from school and cluster coordinators.

The structure and functioning of secondary schools that precludes secondary teachers from different schools and diverse disciplinary groups meeting regularly to exchange information and reflect collaboratively on their inclusive practices was problematic in promoting supportive partnerships. Some parental resistance to inclusive school practices was also noted, and the need for effective communication and striking examples of the success of inclusion was highlighted by this resistance.

Allocation of resources

Educational reforms must be supported in the tangible allocation of financial, administrative, staff and other resources to support the espoused development of more inclusive schools. The expectation that inclusion will be sustained without significant resources is unrealistic and reflects pious hope without genuine commitment. The Inclusion Project described in this paper received some resource allocation and this was valued by all participants. The feedback from many participants indicated that they would appreciate more time to implement a wider range of initiatives more systematically, but it is difficult to know how to create more hours in the busy working life of the school. Perhaps it is more appropriate to encourage schools to work with slightly lower expectations, and to promote the view that progress towards inclusion is only ever attained gradually and imperfectly over a long time span. Certainly, as a consequence of our experience with the action cycle, our expectation is that one school term per phase of the cycle is sufficient progress within the current educational context.

Conclusion

The implementation of a cluster-based model of inclusion over the three years 2002-2003-2004 has given significant insights to the processes that enable inclusive initiatives to become self-sustaining. The roles of strong social networks that provide collegial support, educational environments that reflect effective inclusive policies and practices and adequate economic resourcing of initiatives are essential to consolidate and sustain inclusive reforms. Analysis of the capacity building framework defined by the factors of leadership, organisational development, workforce development, curriculum, partnerships and resource allocation assists in recognising those factors which improve the capacity of schools and education districts to drive inclusive initiatives. The articulation of barriers to inclusion through analysis of the capacity building framework is also an important source of information in recognising those challenges within educational contexts that must be addressed if we are to succeed in promoting equitable learning and social participation for all members of school communities in the future.   

References

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M., & Shaw, L., (2002). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools, 2 nd Ed. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

Curriculum Council, (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Curriculum Council.

Department of Education. (2001). Students at educational risk policy. Perth, WA.

Department of Education. (2002). Discussion Paper: Review of Educational Services for Students with Disabilities in Government Schools. Perth, WA.

Department of Education. (2004). Pathways to the Future: A Report of the Review of Educational Services for Students with Disabilities in Government Schools. Perth, WA.

Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2004). Validating the British Index for Inclusion for the Australian context: stage one. Int. Journal of Inclusive Education, 8, 155-184.

O’Hanlon, A., Ratnaike, D., Parham, J., Kosky, R. & Martin, G. (2002). Building capacity for mental health.  Adelaide: Auseinet.

Potter, D., Reynolds, D., & Chapman, C. (2002). School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. School Leadership & Management, 22, 243-256.

Retallick, J. & Fink, D. (2002). Framing leadership: contributions and impediments to educational change. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5, 91-104.

K= Kindergarten; children attend if their 4 th birthday falls before June 30th of the school year (Feb-Dec).

PP= Pre-Primary: children attend of their 5 th birthday falls before June 30 th of the school year (Feb - Dec). Attendance is not compulsory until the year in which children turn 6 but almost all children attend Pre-Primary Centres.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact