University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

(USC Thesis Other)

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 1
Chapter was co-written by Anuakpado, L., and Babayan, A. with each contributing equally to the
work.

KEY STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING SPECIAL EDUCATION INCLUSION
PROGRAM IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL: LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE

by

Love Anuakpado

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

Copyright 2018 Love Anuakpado

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 2
DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to Sam, for his love, support, and encouragements. He held up our fort
when I could not seem to find the strength.

To Laura, Sam Jr, Juliana, and Erin Rose, for putting forth their best foot forward and trying
their best in all that they do. They have always inspired me to be more, do more, and live life to
the fullest. For their unrelenting love and understanding, for weekends spent in class, evenings
and nights spent away from them writing throughout this journey.

I also dedicate this dissertation to my parents. I am grateful to my mother for her unconditional
love and constant prayer.

To God for always guiding and directing me even at times when I am undeserving of his mercy
and guidance.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee Dr. Tobey, Dr. Crispen, Dr.
Combs, and Dr. Robles for their support. I appreciate their invaluable support throughout this
arduous process. To them I say thank you from the bottom of my heart! In addition, I would like
to acknowledge the school district staff for allowing me to conduct my study in their school district.
I am indebted to the special education coordinator and the school site study participants for their
professionalism, generosity with their time, and willingness to participate in this study. I would
also like to acknowledge Aida my dissertation partner for days spent at Leavey library and at USC
Rossier’s Waite Phillips Hall (WPH) during our USC Doctorial Support Center Weekend Write
together.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 7
ABSTRACT 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 10
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 18
Significance of the Study 18
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Study 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 25
What is Inclusion? 25
History of Inclusion 26
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 28
Least Restrictive Environment 29
Successful Inclusion 30
Theoretical Framework 31
Leadership: The Role of Administrators in Inclusion 31
Transformational Leadership Theory 32
Factor 1: Charisma or Idealized Influence 35
Factor 2: Inspiration or Inspirational Motivation 36
Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation 36
Factor 4: Individualized Consideration 36
How Transformational Leadership Approach Works 38
Strengths of Transformational Leadership 39
Criticisms of Transformational Leadership 40
High School Principal Support Systems 41
Summary 45
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 46
Research Questions 46
Research Design 46
Sample and Population 47
Method of Sampling 48
Overview of Organizations 49
Urban Unified School District 49
Treasure High School 51
Conceptual Framework 52
Limitations 53
Delimitations 54
Validity 54
Credibility 55
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 5
Trustworthiness 55
Data Collection 55
Instrumentation 58
Interview Questions 58
Survey Questionnaire 58
Data Analysis 59
Ethical Consideration 61
Human Subject Protections 61
Summary 61
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 63
Sites and Participant Profiles 65
Site: Treasure High School 65
Individual Administrative Interview Participants 66
Individual General Education Teacher Interview Participants 68
Survey Participants 72
Observation 72
Artifacts 74
Theme 1: Existing Knowledge of High School Inclusion 74
Theme 2: Awareness and Availability of Resources 77
Central Capacity 77
Local Capacity 78
Theme 3: Stakeholder Purposeful Action 79
Belief and Opinion about Inclusion 80
How Inclusion Works in the Classroom at Treasure High School 80
Relationship Building 81
Theme 4: Intentional Support 82
Theme 5 Leadership Culture 83
Summary 94
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 100
Overview of Current Study 102
Discussion of Findings 104
Summary of the Findings for Research Question 1 104
Summary of the Themes in Research Question 2 106
Implications for Practice and Policy 108
Limitations 109
Recommendations for Future Study 110
Conclusions 111
REFERENCES 112
APPENDIX A Interview Protocol 129
APPENDIX BTransformational Leadership Survey Protocol 131
APPENDIX C Observation Protocol 133
APPENDIX D Consent Form 134
APPENDIX E Recruitment for Research Participation (Teachers) 136
APPENDIX F Recruitment for Research Participation (Administrators) 137
APPENDIX G USC IRB Approval 138

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Theoretical Alignment Matrix 59
Table 2: Demographic information of school administrator interview participants 66
Table 3: Demographic information of general education teacher interview participants 68
Table 4: Participant Data Collection Information 71
Table 5: Transformational Leadership Factor Ratings 88
Table 6: Individual Survey Participant Survey Statistics 89
Table 7: A Data Analysis Matrix on Stakeholders View of Inclusion of Students with
Disabilities 92

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Transformational leadership theory. 39
Figure 2: Data collection methods. 57
Figure 3: Group rating probability for rating 1-4 score distribution. 87
Figure 4: Transformational leadership survey question response rating trend. 88
Figure 5: Survey participants school administration transformational leadership rating. 89
Figure 6: Strength and weakness chart for transformational leadership. 90
Figure 7: Transformational leadership theme matrix. 94

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 8
ABSTRACT
This dissertation reports on the findings of a qualitative case study conducted to
investigate the role that school key stakeholders play in the comprehensive inclusion of students
with disabilities in an urban high school. The basic premise of the study was to explore and
provide an urban high school’s key stakeholders role in the inclusion program for students with
disabilities in an urban high school. Furthermore, this study examined participants’ perceptions
about inclusion program and what key school stakeholders say is needed for the successful
inclusion of students with disabilities on the alternative curriculum in general education
classroom. Specifically, the study investigated and conveyed factors receptive to the inclusion of
students with disabilities in general education classes and explored if a correlation existed
between transformational leadership style and the inclusion of students with disabilities in
general education classes.
The participants for this study included one high school principal, one assistant principal,
one school bridge coordinator and 10 general education teachers at an urban high school in the
southern California area, involved in the inclusion program. Using the theoretical framework of
transformational leadership theory created by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). The participants
voluntarily participated in a semi-structured interview and completed a transformational
leadership survey that measured the level of transformational leadership style of the school
administrators. Interview data, observation, and survey data revealed the following five themes:
(1) Existing knowledge of high school inclusion (2) Awareness and availability of resources (3)
Stakeholder purposeful action (4) Intentional support, and (5) Leadership culture. This result
suggested that stakeholders involved in the inclusion of students with disabilities in general
education classes have positive perspectives about inclusion program, but requires systematic
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 9
resources and support to build teacher capacity and promote an inclusive school culture that
successfully support students.

Keywords:
Inclusion
Transformational leadership
Stakeholders
Students with disabilities
Urban high school

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 10
Chapter was co-written by Anuakpado, L., and Babayan, A. with each contributing equally to the
work.
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
This thematic dissertation on linking evidence and promising practices in education
sought to analyze data concerning the inclusion of students with disabilities in a general
education classroom in an urban high school in Southern California. This dissertation was
written in collaboration with a writing partner in a thematic dissertation group studying linking
evidence and promising practices in education. The following attest to a collaborative effort
between the writing partners on Chapters One, Two, and Three. Chapter One was written jointly
by both writing partners. The introduction to Chapter Two was written jointly; however, other
sections in Chapter Two were distributed amongst the writing partners and written separately as
follows: the sections on history of inclusion and successful inclusion were written by Aida
Babayan. The sections on theoretical framework and high school support system were written by
Love Anuakpado. Chapter Three was written jointly by both writing partners. Each dissertation
study was completed at a different study sites.
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices of one urban high school’s key
stakeholders in creating and maintaining positive the high school culture necessary for the
effective inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classroom. Numerous
researchers and practitioners have been studying the role of the school administrator in
establishing and maintaining an effective educational culture for all students for many years.
Studies suggest that further exploration is needed in the area of special education to address
school administrators’ impact on schools (Avissar, Reiter, & Leyser, 2003; Lynch, 2017;
Theoharis & Brooks, 2012).
The literature review guiding this research demonstrates that, although school
administrators play a critical role in promoting effective schools, their role should be considered
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 11
within the context of specific schools. Furthermore, the role of the administrators should also be
investigated as a complex interaction of environmental, personal, and in school relationships that
influence school outcomes (Theoharis & Books, 2012). As school experience continues to
evolve, it is important to examine and describe the role of school administrators in the evolution.
Legal mandates and educational research results have contributed to changes and new
developments in K-12 public education. Lynch (2017) provided detailed analysis of some of the
changes instituted by legal mandates; it is argued that these new changes required school
administrators to take on new and added responsibilities. Historically, K-12 grade school
principals served as disciplinarians and supervised teachers in schools. Under current federal
legislation, principals must now accept the responsibilities of managing personnel, school funds,
and school’s strategic planning. Moreover, principals must also accept the responsibilities
associated with being their schools’ instructional leaders. School leaders must also maintain the
primary responsibility of ensuring the education of all students, including students with
disabilities (Lynch, 2017).
Special education is another area in public education that has also experienced
significant new legal developments. These significant new special education mandates were
intended to address the educational needs of students with disabilities. Many of the changes
focused on the instruction and inclusion of students with disabilities. Generally, the goal of
educational programs was to help students maximize their performance. In spite of these
provisions, many students with disabilities do not reach their fullest potential by the cusp of high
school. Several studies proposed that students with disabilities benefit from being in general
education classrooms. Carter, Asmus, and Moss (2015), in an evaluation of peer support
arrangements to support inclusion of students with severe disabilities, found that students
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 12
participating in peer support arrangements experienced increased interactions with peers,
increased academic engagement, and a greater number of new friendships. Despite the assumed
positive effects of inclusion, there continues to be ongoing debate about the environment in
which to achieve the best outcome for some students with disabilities. Very often, these debates
diminish the possibility of maximized performance and achievement for students on special
education programs.
The result of a long and sometimes difficult history of special education demonstrates an
extensive pattern of marginalization for students with disabilities. The assumed treatment of
these students has also often resulted in their interacting with educational professionals and
service providers who minimize their capabilities and willingness to live a normal life.
Opponents of equitable treatment for individuals with disabilities argued that excluding these
students from educational processes was justified, appropriate, and right (Obiakor, Harris,
Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012).
Laws surrounding special education were drafted primarily for the educational integration
of students with diverse learning needs. For example, the inclusion of students with disabilities in
a general education setting is stipulated in the free and appropriate environment (FAPE) clause in
the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Under IDEA, mandates such as FAPE were
developed to oppose the marginalization of individuals with disabilities in the educational
system. The belief of inclusion is rooted in the understanding that, in a free democratic society,
all members deserve a fair chance and equal opportunity to develop and produce their fullest
potentials (Theoharis & Causton-Theoharis, 2011; Vitello & Mithaug, 1998).
This study consists of four parts. First, this study presents the literature review on studies
conducted about the history of inclusive education. Second, this study examines the development
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 13
of inclusive education and its adaptation over several years to address the needs of students with
disabilities. Third, the study explores the future direction of special education inclusion, and,
fourth, the study concludes with an investigation into how key school stakeholders can pave the
path of inclusion for students with disabilities in an urban high school.
Background of the Problem
The current trend toward inclusion began with Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In a
landmark case, the Supreme Court ordered the end of state-mandated racial segregation of public
schools. Brown v. Board of Education pronounced the end of separate but equal education.
Gordon and Monastiriotis (2006) established that, after the focus on school desegregation waned,
students with disabilities became another disregarded group and the focus for social change.
Consequently, federal and state laws were created mandating FAPE for the education of students
with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Although the terms “inclusion” and
“inclusive education” are written vaguely in the law, the definition of LRE is contained in the
law and provides the initial legal impetus for creating inclusive education (Falvey, Givner, &
Kimm, 1995).
The law upholding the inclusion of students with disabilities in the area of LRE, and the
rights of every student with disabilities in all 50 states and United States’ territories is addressed
in IDEA. IDEA requires states to issue regulations and policies that direct implementation of this
federal law within each state. States must also provide all protections contained in IDEA
(National Center for Learning Disabilities [NCLD], 2017). The law describes LRE:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in
public or private institution or other care facilities, are educated with nondisabled
children. special classes, separate schooling or another removal of children with
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 14
disabilities from regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity
of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [2004, s300.114 (a)(2)]
(IDEA, 2004).
The IDEA law also makes provision for when a student with disability cannot be educated with
their nondisabled peers. The law states,
Sec. 300.17 (b) to (d) provides that FAPE mean that special education and related
services are provided in conformity with IEP that meets the requirement in section 614(d)
of the ACT. Consistent with section 614 (d) (1) (i) (v) of the Act, the IEP must include
the extent, of which the child will not participate the regular classes with nondisabled
peers. (U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2010).
The general understanding surrounding the education of students with disabilities in the
regular education environment contains many different labels, such as mainstreaming,
integration, and, recently, inclusion. The aim of inclusion is to educate students with disabilities
in the general education environment with their nondisabled peers, rather than in self-contained
segregated settings (Theoharis & Brooks, 2012). Granting, that there has been much argument
about the effectiveness of inclusion programs, the number of schools and school districts
practicing and implementing inclusion programs continue to increase (Hehir & Katzman, 2012).
Teacher disposition recurrently affects the effective implementation of program reform
efforts (Westlove, 2012). According to Ryan (2003), the rudimentary dissention about inclusion
is in part due to the methods in which the needs of students with disabilities are interpreted and
addressed. Additionally, in spite of the best intentions, establishing inclusion in schools has not
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 15
been an easy task. The axiom of Ryan’s contention is that the inclusion of students with
disabilities is imperative.
Other scholars found that fundamental differences exist about inclusion programs. The
discrepancies involve the conceptual and operational definition of inclusion programs. Today,
differences in inclusion models persist. A closer inspection of inclusion programs across the
United States revealed differences in inclusion program definition and implementation among
several states. Disparities also exist among school districts in a single state, and among schools
under the same school district. Consequently, there are differences on how inclusion programs
work and what constitutes effective inclusion in a relatively large urban high school in
California. These differences ultimately affect the universal idea of how the effective inclusion
of students with disabilities can be accomplished in an urban high school.
If operational inclusion differences persist and there are no standards at each school
district about how to support students with disabilities, questions on successful inclusion will
remain. The challenge to provide FAPE in the LRE for students with disabilities will continue.
Inclusion accountabilities have increased because the burden of managing special education
policies and practices has shifted to the school administrator (Patterson, Marshall, & Bowling,
2000).
Studies on how inclusion practices and programs work, what inclusion practices mean for
key school stakeholders, and how key school stakeholders create an inclusive culture remain
limited. This study primarily focused on examining and explaining key stakeholders’ role in
creating and maintaining an inclusive school culture for students with disabilities at an urban
high school. John Dewey (1897, p.239), a well-known American philosopher, psychologist, and
educational reformer explained that education contributes to be the wealth of a nation and
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 16
schools have an obligation to educate its students and offered the hypothesis that “education is
not preparation for life; education is life itself.” Fundamentally, schools should ensure that
students gain the skills needed to navigate through life after high school.
Statement of the Problem
Federal and state laws mandated FAPE. The educational environment for students with
disabilities should be carried out in the LRE at all times as appropriate for individual students
(LREC, 2000). Inclusion is implied in the FAPE decree. Inclusion is not the simple placing of
students with disabilities in general education settings, classes, or environments. Inclusion
demands that school stakeholders have the preparation, capacity, and support to educate all
students within the general education environment. Inclusion includes the education of students
at individual school settings, sporting events, and social events. The culture of schools should
proactively remain sustainable to educate diverse student population. The purpose of this study
was to examine and describe the role of key school stakeholders in creating and maintaining
effective inclusive practices, programs, and culture for students with disabilities in general
education high school classrooms.
Purpose of the Study
The principal objective of this study was to explore and describe key school stakeholders’
role in creating and maintaining effective inclusive practices and positive school culture for
students with disabilities in a general education classroom in an urban high school. Participants
for this study were the practicing school site administrator/principal, assistant principal, school
special education coordinator, and general education teachers involved in an inclusion program.
This investigation explored aspects of effective inclusive programs and positive school culture
for students with disabilities as identified by inclusion experts in an urban school district in
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 17
Southern California. While some studies identify the school principal/site administrator as the
key stakeholder responsible for creating an effective school culture, research on how principals
create effective inclusion programs and what is known about positive, inclusive school culture is
limited.
This dissertation sought to explore how key stakeholders addressed inclusion program
challenges to implement effective inclusion program and positive culture in an urban high
school. In attempting to investigate factors which may account for effective inclusion, this study
raised two interrelated questions: What are stakeholders’ beliefs about inclusion, and what are
effective strategies for key school stakeholders to create successful inclusion program in an
urban high school? This study was concerned with an investigation into key school stakeholder
leadership practices and high school campus culture. A supplementary question of this study was
to examine campus culture and what role an urban school site key stakeholder’s leadership style
plays in promoting the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education
settings (National Center on Intensive Intervention, n.d.). This study’s investigation is necessary
because a substantial body of research (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013) reveals that it is important
to explore successful inclusion models to help students with disabilities progress in high schools
and become successful in general education inclusive classrooms. The purpose of this study at
the practice level was
● To provide rich data about an underrepresented group of students in the high school
environment. This study examined and described the role of school key stakeholders in
creating and maintaining effective program and culture of change conducive for the
progress of students with disabilities in general education high school classrooms.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 18
● To provide insight useful for educational stakeholders and urban school district hiring,
planning, and training of key school stakeholders. This study also aimed to provide
awareness on how school key stakeholders can positively and thoughtfully influence
access, process, and outcomes for students with disabilities when creating an inclusive
classroom culture.
The purpose of the study at the personal level was
● To understand more deeply the personal experiences of an urban high school key
stakeholders’ role in a program designed to support students with disabilities.
● To explore the impact of transformational leadership practices and structures on high
school culture.
● To further understand the functions of individuals with disabilities laws, district’s special
education policy, practice, and program and its outcome on high school culture.
Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study:
1. What are the perceptions of key stakeholders about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?
2. What do key stakeholders identify as factors that promote the inclusion of students with
disabilities and positive school culture in an urban high school?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant in that it adds to the limited literature linking transformational
leadership theory to literature and research in the field of special education. This linkage helps
contribute to the ongoing search for what works, especially as it pertains to closing the
achievement gap between students in special education inclusion program and students in
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 19
general education programs. This study’s investigation is necessary because it is important to
explore successful inclusion models to help urban high school key stakeholders develop
successful inclusive school culture that will support the progress and success of students with
disabilities in general education high school inclusion program.
In response to federal and state mandates for accountability and improved academic
achievement outcomes for all students with disabilities, programs promoting inclusion in K-12
education have increased (Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). Meeting mandated demands to
improve outcomes for all students with disabilities in general education settings requires changes
in schools (Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). Many studies identified the school principal
and other school administrators as the key figures in establishing and maintaining an inclusive
school culture.
These school stakeholders are tasked with supporting school personnel to meet the needs
of all students (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Pugach, Blanton, Correa, McLeskey, & Langley,
2009; Waldron & McLeskey, 2011). Hoppey and other scholars theorized that the significant
increase in inclusion programs led to the suggestion that the educational model many students
with mild disabilities prefer is full inclusion with co-teaching. Despite the increase in inclusion
programs, significant discrepancies still exist between the numbers of students with disabilities
who receive instruction in special education self-contained settings and the number of students
with disabilities who receive instruction in general education settings.
While the general education setting is not the least restrictive educational alternative
option for all students with disabilities, the number of students with disabilities in special
education classes is significantly higher than the number of students with disabilities in
mainstream or inclusive general education placement. This divide between general education and
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 20
special education placement requires further exploration. The inclusion of students with
disabilities in a general education classroom is believed to improve educational outcomes for all
students (Harr-Robins et al., 2012).
A study on the main leadership concerns related to effective special education indicated
that, as expectations and pressures continue to rise, principal leadership in school reform
becomes increasingly necessary (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001a,
2001b; National Staff Development Council, 2001). According to Theoharis and Brooks (2012),
effective principals can be both efficacious site managers and competent instructional leaders.
These scholars recognized that the leadership skills of school administrators and principals are
pivotal in meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
This study was designed to increase the understanding of the role of an urban high school
principal and other school key site stakeholder’s role in special education inclusion programs.
While much literature exists on K-12 principals, there is much less literature on how key site
administrators establish, implement, and sustain effective inclusive school culture for students
with disabilities. This study is significant in that it was designed to replicate and add to the
limited literature base linking transformational leadership to literature and research in special
education. This linkage contributes to the ongoing search for what works, especially as it pertains
to closing the achievement gap between students on special education program and students in
general education programs.
In a study on “moral conversation on disability, risking the personal in educational
contexts,” Ware (2002, p.143) affirmed the fact that inclusion is more than placing students with
disabilities in general education classrooms. Ware postulated that the inclusion process would be
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 21
an approach similar to the deinstitutionalization movement of the early 1970s. Hence, it would
be contrary to the intention of the LRE mandate.
Students with disabilities often have a negative school experience related to their having
a disability (Goldstein, 2006). Praisner (2003) elaborated further and revealed that a majority of
school principals had either negative or ambivalent attitudes towards inclusion. The study on
school site key stakeholders’ role in creating an effective inclusive high school is important to
develop a heightened understanding of leadership capability that impact a school’s culture and to
champion the effective inclusion of students with disabilities. If a connection exists between the
characteristics of transformational leadership and the dynamics of supportive school culture
necessary to sustain an effective inclusive high school, then these qualities can be encouraged
across schools within the district (Mees, 2008).
Definition of Terms
1. Accommodations: Changes or adjustments in instructional materials or procedures that
allow students with disabilities overcome their challenges surfaced from their disabilities
and access instruction and assessments (National Dissemination Center for Children with
Disabilities, 2010, para. 3).
2. Administrators: the group of individuals in leadership positions in charge of creating and
enforcing rules and regulations (Merriam-Webster, 2016). These people may be
principals, associate principals, assistant principals, deans, teacher specialists, or other
members in the leadership positions of schools who administer the planning, instruction
and daily activities.
3. Culture: The guiding beliefs, assumptions, and expectations evident in the ways a school
operates (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 22
4. FAPE: Free Appropriate Public Education. Section 504 (34 C.F.R. Part 104) of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandates that any programs and activities at public school
districts or state and local education agencies receiving funds from the United States
Department of Education (ED) restrict discriminating against anyone with a disability.
According to the section 504, no individual with disability “shall, solely because of her or
his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program, receiving Federal financial assistance” (U.S.
Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 2010, p.1)
5. IEP: According to the IDEA, students with disabilities are entitled to receive FAPE,
specifically designed special education and related services, such as speech and language
(IDEA, 2013), and physical therapy. These students have the right to a written document
outlining an individualized education program (IEP) developed by an IEP team including
the student, parents, teachers, administrators, and services providers describing the
designated special education plan and related services (McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004).
6. Inclusion: inclusion means when students with disabilities receive instruction and access
core curriculum in the general education setting together with their chronologically age-
appropriate peers in their school of residence (Halvorsen & Neary, 2009).
7. K-12: A term used in the United States referring to public schools from kindergarten (K)
through 12th grade, before college.
8. Key stakeholders: The key stakeholders in this study include the school principal,
assistant principal, school dean, school inclusion teacher.
9. LRE: Least restrictive environment relates to the federal law mandate that all students
with disabilities shall be educated together with their nondisabled peers, with support
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 23
from accommodations, modification, services, and supplemental aids, to the maximum
extent appropriate. The mandate stresses that students with disabilities will be removed
from regular classes only when education is not achieved satisfactorily with this
supporting framework. [20 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 1412 (a) (5) (A); 34 Code
of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Sec. 300.114.]
10. Mainstream refers to the placement of students with disabilities into general education
classrooms or activities with support from additional assistance, accommodations, and
modification. In mainstreaming, students go from special education classes to the general
education classrooms, but they are traditionally unable to achieve grade level proficiency
after receiving significant support (Halvorsen & Neary, 2009).
11. Modeling: The degree to which the principal sets an example for the organizational
members to follow, consistent with the values the principal espouses (Jantzi &
Leithwood, 1996).
12. Modifications: Adjustment to the curriculum, assignments, or assessments that
significantly alters the nature and level of learning of the information taught (McLaughlin
& Nolet, 2004).
13. Self-Contained: This term refers to classrooms for students with similar academic
requirements; however, it more often applies to students with severe disabilities who
work towards learning life-skills (McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004).
14. Setting: General education classrooms or classes, sporting events, and/or other activities.
Organization of the Study
This presentation of this study consists of five chapters. The first chapter provides an
introduction to and history of inclusion in education. The second chapter reviews the literature
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 24
and research available in this area, including past and future planned practices. Chapter Two also
examines the principles of leadership through the theoretical framework of Burns (1978) and
Bass (1985) in terms of transformational leadership theory. Chapter three will concentrate on the
methodology of the research, while Chapters Four and Five will discuss the results and
discussions, consecutively.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 25
Chapter was co-written by Anuakpado, L., and Babayan, A. with each contributing equally to the
work.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review, unlike the preceding section, contains a discussion and explanation
of the pertinent studies and analysis conducted to explore school key stakeholders’ role in the
inclusion of students with disabilities. A significantly high proportion of the studies revealed that
school administrators struggle to create a successful inclusive school culture for students with
disabilities. The elements that contributed to inclusion challenges are multifaceted (McLaughlin,
2004). This study provides a succinct review of an urban high school’s key stakeholders’
approach towards successful inclusion of students with disabilities. According to Causton-
Theoharis (2009), successful inclusion is the ability to educate students with disabilities in the
LRE while students show academic growth. This chapter chronicles literature on the
development and history of special education leading up to the inclusion of students with
disabilities. In addition, this chapter also presents current literature on special education services
provided to students with disabilities in public schools and similar institutions in the United
States. Furthermore, the historical overview of inclusion, current implementation methods and
outcomes, and the role of school leaders in the successful inclusion of students with disabilities
are also presented.
What is Inclusion?
Urban Unified School District defines inclusion program as the education of students on
the alternative curriculum in a general education classroom (inclusive environment) with age-
appropriate typical peers. Students in the inclusion program receive their academic instruction in
general education classrooms regardless of abilities. It is assumed that, when a student is placed
in the inclusion program, the student’s academic and social skill needs can best be met in age-
appropriate general education settings.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 26
According to the school district’s plan, inclusion is where students can be successful and
receive necessary support (Perez & Mason, 2017). All students receive high-quality instruction
and have access to interventions, modifications, and appropriate levels of support so they can
contribute, participate, and become successful in learning the curriculum in the LRE. All
students in inclusive environments learn from close personal interactions with each other.
Students develop awareness, compassion, and preparation for real-life experiences. Schools with
inclusion programs have a collaborative and respectful school culture where all students develop
positive social relationships and are full participating members of the community (Halvorsen &
Neary, 2009).
History of Inclusion
Scholars have been increasingly interested in inclusion issues since Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954, but the root of these questions started in late 19th century. According to
Logan and Wimer (2013), education was based on morals, and if children perform poorly on the
intelligence tests, it was concluded that either the student with disability is incapable of learning
or that the teacher performed poorly. During the early days of the 20
th
century, public and
private mental institutions grew and became home and school to the individuals with disabilities
(Blatt, 1981; Downing, 2010). Families, advocates, teachers, and the opponents of
institutionalization of the disabled students began questioning the inhumane and unacceptable
practices of institutionalization. These select groups of individuals advocated for the educational
rights of individuals with disabilities (Downing, 2010).
The social change of education began with Brown v. Board of Education and then Parc
vs. Penn in 1972, followed by Mills vs. Board of Education (1982), when the notion of separate
but equal was examined and resulted in policy changes (Downing, 2010). These legal cases set a
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 27
precedent for Public Law 94-124. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was
drafted and ultimately came to be known as Individuals with Disability Act (IDEA; Downing,
2010). The inclusion movement started in the 1980s with the lobbying of parents of students with
disabilities. With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) educational reform law, many school
districts moved towards mainstreaming and full inclusion. It meant that students with disabilities
have the opportunity to access the regular education curriculum and receive education together
with their nondisabled peers (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et
seq. West 1993). However, districts and schools have interpreted the laws differently, and, as a
result, special education inclusion has been very different from one school to another. It has also
varied greatly from state to state.
The IDEA and NCLB, the two largest federal programs, influenced the inclusion of
students with disabilities to a great extent. Under IDEA and NCLB, financial assistance is tied to
federally mandated programs that promoted inclusion as part of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973. IDEA strengthened the mandate of LRE requiring school districts engage in Child
Find. It became every district’s responsibility to search and find children with disabilities and
provide FAPE with the necessary services in the LRE (Hehir & Katzman, 2012). IDEA
encouraged educating students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers and gave parents
the power to due process with increased involvement rights in their child’s educational
placement. An amendment to IDEA in 1997 promoted access of students with disabilities to the
general education curriculum and academic content. It advised districts to improve their
programs by educating students with disabilities together with their non-disabled peers and close
the achievement gap between the two groups (Voltz & Collins, 2010).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 28
United States Congress revision of the IDEA findings in 1997 states, “Special education no
longer should be a place to which students are sent, but instead should be a service for the
students, one requiring coordination of education and other sources [20 U.S.C. § 1401(c)(5)(C)]”
and “Special education related services and other (supplementary) aids and services should be
provided to students in the general education classroom, whenever appropriate” [20 U.S.C. §
1401(c)(5)(D)].
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
According to the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (2018), there has been key
legislation that supported improved educational programs and services for all students. Notable
examples include the Training of Professional Personnel Act of 1959 (PL 86-158), which helped
train leaders to educate children with mental retardation, and the Handicapped Children’s Early
Education Assistance Act of 1968 (PL 90-538), which authorized support for early childhood
programs and increased Head Start enrollment for children with disabilities. In 1990, an
amendment to the 1975 Education for the Handicapped Act (PL 101-476), changed the name to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA was later amended in 1997 (PL
105-17) to include initiatives for transition services from high school to adult living. Later, IDEA
was further refined into the recent IDEA of 2004 (Downing, 2010).
IDEA consisted of six core principles. It focused on the LRE, nondiscriminatory
identification and evaluation of students with disabilities, zero rejection policy, the right to due
process, and the sixth core principle that granted parents and students the right to get involved
and be equal partners in the decision-making process for students. IDEA supports the provision
of culturally relevant instruction for diverse learners in mainstreamed environments (United
States Department of Education, 2018).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 29
The IDEA mandates that “students with disabilities are educated alongside their peers” to
the maximum extent possible (Alquraini & Gut, 2012), as long as the education and setting are in
agreement with the student’s needs. The agreement based on the IEP team and the goals drafted
in the IEP, according to the student’s needs (Kilanowski-Press, Foote, & Rinaldo, 2010). IDEA
(2004, Sec. 663 (c) [5] [E]) requires that students with disabilities receive evidence-based
instruction in core content. It directs the IEP teams to agree on a continuum of service options
with a recommended focus on inclusive practices. McLaughlin and Nolet (2004) specified that
IDEA mandates that every child be educated in the LRE but does not use the word “inclusion”
plainly in the Act. IDEA delineates that inclusion is not a mandate set forth by IDEA, but the
endeavor toward inclusion is a paradigmatic representation of LRE.
Least Restrictive Environment
To reiterate, IDEA, reauthorized in 2004, conceived the term LRE. The term referred to
the assumption that students with disabilities will receive education together with their non-
disabled peers in the general education classroom (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). It provided the
foundational support for the legislation to include children with disabilities in the general
education setting. Researchers have interpreted the LRE as the general education classroom
setting where students with disabilities attend and are active and highly regarded participants
who function with appropriate support to gain academic progress and success (McLeskey,
Rosenberg, & Westling, 2010). The mandate itself, paired with the idea of inclusion, is widely
supported by parents, researchers, and advocates of students with disabilities; however, the
actual implementation of the LRE mandate is a disputable topic that has divided stakeholders and
school professionals (McLeskey & Waldron, 2007).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 30
Successful Inclusion
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that “a continuum of
placement options be available to meet the needs of students with disabilities.” The law also
requires that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with
children who are not disabled.” Special classes, separate schooling, or another “removal of
children with disabilities from the natural environment occurs when the nature or severity of the
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be attained satisfactorily” (IDEA Sec. 612 (5) (B).
Schools that successfully include students with disabilities are designed to welcome
diversity and attend to the individual needs of all students, irrespective of their disabilities
(Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013, p. 245). To provide a favorable inclusive school environment,
skilled school leaders should promote compelling attitudes and beliefs among stakeholders.
School leaders encourage collaboration and create a school environment that facilitates inclusion.
As Hoppey and McLeskey (2013) explained, a principal’s critical role in creating an inclusive
environment is to “lubricate the human machinery” where the principal supports the teachers to
help students accomplish to their fullest potential.
Causton-Theoharis (2009) established that, in a successful inclusive classroom, students
are active learners and are encouraged to make choices. Teachers use differentiated strategies
when providing instruction to meet students’ unique needs. The substrate of an inclusive
classroom is teaching students with disabilities in a student-centered environment allowing
students to learn based on their goals and standards
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 31
Theoretical Framework
Principals are viewed by many experts in the field of education as authority figures.
They have important roles in the successful implementation of inclusive schooling both from the
managerial and philosophical point of view (Collins & White, 2001; Schneider & Ingram, 1997;
and Praisner, 2003). Similar findings were reported by McLaughlin and Nolet (2004). A parallel
analysis is that school administrators set the tone for inclusion in their schools by providing
vision, leadership, and administrative authority (Brotherson, Sheriff, Milburn, & Schertz, 2001).
Studies also postulated that the success of inclusion is usually closely tied to administrators’ key
values, beliefs, positive attitudes as well as planning and willingness to implement the programs.
Social experience constitutes creating a favorable climate in which all students in the school can
be accepted (Collins & White, 2001).
Leadership: The Role of Administrators in Inclusion
Riehl (2000) categorized the administrator’s tasks into three types of roles, according to
how they responded to diversity: (a) Foster the development of new understandings regarding
diversity, (b) promote inclusive practices, inclusive teaching and learning practices and
development of inclusive school cultures within schools, and (c) establish connections between
schools and communities. Riehl further alluded that the approach of school principals to these
three roles would determine the degree to which their practices are characterized as being
inclusive and able to promote changes in the regard (Riehl, 2000). Principal leadership is crucial
in developing inclusive schools and student progress (Blase & Kirby, 1992; Edmonds, 1979;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1998; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000a; Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). The more recent focus regarding inclusive school climate and
efforts is on educational leaders to create positive school climate demands that principals acquire
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 32
skills on how to work within a school milieu, it is critical to the promotion of positive school
culture favorable for employment and student learning (Whitaker, 2003).
Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) emphasized that transformational leadership
style comported well with education. The most dynamic leaders augmented transformational and
transactional leadership to bring about collaboration, commitment, performance and high
achievement of the followers and participants. Avolio (1999) established a connection between
transformational leadership style and increased levels of trust, satisfaction, and commitment of
individuals in the organization, which results into significant and positive changes in schools
(Silins, 1994).
Theoharis and Brooks (2012) contended that the single most important factor in school
effectiveness is the principal. Additionally, principals provide instructional leadership (Hallinger
& Heck, 1996a, 1998) and are vital to creating organizational conditions under which teachers
work best (Blase & Kirby, 1992; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990, 2000a, 2000b; Rosenholtz, Bassler,
& Hoover-Dempsey, 1986). According to Theoharis and Brooks (2012), a principal’s
transformational leadership increases teacher efficacy. Purkey and Smith (1983) concluded that
many variables were significant, but the real change occurred at the school level under the
guidance of a principal’s leadership.
Transformational Leadership Theory
High school principals play a vital role in the culture of schools. A principal’s leadership
is essential in creating effective schools and enhancing student achievement (Blase & Kirby,
1992; Edmonds, 1979; Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1998; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2000a; Marzano et al., 2005). Leithwood et al. (1999) proposed that a transformational
leadership model comported well with education. Philbin (1997) studied transformational
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 33
leadership and student performance in Indiana’s grade 9 through 12 high schools. The central
point of the fact-finding was whether there was a relationship between principals’
transformational behaviors and enhanced student performance as determined by state annual
achievement tests. The crux of the matter was whether teachers reported (a) willingness to
extend themselves to work, (b) increased levels of job satisfaction, and (c) perceived self-
effectiveness and instructional practices. The analysis indicated that principals in all high schools
studied manifested transformational leadership behavior. Teachers’ perceptions of highly
transformational principals resulted in teachers being happier with the school leadership and
willingness to put greater effort in their jobs. Hertz-Lazarowitz (2010) investigated the influence
of leadership on vision in schools and learning organizations. The results indicated that
transformational principals created the school vision and learning processes within the
organizations by creating a learning culture.
Bryman (1992) considered transformational leadership a part of the new paradigm. Bass
and Riggio (2006) proposed that transformational leadership a recent idea model is suited for
today’s work groups, striving for motivations, inspiration, and empowerment to become
successful, in times of uncertainty. Transformational leadership is a process that changes and
transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals
(Northouse, 2007). A transformational leader assesses followers’ motives and treats followers as
full human beings (Northouse, 2007). Transformational leaders influence the followers to
accomplish more than what is expected of them. It is a process that often includes charismatic
and visionary leadership. High school principals can utilize transformational leadership skills to
influence teachers, school staff, students, school community and overall school culture on a
micro to macro level.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 34
Northouse (2007) further argued that transformational leadership is a process. Its name
implies a course of action that changes and transforms people. “It is concerned with emotions,
values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. In addition, transformational leaders assess
followers’ motives, satisfy their needs, and treat followers as full human beings,” (Northouse,
2007, p. 175). Transformational leadership can be used to influence an entire culture.
Transformational leaders play important roles, and followers and leaders are inextricably bound
together in the process. Transformational leadership was first coined by Downton (1973). Its
development as a critical approach to leadership began with a classic work by political
sociologist James MacGregor Burns (1978) titled Leadership. Burns attempted to link roles of
leadership and fellowship and considered leaders as people who tap into the motives of followers
to reach the goals of leaders and followers more confidently. Burns (1978) further hypothesized
that leadership is considerably different from power because leaders connect to followers needs.
Transformational leadership is the process by which a person engages with others and
creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the
follower (Burns, 1978). Burns further pointed out that Mohandas Gandhi is an example of a
transformational leader. He raised the hopes and demands of millions of his people and was
changed in the process. An instance in the organizational world is a manager who attempts to
change his company’s corporate values to reflect a human standard of fairness and justice. In the
process, both manager and follower emerge with a stronger set of moral values. The
conceptualization of transformational leadership presented by Burns (1978) includes raising the
level of morality in others.
Bass (1985) provided a more expanded and refined version of transformational leadership
on Burns’ prior works, but, although not consistent, Bass extended Burn’s (1978) work by giving
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 35
more attention to followers’ needs. In view of the close connection between Burn and Bass’
work, Bass suggested that transformational leadership could result in situations where the
outcome is not positive (Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993, 1994). Both theorists agreed
that transformational leadership motivates followers to do more than the expected. It motivates
by (a) elevating follower levels of consciousness about importance and value of idealized goals,
(b) getting followers to transcend their self-interest for the sake of the team or organization, and
(c) moving followers to address higher level needs.
Transformational leadership is focused on improving the performance of followers and
developing followers to their fullest potential (Avolio, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Individuals
who display transformational leadership have a strong set of internal values and ideals.
Transformational leaders are effective at motivating followers to act in a compartment that
facilitates the greater good rather than their self-interests (Kuhnert, 1994). There are four models
of transformational leaders: Factor 1, idealized influence charisma; Factor 2, inspirational
Motivation; Factor 3, intellectual Stimulation; and Factor, 4 individualized consideration.
Transformational leadership factors include:
Factor 1: Charisma or Idealized Influence
These two terms describe leaders who act as strong role models to followers. Followers
identify with these leaders and want very much to emulate them. Leaders in this category have a
very high standard of moral and ethical conduct and can be counted on to do the right thing.
They provide followers with a vision and sense of mission and are deeply respected and trusted
by followers (Northouse, 2007).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 36
Factor 2: Inspiration or Inspirational Motivation
Leaders in this category communicate high expectations to followers and inspire
followers through motivation to become committed to the shared mission and vision of the
organization. These leaders use symbols and emotional appeal to focus group members’ efforts
to achieve more than they would in their self-interest. Team spirit is enhanced by inspiration or
inspirational motivation leaders (Northouse, 2007).
Factor 3: Intellectual Stimulation
The third factor includes leaders who stimulate followers to be creative and innovative
and to change their own beliefs and values as well as those of the leaders and the organization.
Intellectual stimulation leaders support followers to try new approaches and develop innovative
ways of dealing with organizational issues, encourages followers to think independently and
engage in particular problem-solving (Northouse, 2007).
Factor 4: Individualized Consideration
Factor 4 is comprised of leaders who provide a supportive climate where individual needs
of followers are listened to carefully. Leaders operate as coaches and advisers while trying to
assist followers in becoming fully actualized. Leaders use delegation to help followers grow
through personal challenges. The leader may give strong affiliation for some and direct specific
directive with a high degree of structure to others (Northouse, 2007).
Transformational leadership theory assumes leaders produce greater effects and moves
followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. They become motivated to
transcend their self-interest for the good of the group or organization (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
The research of Bennis and Nanus (1985) and the work of Kouzes and Posner (1987, 2002) have
contributed to the understanding of the nature of transformational leadership. Their model of
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 37
leadership was completed based on an open-ended questionnaire administered to middle and
senior level leaders. Based on answers provided, they identified four common strategies used by
leaders in transforming organizations.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) concluded that, first, transforming leaders had a clear vision of
the future state of their organization, an image of an attractive, realistic, and believable future.
Second, transforming leaders are social architects for their organization. These leaders created a
shape or form for the shared meanings that people maintained within their organizations. Third,
these leaders created trust in their organizations by making their positions known and standing
by their positions. They were predictable, reliable even in times of uncertainty. Fourth,
transforming leaders used creative disposition of self through positive self-regard. Transforming
leaders knew their strength and weaknesses and emphasized their strengths rather than dwell on
their weakness. There is a consistent emphasis on education.
Kouzes and Posner (1987, 2002) developed a leadership model by interviewing 1,300
middle and senior level private and public sector leaders about leadership. Kouzes and Posner’s
model consists of five fundamental practices that enable leaders to accomplish extraordinary
results. Each practice identified two commitments that serve as strategies for practicing
exemplary leadership. Kouzes and Posner’s five practices of exemplary leadership are presented
below.
Model the Way: Leaders need to be clear about their values and philosophy. Leaders need
to find their voice and express it, set examples for others, follow through on their promises
and affirm their commitments.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 38
Inspire a Shared Vision: Effective leaders, create a compelling vision that guides people,
visualize and communicate future outcomes, listen to dreams of others and validate it,
inspire and challenge others to transcend to do something for others.
Challenge the Process: Effective leaders have the willingness to innovate, grow, and
improve and they take risks to make things better.
Enable Others to Act: Outstanding leaders are effective at working with people. They
build trust with others and promote collaboration, listen to different point of views with
respect and create environments where people can feel good about their work and
contribute to the greater community
Encourage the Heart: Effective leaders nurture the heart by rewarding others for their
accomplishment, they are attentive to the needs for others to feel recognized and rewarded
for a job well done, and they are authentic and support the greater collective identity and
community spirit.
How Transformational Leadership Approach Works
Northouse (2007) conveyed that transformational approach to leadership is a broad-
based perspective that encompasses many facets and dimensions of the leadership process. It
allows leaders can initiate, develop, and carry out significant changes in organizations. There are
no clearly defined set of assumption about how leaders should behave in specific situations to
become successful. However, there are generalized ways of thinking about leadership that
accentuates ideal, inspiration, innovations, and individual concerns. Transformational style of
leadership demands that leaders become mindful of their own behavior related to the needs of
their subordinates and the changing dynamics within their organization or institution (Northouse,
2007).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 39

James M. Burns 1978
Bernard M. Bass 1985
Figure 1. Transformational leadership theory.
Strengths of Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has inherent appeal. It is consistent with society’s view of
what leadership means. It has been widely researched from various aspects and has been the
focal point of a large body of leadership research since its introduction in the 1970s. People are
attracted to transformational leadership because it makes sense to them and it is appealing that a
leader will provide a vision for the future.
Transformational leadership treats leadership as a process that occurs between followers
and leaders. Leadership is not considered the exclusive responsibility of a leader but, rather,
becomes apparent from the reciprocity between leaders and followers. Followers gain an
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 40
important position in the leadership process because the needs of others are central to the
transformational leader. The transformational approach provides an aggrandized picture of
leadership that included both the exchange of rewards and leadership attention to the needs and
growth of followers (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1985). Transformational leadership involves efforts by
leaders to move people to high standards of moral responsibility (Burns, 1978). Transformational
leadership is essentially morally uplifting (Avolio, 1999). There is extended evidence that
transformational leadership is an effective form of leadership (Yuki, 1999).
Criticisms of Transformational Leadership
A weakness identified by critics of transformational leadership theory was that it lacked
conceptual clarity since it involved a broader array of skills. It includes creating a vision,
motivating, being change agents, and building trust. Defining the parameters of transformational
leadership is difficult. Tracey and Hinkin (1998) pointed out the significant overlap between
Burn’s four factors (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration) of transformational leadership. They argued that its limits are not
clearly delineated. Additionally, the boundaries of transformational leadership often overlap with
similar conceptualizations of transformational leadership (Bryman, 1992). Some aspects of the
four factors are treated synonymously, despite the fact that some models are components of
transformational leadership.
A second, weakness of transformational leadership centers around how transformational
leadership is measured. In some studies, researchers have used some version of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) to measure transformational leadership. However, some
studies have questioned the validity of MLQ. In some versions of MLQ, the four factors of
transformational leadership are highly correlated with each other (for example, idealized
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 41
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration).
They correlate comparably with one another, indicating that they are not distinct factors. Tejeda,
Scandura, and Pillai (2001) further exhorted that some transformational factors correlate with
transactional and laissez-faire factors, which means that those factors may not be exclusive to
transformational model.
A third weakness of transformational leadership was that the theory treats leadership as a
personality trait or personal predisposition rather than a behavior in which people can be
instructed (Bryman, 1992). If it is a trait, it becomes a problematic approach to train individuals
on how to change their traits. The problem is exacerbated as the word transformational creates
images of a single person being the most component in the leadership process. There is also a
tendency to view transformational leaders as visionary leaders who have special qualities that
transform others. These images accentuate a trait characterization of transformational leadership.
An additional criticism is that transformational leadership is elitist and anti-democratic (Avolio,
1999; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leaders create changes, establish a vision, and
advocate new directions. Transformational leadership illicit the notion that the leader is acting
independent of its followers or putting himself or herself above the followers’ needs. Yukl
(1999) maintains that transformational leadership suffers from a “heroic leadership” bias.
A final weakness is that transformational leadership has the potential to be abused. It is
unclear as to who determines if the leader’s new vision is a better view or not. The dynamics of
how followers challenge leaders or respond to their vision is not entirely understood.
High School Principal Support Systems
A study conducted by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute in conjunction with
The Finance Project, commissioned by The Wallace Foundation (2005) found that a range of
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 42
critics, including principals themselves, raise a litany of concerns about the quality and
effectiveness of the leadership preparation typically provided at university-based programs.
These practitioners contest that, often times, school leadership preparation programs are
disconnected from real-world complexities. The study further stated that the knowledge bases of
some preparation programs are weak and outdated. Also, the curricula often fail to provide
grounding for effective teaching and learning, and mentorships and internships recurrently lack
depth or opportunities to test leadership skills in real situations.
Daresh (2004) suggested that school systems should learn from the implementation of
mentoring programs for beginning school administrators. Mentors can provide support by
enabling beginning principals to feel a sense of comfort in moving in new directions. However,
having mentoring programs for new administrators does not guarantee that school districts and
individual schools will become successful. An affirmation by the study was that having an
advocate and supportive colleague may enable a new principal to take risks that might otherwise
be ignored.
A survey carried out by Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008) on principals’ attitudes
regarding the inclusion of students with autism found that, despite the fundamental role of
principals in initiating and maintaining the support for change, only a few empirical studies have
been reported on principals’ views regarding inclusion. Overall, studies on school principals’
attitudes regarding inclusion have revealed mixed results. Some findings demonstrated that
school principals supported the benefits of inclusion while others revealed a tendency for low
expectations for success (Avissar et al., 2003). Avissar et al. (2003) also corroborated findings
that the principal’s vision and leadership behavior can promote inclusive policies. However,
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 43
support for inclusion depends on the severity of the student’s disability (Horrocks et al., 2008).
The conclusion of this study revealed a need for additional principal training and support.
Another study exploring causes of principal burnout (Federici, 2012; Whitaker, 1996)
concluded that some principals are frustrated and exhausted in their role. The study further
conveyed that reasons of frustrations and burnout by principals are (a) the need for more support
systems built into the responsibilities of principals, (b) the perceived lack of central office
backing and understanding felt by some principals, and (c) the need for more time for reflection
and more opportunities to interact with other professionals and principals. Although principals
occasionally visit at principals’ meetings, time for talking, reflecting, and sharing problems and
concerns is apparently not present, leaving many principals feeling isolated and alone in a world
of conflict.
School principals should be informed to serve students with disabilities properly.
Furthermore, if a new direction within educational leadership is the furtherance of social justice
in terms of fair, equal, and equitable educational opportunity for all students, principles and the
application of inclusive models that account for the diversity of students, then it behooves the
profession to ensure that leaders are being prepared to apply those principles (Pazey & Cole,
2013).
The implications of these studies for school leaders are three-fold. First, the study
demonstrates principals/site administrators desire more support systems to be better able to
handle conflicts and increasing pressures associated with their job responsibilities. In-district
support systems are needed whereby principals have both formal and informal networks to
brainstorm, resolve problems, as well as time to reflect and think. Mentor programs are
necessary for both beginning and experienced principals. University preparation programs are in
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 44
a good position to establish centers for principals as one mechanism of support. Second,
educational administration training programs need to better prepare future principals for the
realities of the job. No longer is it sufficient to provide managerial skills to prospective
principals.
Leadership skills should be fully taught, so those future principals have a strong
foundation and belief systems on which to base their difficult decisions. Preparation programs,
too, must include an emphasis on responsive personal and personality characteristics that might
match or conflict with the demands of the principal ship. Leadership development also needs to
encompass the political realities of the job. As collaborative decision-making becomes a norm,
dealing with so many different constituencies requires that principals have some background on
how to work effectively with diverse groups and how to handle potentially explosive situations.
Third, school districts need to recognize the challenging and difficult role of the principal fully.
The principal’s role must be rewarding, fulfilling, and challenging. To remain in the job,
principals need to feel that they are continually growing as professionals and as individuals.
Principals must feel that they are admired and respected by others, have advancement and
professional growth opportunities, and have enough autonomy to make changes that will
significantly impact the learning environment in their buildings (Whitaker, 1996).
DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, and Walther-Thomas (2004) examined the conditions and
concerns of principals in Virginia. Their study sought to discover the experiences and
perceptions that contribute to the growing shortage of principals. The findings suggest that
principals do not feel they have sufficient authority and resources to get the job done, and they
are working long hours to fill the gap. More than half of the principals intended to retire in the
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 45
next decade, which raises questions about who will step forward to lead. These findings suggest
that principals need administrative support and more school site autonomy to lead effectively.
Summary
Carey (2014) and Milner and Lomotey (2014) delineated the current context in which
urban education exists as an identity crisis. They highlight the need to examine the structural
forms of inequity that are detrimental to student success rather than focus on the inaccurate
perceptions of others who classify certain students as deficient due to identity markers such as
poverty, race, ability or disability.
This review of literature began with a concise history of inclusion. The review
demonstrated how the inclusion of students with disabilities began, and how inclusion continued
to evolve since its conception. Second, the review of literature examined what successful
inclusion entailed, what it may look like in districts and schools that are currently implementing
inclusion programs. Third, this review explored the transformational leadership theory of Burns
(1978) and Bass (1985). The basic premise of the exploration of transformational leadership
theory was to discuss its operational definition, explore its components, strengths, criticisms, and
inquire how transformational leadership affects the establishment of inclusion school culture.
Lastly, this review ascertains what support systems are available to high school principals.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 46
Chapter was co-written by Anuakpado, L., and Babayan, A. with each contributing equally to the
work.
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This qualitative case study sought to explore the role of key stakeholders in an urban high
school in the Urban Unified School District. In addition, the objective of this research was to
determine how key school stakeholders concerned about change help facilitate and maintain a
positive high school culture. The focus of this study was the inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education classrooms in an urban high school.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are as follows:
1. What are the perceptions of key stakeholders about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?
2. What do key stakeholders identify as factors that are receptive to the inclusion of students
with disabilities and positive school culture in an urban high school?
Research Design
This study used in-depth semi-structured interviews, a transformational leadership
survey, and artifacts and field notes from observations of high school stakeholders. The
stakeholders were the school principal, assistant principal, bridge coordinator, and general
education teachers involved in an inclusion program. This study explored how an urban high
school maintained inclusive high school culture. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) explained that, in
qualitative research, researchers do not put together a puzzle whose picture was already known.
The researcher constructs picture that took shape as the researcher collects and examines parts.
The aim of this study was to collect data from the school and convey the findings.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 47
Sample and Population
The subjects of this study were an urban high school principal, other site administrators
and inclusion staff members involved in the inclusion program at an urban public ninth-to-
twelfth-grade high school in the Urban Unified School District. These key school stakeholders
are responsible for all students, including students with disabilities in the inclusion program
enrolled in general education classes. Qualitative research methods with purposive sampling
were selected to explore the inclusion phenomenon because there was a prior knowledge of what
the study would find and because the study sought to generate data rich in detail and embedded
in context. McEwan and McEwan (2003) asserted that qualitative research was naturalistic in
that researchers went where the action was descriptive and were constantly focused on
explaining and interpreting what was observed, heard, and read.
Semi-structured interviews were used for the following reasons: to obtain a first-hand
account of the teachers’ perspective and opinions, due to time limitations, and to help ensure the
comparability of data across individuals and settings. Pre-structuring methods reduced the
amount of data collected. Negotiating relationships, this study required the researchers to have a
unique relationship with study participants. There were working relationships with participants in
this study as both collaborators and as graduate students trying to understand the components
necessary for an inclusive high school culture. It was essential for this study that the participants
be open about their views, opinions, and suggestions, and that they trusted that the data collected
would be used in an unbiased and not harmful manner.
Purposeful selection was used to achieve representation or typicality, of settings,
individuals, and activities. The site of this study was an urban high school. The urban high
school had students with disabilities in inclusion programs and who were concurrently enrolled
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 48
in various general education classes. Purposive sampling (Palys, 2008) was used deliberately to
provide information that was especially relevant to the research questions and goals in this study
that could not be derived as well from other choices. Weiss (1994) argued that qualitative
interviews should use a panel instead of a sample. Patton (1990) stated that selecting times,
settings, and individuals that could provide the researcher with the information needed to answer
the researcher’s questions were the most important consideration in qualitative selection
decisions.
Method of Sampling
The selected school had a structured inclusion program for students with disabilities and
had a special education student population of 10% or more in the general education inclusion
program. The school principal, assistant principal in charge of special education, the assistant
principal in charge of counseling, the assistant principal and the school bridge coordinator were
selected as participants for this study. General education teachers were also selected. Each
teacher had at least six months of experience with special education students in the inclusion
program and had a minimum of two students who fit the criteria of students with disabilities on
the alternate curriculum in general education inclusion program classification as determined by
the school district.
For this study, the interviewees decided on the time and location for conducting the
interview. Each interview had a 20- to 30-minute time limit. Multiple data collection methods
(triangulation) were used for this study. These included the principal/school administration
interviews and observations. Written consents were obtained for audio recordings and from all
interview participants.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 49
The purpose of using multiple methods was to gain information about inclusive school
climate/culture at a high school. Greene (2007, p. 190) argued that multiple methods consists of
“complementarity and expansion,” which broadens the range of aspects rather than strengthens
particular conclusions about what was studied. Categorizing analysis used to identify the units of
a segment of data that seemed relevant and meaningful. Open coding and descriptive coding
captured what seemed essential or was new insights (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). This study
connected strategies and narrative analysis to reset and re-sort data into the holistic view of how
the relationship of the interview data and observational notes were sorted into categories.
To ensure validity of the instruments, the researcher adapted questions from existing
instruments that have already gone through a validity test. The transformational leadership
survey instrument has been adapted from Bass and Avolio’s (1995) MLQ for Research. The
survey measured leadership skills on six factors: charisma, social, vision, transactional,
delegation, and execution. Interview questions and the observation instrument were developed
by the principal evaluator. Modifications to the interview questions and observation
documentation tool were developed under the guidance of a USC professor of methods to ensure
that both instruments were tailored to investigate and help describe successful inclusion
phenomenon.
Overview of Organizations
Urban Unified School District
The UUSD was founded in 1900s and is amongst the largest public school districts in the
nation. It enrolls thousands of students in kindergarten through 12th grade at several traditional
public and public charter schools. At the time of this study, it employed thousands of teachers
and other employees. The UUSD boundary spreads over a few square miles in the Southern
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 50
California area. Its catchment areas include the city of Urban and all or part of smaller
municipalities and unincorporated sections of Southern California. Several languages (including
Spanish, Armenian, Korean, Filipino, Cantonese, Farsi, Vietnamese, and Russian) are spoken by
UUSD students and families. According to UUSD data on student demographics for the 2010-
2011 academic year, 34% of its student population speaks only English, 10% are fluent English
proficient, and 56% are English language learners. Overall, 13% of students are special
education enrolled. Thirty percent of students are mainstreamed in the general education
classrooms or are in the inclusion program in the general education classroom.
Blue District is one of UUSD’s small city schools. Blue City schools consist of
kindergarten through twelfth grades at local schools and span from Hills Heights to View and
South Grand City, areas in Southern California. There are 20 Blue City schools: nine elementary
schools, primary centers spanning from primary care center/kindergarten to fifth-grade schools,
seven middle schools (junior high), and four senior high/high schools. UUSD’s Blue City
schools has approximately 25,000 students, of whom 95% are Hispanic, 1% are White, 1% are
Black, 1% are Asian/Pacific Islanders/Filipino, 1% are African-American, 8% are Native
Americans, and less than 1% are categorized as other. Approximately 68% of students are
identified English language learners (including students beginning kindergarten or new to the
country), while 20% are fluent English proficient. Overall, 25% of students are special education
enrolled, 5% of students are in the inclusion program in the general education classroom. Eighty
percent of students participate in free or reduced-price meal programs, and 98% eat breakfast
daily due to UUSD’s breakfast in the classroom program.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 51
Treasure High School
Treasure High School, the focus of this study, is located in the Blue City Schools. It was
established in 1920. Treasure High School is a single-track school and has a configuration of
students in grades ninth to twelfth. In the 2016-2017 school year, there was a total population of
1,603 students. The school’s demographics are as follows: 99.1% Hispanic students, 0.4%
black/African American students, 0.2% White students, 0.1% Asian students, and 0.2% Alaskan
students. In addition, 932 students are classified as English language learners. Blue mini school
district where Treasure High School is located has a higher proportion of foreign born residents,
56% compared to the state average of 26.2%. A difference of $23,000 exists between the median
household income in Blue City and the median household income in California. There are 1,439
low-income students on the free or reduced-price lunch program. Treasure High School has one
principal, three assistant principals, one dean, one special education coordinator, four counselors,
two coordinators, three secretaries, 15 teachers’ assistants, six school aides, five custodians, and
63 teachers. Among students, 220 are classified as receiving special education services or
support (Achieve.UUSD.net).
Treasure High School has a school-wide inclusion program. All students with disabilities
participate in general education classes, programs, or activities. Half of general education
teachers and special education teachers at Treasure High School collaborate and co-teach lessons
and activities. Students with disabilities in the resource specialist program receive their
instruction in co-taught general education classes. English and math support is provided in the
learning center by a special education teacher and a special education assistant if needed.
Students with moderate to severe disabilities in self-contained special education classes are
mainstreamed throughout the school day in various elective general education classes as
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 52
appropriate for each student. Students with mild to moderate disabilities in the inclusion program
receive 60% to 100% of their daily academic instructions in the general education classes with
the support of an inclusion facilitator from the district, assigned to the school site. Treasure High
School has the highest number of students with disabilities in the inclusion program in the local
blue district.
Conceptual Framework
This study was informed by transformational leadership theory as well as extensive
research on inclusive school practices and positive school culture. Hauserman and Stick (2013),
contended that transformational leadership provides one avenue to understand the influence of
principal’s actions on teachers’ attitudes. The variables given by transformational leadership
theory lend themselves to studying school settings in connection with a measurable report of
transformational leadership qualities. The present focus on school change and efforts to create
successful educational leaders require that principal/site administrator master a deeper
understanding of how to work within a school milieu (Whitaker, 2003).
The number of students labeled with a disability has increased 151% since 1989
(Ysseldyke, 2001). Unfortunately, students with disabilities often spend the largest part of their
day leaving their classroom to receive special instruction, resulting in a disconnected and
fragmented school day (Capper, Frattura, & Keyes, 2000). Moreover, these special programs
have failed to result in high student achievement, as measured by post-school outcomes or
standardized scores. For example, in the United States, despite extensive efforts at providing
special education for more than 25 years since the implementation of federal disability law, 22%
of students with disability labels have failed to complete high school, compared to 9% of
students without labels (National Organization on Disability, 2000).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 53
The inclusion of students with disabilities is dilatory, but a crescive phenomenon. Forest
(1986) proposed that this trend is a major change for most school communities. Studies have
shown that the successful implementation of innovation and change in schools is related to
leadership behavior of the principal (Bowers, 1990). It is logical, then, to assume that the
leadership behavior of the principal may influence the way in which inclusion is accepted and
implemented at schools.
Use of the conceptual framework (transformational leadership theory) was meant to
provide insight into on how a school principal can effectively establish, implement, and sustain a
positive school culture where students in the inclusive program can thrive. The conceptual
framework considered how transformational leaders lead as an effort to satisfy followers’ needs
and move followers to a higher level of work performance and organizational involvement that
displays respect and encourage participation (Bass, 1985). The current emphasis on school
change and efforts to create successful educational leaders demand that professionals master a
deeper understanding of how to work within a school milieu (Whitaker, 2003).
Limitations
The following limitations focus on methodological issues that apply to this study
(Heppner & Heppner, 2004).
1. The findings of this study are limited to the validity and reliability of the instruments.
2. The findings of this study are limited by the preciseness and discernment of the
participants. It was assumed that the principal /administrator and other school key
stakeholders provided honest feedback/responses and interpreted the instrument as
intended.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 54
3. The findings of this study are subject to the limitations of the interview, survey, and
observation data collection methods.
4. The findings of this study were based on Likert-type scale questions which, to some
extent, allow participants to construct their responses or enable the researcher to delve for
further discernment.
Delimitations
The following delimitations apply to this study:
1. Only one urban high school in the Urban Unified School District with students in grades
9 to 12 was the focus of this study.
2. Only school site key stakeholders at the identified school within the Urban Unified
School District were at the center of this study.
3. This study was not intended to be generalized, although the result of this study could be
generalized to site administrators/principals at urban inclusive high schools, (b) in the
state of California (Simon, 2011).
4. The case study and transformational leadership theory set the boundary on what the
findings of this study could ascertain (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010; Simon, 2011).
Validity
Creswell (2014) posed that validity is one of the strengths of qualitative research. It is
based on determining whether the findings are accurate from the standpoint of the researcher, the
participant, or the readers of an account. This study incorporated multiple approaches to assess
the accuracy of findings and convince readers of the study’s findings. Different data sources of
information were examined. Evidence from the source, convergence of interview, observation,
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 55
and survey data, and perspectives from the participant was used to build a logical interconnection
and justification for the themes of this study.
Credibility
The researcher of this study was an inclusion facilitator at a school site, however, the
results of the study were obtained through an unbiased analysis of the data collected. Self-
reflection was used to comment about how the researcher’s interpretation of the findings was
shaped by the researcher’s background. Data were constantly compared with codes and written
memos about the codes and their definitions. Transcripts were checked to ensure that they did
not contain obvious mistakes made during transcription. A peer debriefing was used to enhance
the accuracy of the accounts. The researcher spent prolonged time in the field and developed an
in-depth understanding of the inclusion phenomenon. Discrepant information that ran counter to
the themes was objectively presented.
Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) affirmed that research project is always, to some degree, an intrusion
into the lives of the participants in a study. This chapter provided a clear and careful explanation
of the purpose of the study, participants’ expectations, and what will be done with the data. A
primary obligation was to determine how the participants perceived the researcher’s actions.
Response to participants’ perceptions and understanding was negotiated to develop useful and
ethically appropriate relationships with participants. All data for this study were objectively
gathered, analyzed and presentenced expressly without prejudice, malice or bias.
Data Collection
Data in a qualitative study can include virtually anything that is observed, heard, or that is
otherwise communicated to the observer while conducting the study (Maxwell, 2013, p. 87).
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 56
What is happening in the research scene is the data, whatever the source, whether interview,
observations, documents, in whatever combination. Maxwell (2013) stated that qualitative data
includes what was told, how it was told, and the conditions of what was told. It also includes all
data surrounding what is being described in the research (Glaser, 2001, p. 145). This study
utilized triangulation, which involves using different methods as a check to see if different
methods with different strengths and limitation all support a single conclusion (Fielding &
Fielding, 1986). Interviews were the primary source of data collection for this study. Interviews
with school key stakeholders were collected from April through June 2018. The interview
included a minimum of weekly 20 minutes recorded interviews with the informants, monthly
one-hour observations of key stakeholders, monthly one-hour observations of daily activities and
bi-weekly analysis of the key stakeholders’ calendars and documents (meeting minutes, memos,
staff development agenda). Also, with informant permission, the recordings of the informant’s
thoughts and feelings during the interview. The researcher scheduled follow-up interviews as
needed during the beginning of May and June 2018.
In the data collection phase, a field log was used to document a detailed account of ways
time was spent when on site and during the transcription and analysis phase (also comparing this
record to how time was spent). Detailed record related to observations was kept in a field
notebook. The researcher kept a field diary to chronicle thoughts, feelings, experiences and
perceptions throughout the research process (Creswell, 2014). Data from staff were collected
through formal and informal interviews and anonymous questionnaires. The use of multiple
measures of evidence collection was intended to yield information about a different aspect of the
phenomena. This purpose included complementarity and expansion; used to broaden the range
of aspects or phenomena that addressed rather than simply strengthen particular conclusions
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 57
about one phenomenon (Greene, 2007). The interviews presented an efficient and valid way of
understanding the participant perspective (Maxwell, 2013). Observations enabled the researcher
to draw inference about participant perspectives that participants were reluctant to state in an
interview directly, or that could not be obtained by relying exclusively on interview data. For an
interview to be useful to researcher, questions need to ask about specific events and actions,
rather than elicit only generalized or abstract opinions (Weiss, 1994).

Figure 2. Data collection methods.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 58
Instrumentation
Interview Questions
A 21 item semi structured interview questions was used to collect data about inclusion
from key school stakeholders. Interviews were conducted weekly from April to June. Each
interview were recorded and later transcribed. Each interview was approximately 20 minutes
long. See interview protocol in appendix A.
Survey Questionnaire
An 18-item questionnaire with a four-point Likert-type scale for rating the frequency of
observed leader behavior was used to rate types of interactions between leaders and followers
and leadership style A self-rating questionnaire in which the site administrator rated him or
herself, and a questionnaire in which the followers rate the leaders. The rating scale had the
following designations: 1 for rarely, 2 for sometimes, 3 for often, and 4 for almost always. See
transformational leadership protocol in appendix B.
Observation
For this study, two observations were conducted using an observation protocol. See
observation protocol in appendix C. All study participants were involved in the observation.
Observation of the school stakeholders was conducted during staff meeting and professional
developments session. Observation enabled the assessor to draw inference about participants’
perspectives and obtain data that could not be obtained by relying exclusively on interview data.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 59
Table 1
Theoretical Alignment Matrix
Research Question Theoretical Framework Data instrument Questions
RQ1
What are the perceptions of
key stakeholders about the
inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?

Transformational Leadership
Theory

(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978)
RQ1: Questions
5,6,7,8,10,13,14

Observation data
RQ2
What do key stakeholders
identify as factors that are
receptive to the inclusion of
students with disabilities and
positive school culture in an
urban high school?
Transformational Leadership
Theory

(Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978)
RQ2: Questions 11,12, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19

Survey Q 1-18

Observation data
Demographic Questions

Survey:
Q1,2,3,4,9,20,21

Data Analysis
Data collection and data analysis must be a simultaneous process in a qualitative study
(Merriam, 2009; Marshall, & Rossman, 2006). Qualitative data analysis primarily entails
classifying things, persons, and events and the properties which characterize them (Merriam,
2009). Data analysis began immediately after completing the first interview or observation. Data
analysis continued throughout the research process, with the researcher stopping to write reports
briefly. Maxwell (2013) contested that researchers should never collect data without substantial
analysis going on simultaneously. Heinrich (1984) reaffirmed that graphing data the same day
the researcher collected the data can tell about the researcher’s progress (Maxwell, 2013).
The researcher surveyed key stakeholders. Interviews were the second point, and
observations served as the final point of triangulation. The initial step in this qualitative analysis
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 60
was reading the interview transcripts, observational notes, and listening to interview tapes before
transcription. The researcher wrote notes and memos on what was observed and heard in the
data. The researcher developed tentative ideas about categories and relationships. The logical
option for this study were memos, categorizing strategies (coding and thematic analysis), and
connecting strategies. Memos were used to capture the researchers’ analytical thinking about the
data collected and to facilitate and stimulate analytical insights (Maxwell, 2013).
Categorizing/coding analysis identified units and segments of data that seemed relevant and
meaningful. Coding helped to juxtapose time and space, the influence of one thing on another,
and seeing actual connections between things (Maxwell, 2013). Connecting strategies, the latter
part of this study’s analytical option was necessary. It established a distinction between
organizational substantive and theoretical categories, which explicitly identify the content of the
participant’s statement or action.
After the data for this study were collected and coded, the researcher analyzed the data
for a pattern and recurring themes in leadership style and effective inclusion of student and
supportive school culture. Triangulating the data gathered through an interview, observation,
and questionnaire served to demonstrate the connection between the conceptual framework and
supportive and efficient school culture for students with disabilities. Triangulation was intended
to address any potentially serious validity threats to the research conclusion.
At the completion of surveys, observation, and interviews, preparation, and organization
of collected data, interview recordings were transcribed, coded, and categorized using Creswell’s
(2003) grounded theory and examined for open and descriptive coding, axial coding and
selective coding to generate themes and descriptions. Survey data were examined using
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 61
nonparametric statistics. Observation data were analyzed. Survey data were described and
represented using graphs, tables, and narrative descriptions.
Ethical Consideration
Attention to ethical issues in qualitative research is recognized increasingly as
indispensable for ethical reasons and as a fundamental aspect of research (Cannella & Lincoln,
2011). Maxwell (2013) deduced that ethical concerns should be involved in every aspect of
research design, including in methods, research questions, validity issues, critical assessment of
conceptual framework, and was also relevant to research goals.
Human Subject Protections
An information letter of explanation was provided to all potential participants. A letter of
consent was provided to all study participants. Participants were assured that inclusion in the
study was voluntary and that they had the right to cease participation in the study at any
time. Anonymity of all participants was of utmost importance. All participants’ names remained
confidential, and all data remained confidential. The researcher coded all names so that
responses were confidential. Numeric identifiers and pseudonyms were used for individuals and
places to protect identities. Data were kept in a secure container and electronic data were kept on
a secure computer with a restricted access passcode. For the purpose of protecting the identity of
the participants and/or source(s), the original identifiers are retained in a locked file accessible
only to the researchers associated to the study. The original identify will be stored and destroyed
after the study in accordance to USC research standards.
Summary
Despite the limitations and delimitations, this study employed triangulation, feedback,
rich data, and quasi-statistics (Maxwell, 2013). This study counterbalanced flaws that may be
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 62
inherent in a single method. Throughout the study, the researcher solicited feedback from the
dissertation committee when forming theories or generalization from research data.
Triangulation helped identify and prevent biased or skewed logic that could threaten the
conclusions.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 63
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate elements and receptive roles of key school
stakeholders in the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings, at an
urban high school where inclusion of students with disabilities was implemented. Teachers and
administrators at an urban high school with inclusion program for students with disabilities
provided the qualitative analysis for this investigation. Results of interview data indicated school
stakeholders’ understanding, belief, and knowledge about available resources for inclusion
program at the school. Results of the transformational leadership survey data about the school’s
leadership team indicated the level of transformational leadership at the school. This study also
analyzed the various aspects of the school administrators and general education teachers’ input
about supports necessary for students with disabilities in the inclusion program to become
successful when placed in general education high school settings.
According to Shalev (2015), high school students spend greater amounts of their time
with their peers. Their social network becomes complex because their attitudes towards others
becomes more salient. Increased access to the general education curriculum can expand the
opportunities that students with disabilities have to interact with their non-disabled peers. Shalev
further argued that inclusion may provide pathways that promote positive educational
experiences for all students, improve students’ tolerance and understanding for diversity, and
improve postsecondary outcome for all students. Legislation and educational policies in the
United States continue to demand a more appropriately inclusive programming for students with
disabilities and for school to ensure that all students are provided access to the LRE and are
supported to access the general education curriculum to the maximum extent possible (Every
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 64
Student Succeeds Act of 2015; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004).
Conventional wisdom has it that leadership is an individual’s behavior to lead a group of
individuals. Northouse (2007) articulated that there are a wide variety of different theoretical
approaches to explain the complexities of the leadership process. This study investigated the
impact transformational style of leadership play in promoting positive school culture that
enhance the likelihood of success in an urban high school for students with disabilities. Valentine
(2011) found that transformational school leaders use the expertise and leadership of school
teachers and convey a sense that the teachers are fundamental part of the success of the school.
Transformational school leaders invest significantly in the development of individuals, build
leadership capacity through the school and develop a culture of collective problem-solving which
helps lead to students learning and accomplishment of the school vision.
This study employed a qualitative inquiry approach. Data were collected from various
school stakeholders, consisting of individual interviews with general education teachers and
school administrators, a Likert-scale transformational leadership survey, observations, and a
collection of artifacts. The findings of the study were aimed to answer the following research
questions:
1. What are the perceptions of key stakeholders about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?
2. What do key stakeholders identify as factors that are receptive to the inclusion of students
with disabilities and positive school culture in an urban high school?
The next section describes information about the site and the participants. To commence, an
overview of Treasure High School’s inclusion program is presented, followed by a description of
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 65
the group observation participants, the individual interview participants, and the individual
survey participants.
This chapter also provides an analysis of data from a recent study aimed to explore the
role school stakeholders play in the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in general
education setting. The aim of this comprised of three components. First, to develop a better
understanding of the role transformational leadership practices play in establishing inclusive
school culture. Second, to examine the existing knowledge high school general education
teachers have about inclusion of students with disabilities. Third, to explore strategies and
resources that support inclusion. Last, this study aims to detail evidenced based resources
favorable to improve key school stakeholder capacity and the effective inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education settings.
Sites and Participant Profiles
To maintain anonymity and preserve the confidentiality of the study participants,
pseudonyms and participant numbers have been assigned and used for this study. A pseudonym
was also used for the school district, school location, and school name. Identifying information
for the study participants and school were not included in this study.
Site: Treasure High School
The site for this study was an urban ninth-through-twelfth-grade high school with a
special education student population of more than 10% in general education inclusion. Data used
in this study were collected at UUSD’s Treasure High School in the East Los Angeles area of
Southern California. Treasure High School is a full inclusion school. General education teachers
and special education teachers co-teach to support students in general education classes. Students
on the core curriculum who are designated as resource specialist program eligible for special
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 66
education support are supported in their various general education classes by special education
teacher. Inclusion support program is offered to students on the alternate curriculum in the
general education classes. Students on the alternate curriculum are supported in the general
education classes by district assigned inclusion facilitator. The mission statement of the UUSD is
to “embrace diversity to educate youth, ensure academic achievement and empower future
leaders.” This aligns with the mission statement of Treasure High School, which is “to provide a
learning environment that empowers students to reach their educational and personal potential.”
Table 2
Demographic Information of School Administrator Interview Participants
Participant Gender Race Education Years of
experience
Years at
the school
Assistant Principal 1. female African
American
Master’s 15 1
Bridge Coordinator. female Caucasian Master’s 5 5
Principal male Hispanic Master’s 10 1

Individual Administrative Interview Participants
The individual administrative interview participants were three of the five school
administrators at Treasure High School. There were two females and one male school
administrative interview participants. The ethnic makeup of the group was one Latino, one
African-American, and one Caucasian participant. Each of these participants had at least five or
more years of school supervisory position experience within the UUSD. In addition to
participating in the school-wide data analysis and instructional development, each participant
helped implement the school’s academic progress program. Furthermore, the administrative
interviews participants helped facilitate the school-wide inclusion of special education students
in the general education classes. These school administrators collaborate with IEP team members
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 67
during IEP meetings. The administrative interview participants were also responsible for
planning professional developments, professional learning communities and supervising teachers
at the school throughout the entire academic year.
Administrator Participant 1, Mr. Smith, had 10 years of educational experience in both
teaching and administrative positions. Mr. Smith has an administrative credential and a master’s
degree from a university in the Southern California area. He was a school administrator at an
elementary school, a middle schools, and high a school in the Southern California area. Mr.
Smith was also an administrator at the local school district office in the Southern California area
before becoming principal at Treasure High School.
Administrator Participant 2, Ms. Jones, had over 15 years of school administration
experience. Ms. Jones held a master’s degree from a public university in California as well as a
teaching credential and a school administrative services credential. This was Ms. Jones’s first
year at Treasure High School, although Ms. Jones had worked as a school administrator in
charge of special education at a different high school prior to being assigned to Treasure. Ms.
Jones is the administrator who oversees the academic counseling department at THS.
Administrator Participant 3, Ms. Hill, had five years of quasi-school-administration
experience. She had also worked as a classroom teacher, out of classroom mentor and coach. Ms.
Hill held a bachelor’s degree from the east coast, a master’s degree and an administrative degree
from a public university in the Southern California area.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 68
Table 3
Demographic Information of General Education Teacher Interview Participants
Participant Gender Race Education Years of
experience
Years at
the school
P1. male Hispanic B.A and Credential 18 11
P2. male other M.A and Credential 6 6
P3. male Hispanic M.A + Credential 9 2
P4. female Hispanic M.A + Credential 8 5
P5. male Caucasian M.A + Credential 14 1
P6. male Caucasian M.A + Credential 24 1
P7. female other B.A + Credential 15 5
P8. female Caucasian M.A + Credential 10 8
P9. female Caucasian M.A + Credential 15 11
P10. female Far East A. M.A + Credential 20 5

Individual General Education Teacher Interview Participants
Ten general education teachers were interviewed for this study. All general education
interview participants were highly qualified credentialed teachers. The job duties of the general
education interview participants included teaching self-contained core or elective general
education high school subjects. The general education interview participants were also
responsible for collaborating with the inclusion facilitator to support students with disabilities in
the general education classroom, planning and implementing lessons, and evaluating student
progress on the subject matter taught in the general education classes.
General Educator Participant 1, Mr. Garcia, was a Hispanic male elective subject teacher.
Mr. Garcia also taught a class at a public university in the Los Angeles area. At the time of the
interview, Mr. Garcia taught five periods of general education elective classes per day. He was a
fully credentialed teacher and held a master’s degree from a public university located in Southern
California. Mr. Garcia had over 11 years of teaching experience and had been teaching at
Treasure High School for 11 years and had been involved in the inclusion program for 6 years.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 69
General Educator Participant 2, Mr. Miller, was a mixed-race male core subject teacher at
Treasure High School. Mr. Miller had 6 years’ teaching experience and had taught all 6 years at
Treasure High School. At the time of the interview, Mr. Miller taught five periods of general
education core classes per day. He held a bachelor’s degree from a private institution in the Los
Angeles area and a teaching credential from a public university in the Los Angeles area. Mr.
Miller had been involved in the inclusion program for 2 years.
General Educator Participant 3, Mr. Mateo, was a Hispanic male who taught both a core
science and an elective subject. At the time of the interview, Mr. Mateo taught six periods of
general education elective classes per day. He was completing a doctoral degree program at a
private university in the Southern California area. Mr. Mateo had nine years’ teaching experience
and had been involved in the inclusion program for 2 years.
General Educator Participant 4, Ms. Santiago, was a Hispanic female core science
teacher. At the time of the interview Ms. Santiago taught five periods of general education
elective classes. Ms. Santiago had eight years’ teaching experience and had been involved in the
inclusion program for 5 years. She had a teaching credential in science and a master’s degree
from a public university in the Southern California area.
General Educator Participant 5, Mr. Taylor, was a Caucasian male core subject teacher at
Treasure High School. Mr. Taylor had a master’s degree from a public university in California.
Mr. Taylor had 14 years educational experience. He had been a teacher at the school for one
year. Mr. Taylor had an out of the classroom position at another school and worked with both
typical students and students with disabilities. Mr. Taylor has had one year’s experience in the
inclusion program. Mr. Taylor indicated that he had a family relative with developmental
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 70
disability. At the time of the interview Mr. Taylor taught six periods of general education
elective classes per day.
General Educator Participant 6, Mr. Williams, was a Caucasian male general education
elective teacher at Treasure High School. He had 24 years of educational experience and had
been a teacher at Treasure High School for one year. Mr. Williams was a former special
education day class teacher and had experience teaching students with disabilities all 24 years.
Participant 6 had been directly involved in inclusion program, taught students with disabilities in
his general education elective class for eight months. At the time of the interview, Mr. William
taught six periods of general education elective classes per day.
General Educator Participant 7, Ms. May, was a Hispanic female core and elective
science teacher at Treasure High School. Ms. May received her undergraduate degree from a
public university in California. She had a single subject teaching credential. Participant 7 began
her teaching career as a long-term special education substitute teacher. She had about 10 years
teaching experience and taught at Treasure High School for five years at the time of the
interview. Ms. May had worked with students with disabilities for 10 years. She had 12 total
students with disabilities in her core and elective general education science classes. At the time
of the interview Ms. May taught five periods of general education science classes per day.
General Educator Participant 8, Ms. Brown, was a Caucasian female core subject teacher.
Ms. Brown held a master’s degree from a public university in the Los Angeles area. At the time
of the interview, she taught five periods of general education core classes per day. She had 10
years’ teaching experience. She taught 8 years of general education core subject classes at
Treasure High School and had been involved in inclusion program for 8 years.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 71
General Educator Participant 9, Ms. Nicolas, was a Hispanic female elective teacher. Ms.
Nicolas had 15 years of teaching experience and had taught elective classes at Treasure High
School for 11 years. She was a volunteer at other schools before she became a teacher and had
been involved in including students with disabilities in regular classes for 15 years. At the time
of the interview, Ms. Nicolas taught five periods of general education elective classes. She had
nine students total in her elective classes. Ms. Nicolas had a single subject teaching credential
and a master’s degree from a public university in the Los Angeles area.
General Educator Participant 10, Ms. Cruz, was a South East Asian female elective
teacher. At the time of the interview, Ms. Cruz taught six periods of general education elective
classes per day. She had 20 years’ teaching experience and 5 years’ experience at Treasure High
School. She had been involved in inclusion program for 4 years. Ms. Cruz held a bachelor’s
degree and a teaching credential from a private university in Southeast Los Angeles.
Table 4
Participant Data Collection Information
Participant Administrator interview General Education interview Survey Observation
Mr. Garcia x x x
Mr. Miller x x x
Mr. Mateo x x x
Ms. Santiago x x x
Mr. Taylor x x x
Mr. Williams x x
Ms. May x x x
Ms. Brown x x x
Ms. Nicolas x x
Ms. Cruz x x x
Mr. Smith x x x
Ms. Jones x x
Ms. Hill x x x
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 72
Survey Participants
A survey created by Don Clark (2011) based on Burns (1978) transformational leadership
theory was administered to examine leadership style in creating inclusive school culture. All
survey for this study was conducted at Treasure High School over a span of five weeks. The
survey participants were either teachers or school administrators. All interview participants
received a copy of the survey after the individual interview to complete at a later time or date and
return in an envelope to the researcher. The survey required that general education teachers
provide responses based on their perspectives on how well the school administrator(s)
demonstrated the qualities asked about on the survey. The school administrators were asked to
provide survey responses based on their perspectives on how well the survey questions applied to
their style of leadership.
Observation
Permission was obtained from the site administrator to observe a professional
development session and a school wide meeting for all teachers and paraprofessionals. The
observation was conducted over a 2-week span. Teachers were observed interacting with their
peers during faculty meetings and professional development sessions. Administrators were
observed interacting with each other during planning meeting and with teachers during staff
meetings and a professional development session.
The following is a description of the observation:
A school wide professional development for teachers and teachers assistant was held after
school in the school cafeteria. At the start of the meeting, the meeting agenda was projected on a
wide screen. Items on the agenda were: (1) core values (2) updated agenda (3) essential
questions, and (4) purpose and action. The school principal gave a welcome speech and greeted
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 73
the school staff. The welcome statement was followed by a synopsis of the school agenda for the
next school year. The principal explained that the school would go through Wester Association
of School and Colleges (WASC) accreditation in the upcoming school year; there would be
progress check meetings, common formative assessment meetings to evaluate students’ progress,
two hours per month of professional development meetings, one of weekly professional learning
community meetings and department chair meetings to support teachers. One of the attending
teachers asked a question and another teacher suggested an idea. The principal responded to both
the question and comment by stating that the matter will be looked into.
The meeting continued and a staff member was introduced to the group as the. The
WASC coordinator was asked to lead the meeting. The WASC coordinator asked the school staff
to collaborate in table groups about what the current school mission and vision statement meant
to each individual .Individuals in each group were asked to document ideas on one large chart
paper. One individual in each table group was assigned the responsible to upload a picture of the
each group’s written ideas on to the school’s teachers’ portal. All members of the group were
observed working and collaborating. The meeting concluded with an announcement by the
school principal concerning the need to develop a school wide cellphone use procedure for
students for the upcoming school year and a thank remark to the staff.
Throughout the meeting all school staff members seemed attentive, focused, and shared
ideas openly during the principal announcements and group activity. Other members of the
administrative team were observed collaborating with individuals at various table groups. Staff
members readily volunteered and uploaded pictures of the charted to the portal as evidenced by
the group list that was projected on the large meeting screen.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 74
Artifacts
Artifacts for this study were the school calendar, professional development plan, t and he
school district mission and vision plan, Treasure High School’s weekly calendar was reviewed
for weekly school events. The professional development plan for the 2016-2017 school year and
the 2017-20018 school year was reviewed for the types of training, meetings topics, and
collaboration focus Treasure High School provides for teachers. These training sessions were
also evaluated for alignment with the school district and school mission and vision statement.
Meeting agendas were examined to determine the priority, objectives and focus of the school.
The following is a list of the themes that emerged in the study: (1) Existing knowledge of
high school inclusion (2) Awareness and availability of resources (3) Stakeholders purposeful
action (4) Intentional support, and (5) Leadership culture. The following is a description of the
themes discovered.
Theme 1: Existing Knowledge of High School Inclusion
Interview data and transformational survey data obtained from study participants
provided the qualitative analysis for this investigation. In interpreting the overall data collected
from interview participants about the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education
classes, several themes emerged. The first theme that emerged from the data was the general
ways in which general education teachers understood and described inclusion at Treasure High
School. The terminology of inclusion of students with disabilities remained similar and the
rudimentary principles of inclusion framework were present throughout the interviews. However,
there were fundamental differences between the general inclusion of students receiving special
education services and support to students in the inclusion program. It should be noted that, in
UUSD, the term “inclusion program” refers to the educational program of students with
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 75
significant academic discrepancies on alternative curriculum whose academic placement are in
the general education settings for age-appropriate social skills benefits. Students on the inclusion
program are working towards a high school certificate of completion.
The method in which the general education participants described inclusion program
included both the inclusion of students on core curriculum and on a high school diploma track
who received resource specialist teacher support and students on the alternative curriculum and
on a certificate of completion path who received inclusion facilitator support. For example, Ms.
Nicolas stated that “I had been involved in the inclusion program as a volunteer, long before
becoming a teacher.” However, throughout the interview, Ms. Nicolas identified appropriate
inclusion program strategies and supports used in her classroom to support students with
disabilities on core curriculum in the resource program.
Similarly, Mr. Miller stated “This is my second year being involved in the inclusion
program. I have about 35 to 40 kids involved in inclusion.” Although Mr. Miller stated that he
had about 35 to 40 students in the inclusion program in his core general education classes. Mr.
Miller’s class roster information shows that the 35 to 40 students referred to in the interview
response included both students enrolled in the class that are on the core curriculum, resource
specialist program, and students in the inclusion program on the alternative curriculum inclusion
program.
Another interview participant Ms. Jones added that she does not directly work with
special education programs very much, but she stated, the following about the inclusion program
at the school “I have been led to believe that for inclusion that means, your RSP students in the
SDC program are merged into the general education classroom with general education students
and receive support from the RSP teacher. The RSP teacher co-teaches with the core teacher.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 76
The RSP teacher is able to answer question immediately, and there was no wait time for
students.”
The participant’s response about understanding of inclusion program aligns with Pazey
and Cole’s (2013) claim that school principals should be informed to serve students with
disabilities properly. Admin participant 3 states the following about inclusion:
“It is hard because this is the only school I have been at, but, from what I hear in
comparison to other schools, we have had a lot more success than other schools. We
seem to be doing it to a greater extent than other schools. It is really hard to do in a
comprehensive large high school. Every year, we get new teachers who have are not
experienced with the inclusion program and it is hard to be consistent.”
It should be noted that, while both the RSP program and Inclusion program are under the special
education figurative umbrella, significant disparities exists between both programs.
Additionally, several general educator participants identified partner teacher as a positive
factor of the inclusion program. According to Ms. Brown “I understand that case carriers move
up with students, but I think knowing which teacher work well together or finding the right
match is needed to build more team of willing teachers for inclusion program.” At Treasure
High School, the resource specialist service delivery model included pairing a general education
core subject teacher with a special education teacher in the general education classroom. In the
end, despite that the general definition of inclusion program were similarly used for both
inclusion for students on the core curriculum and inclusion for students on the alternate
curriculum, the basic tenants were consistent. The underlying processes of instructional delivery,
accommodations, modifications, and classroom supports were evident of inclusion program
support for students on the alternative curriculum.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 77
Theme 2: Awareness and Availability of Resources
A second theme that emerged from the data was the awareness of resources and support
available to general education teachers for the inclusion of students with disabilities in the
inclusion program. The presumption about awareness of available resources was two folds and
centered on resources for teachers at the district level and resources at the school level. The focus
of the two areas of support is categorized as central capacity and local capacity. At the time of
this study, UUSD offered district least restrictive personnel, district program specialist personnel,
in person training sessions, web trainings, curriculum programs, curriculum resources, and
curriculum support personnel and case carriers available to support school and facilitate the
implementation of inclusion programs at school sites.
Central Capacity
The role of the school district and the school district board was to ensure that schools are
responsive to the values, beliefs, and priorities of schools, including assigned school staff and
overseeing special education and more. However, study data seem to reveal a discrepancy
between resources provided by the school district to the school and some school stakeholders’
knowledge about the source of those resources. Ms. Jones stated that there are classes in the
teacher portal, classes available to general education teachers about special education through the
school district’s training portal. Ms. Jones added,
“But I am not sure what else is available to the teachers. I know there is another support
staff at the district office. When teachers need support they reached to the staff onsite.
Usually, we contact help at the local district office if teachers need help with a situation.”
Ms. Jones conveyed aware of some district support and when, how, and where to contact
district personnel when additional support was needed. Several other interviewees were not
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 78
knowledgeable about district resources as was indicative in their interview responses. Some
participants stated that they are not unawareness of resources available for general education
teachers at the district level. Mr. Williams responded “no” when asked if he was aware of the
resources available for the inclusion program. Mr. Taylor acknowledged stating that “general
education teachers can implement inclusion program with fidelity and support, but I don’t think
that I am aware of the level of support that is available.” Furthermore, Ms. May, interview
Participant 7, shared that she thought that “there are a lot of supports available and the supports
that there are, are very thin and not readily available.”
Similar to Mr. Taylor’s response, Participant 4, Ms. Santiago, concurred that she was not
aware of supports available for teachers. She stated, “I am learning as we go.” Mr. Garcia also
echoed similar sentiment that he, too, was “not aware of one.” Other interviewees communicated
that they were either unsure of what resources were available at the district office or that there
were supports available for teachers at the district level. Mr. Miller stated, “I am actually not sure
at the district level. I usually go to the school staff.” Ms. Brown noted that she was not sure of
supports available at the school district level. She added that there may be professional
development for teacher but that she was not sure. Ms. Nicolas specified that “yes, there are
support from the district office, the district’s website courses in-depth studies, reading writing
standards have helped her help students make connections and become better learners.”
The overall responses from teachers about knowledge about the availability of support at the
school district level were mixed.
Local Capacity
Contrary to interview participants’ responses about supports available at the district level,
many participants stated that they were aware of supports available at the school site. Ms.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 79
Nicolas stated that “The bridge coordinator, AP, and Inclusion staff are supportive.” Ms. Nicolas
further stated “There are coordinators and administrators at the school site who are very
supportive, and I have experienced positive outcome from [the] school team.” Ms. Brown
identified the different supports at the school site. She stated, “There are different classes, lab,
and professional development specific about co-teaching. Special education coordinator and
student case carriers are good and resourceful.” Participant 4, Ms. Santiago, noted that she
received support for the inclusion program at the school level: “I have a non-public-agency
teacher’s assistant for a student, two inclusion facilitator supports. I can ask the assistant
principal in charge of special education or the special education coordinator if I have questions.”
Mr. Miller talked about how the school site supports general education teachers to include
students: “they are actually really good at helping us out and providing resources. During
professional developments, they teach us how to modify and help students with disabilities.”
Theme 3: Stakeholder Purposeful Action
High school stakeholders are progressively required to provide inclusive educational
programs and environment to help meet the needs of all students, students with disabilities and
students at risk for school failure. Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2001) argued that efforts to
restructure schools to become more inclusive are sometimes plagued by structural, curricular,
instructional, and expectancy factors and conditions that need to be considered and addressed.
Fullan (2016) reasoned that a way to achieve greater coherence is by exhorting the right mixture
of pressure and support within supportive and focused culture through purposeful action and
interaction working on capacity, clarity, precision of practice, transparency, monitoring of
progress, and continuous correlation within the school system. Interview participants shared their
perspectives about inclusion at Treasure High School. Participants interview responses were
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 80
characterized into three sections: belief and opinion about inclusion, how inclusion works in the
classroom, and building relationships.
Belief and Opinion about Inclusion
A review of the interview data revealed that 10 out of 13 participants had favorable
opinion and belief about inclusion program at Treasure High School. Two interviewees were
new to Treasure High School and explained that they were still learning more about the inclusion
program because they were unfamiliar with inclusion program prior to joining the educational
faculty at Treasure High School for the 2017-2018 school year. One interviewee had a mixed
opinion about inclusion program at Treasure High School.
Ms. Santiago expressed that “it is better for students to be in one class than to have
students in tracks. My experience of high school tracking is that it seems unfair.” An
administrator at the school discussed about how “inclusion is necessary because students will not
graduate and go to sheltered setting.” Ms. May, Participant 7, conveyed that she was
not too sure if it works completely well. “There are a lot of times when I have students
that really cannot grasp the information that I’m giving them. When I am trying to
accommodate for those particular students, I’m losing a lot of the other students when I
am slower and have to simplify.”
Generally, it appeared that many stakeholders at Treasure High school had favorable opinions of
inclusion. The stakeholders who had either mixed or unfavorable opinion about inclusion
expressed the importance of implementing practices that would improve inclusive practices.
How Inclusion Works in the Classroom at Treasure High School
Participants articulated that the inclusion program at Treasure High School was
aesthetically seamless in the classroom. A student on the inclusion program is treated like any
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 81
other student at the school. The student receives more support from an adult for assessments and
other academic needs; everything else was the same for all students at the school. Another
participant, Ms. Smith, divulged that students in the inclusion program are on alternative
curriculum and mixed in with other students and not separated. The student is treated with
respect and engaged like other students at the school. Similarly, Ms. Brown communicated that
students in the inclusion program in her general education class received instructional
modifications and accommodation. Ms. Brown stated that “Ever since the new administration in
2011, supports have been given for inclusion. The state test went up 100 points showing benefit
for inclusion. I know there are groups and more than one teacher in the class teaching using multi
modalities strategies. Students are in advisory with their case carriers and can always find help.”
Ms. Brown explained that there was usually one teacher in the classroom, so instructions were
taught using multiple learning modalities. Mr. Taylor, Participant 5, specified that, depending on
which periods a student is on, usually in his first period general education class with fewer
students, students received meaningful differentiation without completely being oblivious to the
other students.
Relationship Building
Navigating the tide of stakeholders can sometimes seem like a daunting task, and
interview data suggested that relationship-building was an important aspect of the school. Ms.
Brown, Participant 8, stated, “it seems that most teachers build relationship if they teach
common subjects, or their classrooms are next door to each other. Every PD meeting ice breakers
are done. I can name every teacher at the school.” Mr. Miller noted that he “typically [tries] to
talk to other teachers, especially during passing period and throughout the day, and in the
morning. I like to collaborate with art teachers, which is why my class projects are very unique
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 82
and good.” Mr. Garcia said, “I think we work and learn with each other because there is support
for our staff meetings.” Ms. Nicolas explained that teachers built relationships by communicating
during lunch, before and after school and by sharing successful lessons, data, and ideas that
worked well. Two interviewees expressed that they do not get to collaborate with other teachers
and sometime become disenfranchised and nebulous because elective teachers who teach
different subjects are often grouped together when, in fact, these teachers do not have very much
in common. Mr. Taylor stated that, although he loved learning about his partner teacher’s
perspective, they do not do nearly enough professional learning community work or meet for
planning which makes collaborating and building relationship challenging.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), the manner in which staff members interact and the
extent to which they approach their duties as professionals is an important factor in a school’s
climate. Deal and Kennedy (1983) define organizational climate in a school as the collective
personality of a school based upon an atmosphere distinguished by the social and professional
interactions of the individuals in the school.
Theme 4: Intentional Support
Participants shared that providing teacher with ongoing professional development and
professional learning communities, guest speakers, trainings on special education priority topics
has helped build general education teacher capacity and knowledge about students with
disabilities. Professional learning communities and professional development have also helped
improve general education teachers’ willingness to work with students with disabilities. Several
other interviewees expressed that team teaching made including these students in general
education classes beneficial for all students at Treasure High School. Ms. Smith explained that,
with co-teaching, general education teachers are provided an individual student “passport” on
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 83
which is written information containing the specific student’s IEP goals, curriculum,
accommodation, modifications, English language development level and behavior needs. She
stated, “With co-teaching, we are able to meet and review individual students IEP, including
accommodations, programs modifications, and curriculum support.”
Correspondingly, Ms. Santiago stated that, when teachers co-teach in general education
classes with students in the inclusion program, both teachers were able to provide much needed
academic, social, and behavior support to students. She added that she thought “co-teachers
should be offered in all classes and not only to the classes that have state testing, because it can
be difficult if there are no supports.” Ms. Brown mentioned that she understood that
Case carriers move up [to the next grade] with students, but I think which teachers work
well together or finding the right match, or each teacher’s academic specialty should be
considered to help build more team and willing teacher when pairing up co teachers.
Ms. Cruz cited that providing teachers with planning time helped, while Mr. Williams also stated
that having teachers plan lessons together and then deliver instructions was particularly helpful.
A study conducted by Kloo and Zigmond (2008) noted that, although team teaching and
collaboration extends the benefits of inclusion, team teaching does not work by itself if you let
teachers educate in one room and ask them to cooperate. One teacher cannot take a back seat in
the dyads. The intent of team teaching must be intentional to achieve its maximum benefits.
Theme 5 Leadership Culture
Increasing awareness of what the school leader and other school stakeholders do not
know about working in diverse settings can move the school in a positive direction. When school
leaders aligned personal values and behaviors and the school policies and practices in a manner
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 84
that was inclusive of new or different culture, it led to healthy and productive interactions
(Lindsey 2009, p. 7).
Leadership culture was the fifth identified theme discovered in the unifying analysis of
data collected in this study through interviews and surveys from participants. According to
Lindsey (2009) leadership is the process of inspiring others to work together to achieve a specific
goal. Culture is about group; it provides the parameters for the school’s daily function. The
school culture guides the actions of various members in the groups and provides consistency,
predictability, and expectations for the school stakeholder groups. Administrative participant 1,
stated that, although he had not been principal at the high school for very long, he is familiar
with the inclusion program at the high school. He is very familiar with students with disabilities,
and had been learning a lot about inclusion since becoming principal at Treasure High school;
attending training with the teachers about inclusion strategies. It is reasonable to assume based
on studies conducted by many researchers, that principals’ objectivity, willingness to advance the
school and school district vision and mission for the general good of the school stakeholders
plays an important role in the successful implementation of inclusive schooling both from the
managerial and philosophical points of view (Collins & White, 2001; Schneider & Ingram, 1997;
and Praisner, 2003). A similar finding was also reported by McLaughlin and Nolet (2004).
Administrative Participant 1, described inclusion program as the least restrictive
environment for students:
At some schools, the least restrictive environment is more restrictive. Students are in
more special day classes or in more resource specialist programs. Here, the school has
already made the transition. Most students, except the students with moderate to severe
disabilities on the alternative curriculum, have been put into general education class with
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 85
appropriate supports. Inclusion is absolutely necessary because students with disabilities
will not graduate and go to a special day class or resource specialist program world. The
more students are included in the general education settings, the more prepared they are
getting for the real world.”
A parallel analysis can be drawn to administrative participant vision for students with disabilities
in the inclusion program to Northouse (2007, pg. 190) theoretical assumption that it is common
for transformational leaders to create a vision. A vision centered on the collective interests of
various individuals and units in the organization.
Administrative participant 3, stated that working relentlessly to build capacity or buy-in,
professional development for all stakeholders, parent awareness, common understanding,
concrete tools across the board, a focus on goals, data, students, and creating strategic plans were
factors attributed to inclusion at the school. In addition, these factors were also the school’s
approach to accomplishing the school and district mission. Northouse (2009) identified
individualized consideration as a factor in the representation of leaders who provide a supportive
climate in which to listen to the individual needs of followers.
Administrative participant 1 believes that, to support inclusion, there has to be a common
commitment among people and staff, “you cannot make a school do it, and people have to want
to do it that makes everything easier. I think it is collaboration. You need to have a collaborative
culture.” He further elaborated,
If you think that this is going to make the teachers work together by integrating the
special education teacher, if you think that that is the way to get people involved, it is not.
Collaboration is a condition that you build, whether it is special education, math, or
athletics. Collaboration is necessary everywhere.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 86
Bryman (1992) maintains that transformational leader treats leadership as a process that occurs
between followers and leaders. Administrative participant 1 added that
Working relationships are built deliberately. It is done by building relationships and
establishing trust. One way to build relationship is by establishing trust. Patrick Lencioni
who writes the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. I believe you establish trust by getting to
know who the school staff are. It is not trust that we are going to be friends. It is trust that
our intensions are good, and that we embrace conflict as opposed to shying away from it
because we do not trust each other. We embrace conflict because we know that it is going
to help us arrive at better ideas. It all goes back to trust and how you establish getting to
know each other…apologize when you are wrong, being vulnerable and not act like you
know just because you have a suit and tie.
Teacher interview participant 6 diametrically opposes giving choices, stating that “the
administration is nice but need to do less of a job of being buddies and friends. I think they need
to be less nice and smiles and be more serious.” A criticism of transformational leadership is
that it treats leadership as a trait or personal predisposition rather than a behavior in which people
can be instructed (Bryman, 1992, p. 100).
Transformational leadership provides a broad set of generalizations of what is typical of
leaders who are transforming or work in transforming context. Northouse (2007) confirmed that
transformational leadership provides a broad set of generalizations of what is typical of leaders
who work in transforming context. Transformational leadership provides leaders with a range of
their behaviors.
To better understand the connection between transformational leadership and inclusive
school culture, transformational leadership survey data was gathered for this study. The aim of
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 87
the survey was to measure school stakeholders’ perceptions of leaders’ behavior for each of the
factors in the range of leadership model. The figures and tables that follow provide specific
information about data collected from the transformational leadership survey. Figure 3
illustrates the statistical probability of each score rating. Data on the bar graph were distributed
based on how each survey participant rated the school administration, Scores on the graph is
based on a rating scale from one to four, with four being the most transformational style of
leadership.

Figure 3. Group rating probability for rating 1-4 score distribution. (n = 9)
Figure 4 demonstrates the rating trend for each of the 18 transformational leadership
survey questions. Completed survey responses were tabulated and recorded. Scores were
inputted into excel to establish the rating trend.
4%
19%
42%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4
Probability
Score (1-4)
Rating 1
Rating 2
Rating 3
Rating 4
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 88

Figure 4. Transformational leadership survey question response rating trend. (n = 9)
Table 5 indicates individual participant’s transformational leadership survey rating
distribution. The ratings are primarily based on a combination of three questions each that made
up each of the six factors of transformational leadership.
Table 5
Transformational Leadership Factor Ratings (N = 9)
Survey
Participants Charisma Social Vision Transactional Delegation Execution
Survey
Total

S.P.1 11 11 9 9 11 10 61
S.P.2 11 10 11 11 9 10 62
S.P.3 11 10 10 10 9 9 59
S.P.4 12 12 12 12 9 12 62
S.P.5 8 8 8 8 9 7 48
S.P.6 8 9 10 8 9 11 55

Survey
Participants Charisma Social Vision Transactional Delegation Execution
Survey
Total

S.P.7 9 8 9 7 11 9 53
S.P.9 7 9 7 6 8 7 44
Factor Total 84 88 84 80 79 86 501
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Frequency
Question
Rating: 1
Rating: 2
Rating: 3
Rating:4
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 89
Participant’s survey rating was calculated to determine the total rating scores for each
survey. Table 6 indicates the survey raw score for each survey participant, the total possible
score, and the percentage of the score primarily based on a 100% scale.
Table 6
Individual Survey Participant Survey Statistics (N =9)
Participant
Total
Score
possible
score proportion

1 61 72 0.85
2 62 72 0.86
3 59 72 0.82
4 62 72 0.86
5 48 72 0.67
6 55 72 0.76
7 53 72 0.74
8 50 72 0.69
9 44 72 0.61

Figure 5 illustrates how individual survey participants rated the school administration
based on transformational leadership qualities.

Figure 5. Survey participants school administration transformational leadership rating. (n = 9)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
S.P.1 S.P.2 S.P.3 S.P.4 S.P.5 S.P.6 S.P.7 S.P.8 S.P.9
Percentage of Possible Scores
Survey Participants
Individual Tranformation Survey Data
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 90
An analysis of the group survey data was conducted to evaluate all survey participants’
survey result. The group survey result was evaluated and categorized based on charisma, social,
vision, transactional, delegation, and execution. The survey data was tabulated and represented
using percentage scores.

Figure 6. Strength and weakness chart for transformational leadership. (n = 9)

Interview data analysis was completed using non parametric methods. Interview data was
transcribed. Transcripts of interviews were read multiple times. The first reading provided a
general sense of the information and an opportunity to reflect on the overall content and meaning
of the interview participants tone, impression, and content. During the next few subsequent
readings of the interview transcripts, data was organized by bracketing chunks of texts and words
representing categories that emerge from the interview data in the margins (Rossman & Rallis,
2012).
Recurrent terms, ideas, and topics that emerged from review of the interview transcripts
were organized into themes or categories by process of axial coding (Marshall and Rossman,
78%
81%
78% 78%
73%
80%
0.68
0.7
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.78
0.8
0.82
0.84
Percentage of Possible Scores
Categories
School Leadership Survey Data Distribution
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 91
2006). Axial coding based on grounded theory was used to make inductive and deductive
reasoning until data was reduced to salient themes relative to high school key stakeholders’
perceptions about inclusion and factors identified as receptive to inclusive school culture. Table
7 describes primary themes and sub themes which emerged from the analysis of the teacher
interview. The recurrent themes or axial codes are listed under the primary theme heading. Open
codes which led to the development of the overarching themes are listed beneath the sub themes
related to primary themes heading.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 92
Table 7
A data Analysis Matrix on Stakeholders View of Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
Primary Theme Sub-Themes Related to Primary Theme

Understanding if inclusion

Resources students in G.E program

Students in SDC merged in G.E class

Students with special needs in G.E classes

SPED teachers supporting students with disabilities in G.E.

Students in the alternate curriculum in G.E. classes

Familiarity with inclusion

Mixed

Not very familiar

Familiar

Still Learning

Pretty Familiar

Fairly Familiar

Well informed

Opinions about inclusion

Depends on students and supports provided

Not sure it works well

Test scores went up better for students

Helpful with support

Good for students

Some students learn at a slower pace

successful than at other schools

Have seen improvements

Resources

Lots of support but not always readily available

Provided during P.D

Provided by inclusion facilitator/coordinator/ A.P

Available at school site

Not sure of what is available at the district level

Consistent support

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 93
Table 7, continued
Primary Theme Sub-Themes Related to Primary Theme
What is needed?

P.D

P.L.C

Meeting in elective groups

Smaller class size

Collaboration

Planning time

Right match

Team building

District support

Clear expectations

Co-planning

Leadership support

Clear school vision and mission

Clear expectations

Knowledge of available resources

Data analysis

Challenges

Lack of reliable support

Student's level of needs

Lack of assistance

Class size

Inconsistent team teacher

School leadership characteristics Trust

Building capacity

Common understanding

Strategic action

Working together

Cohesive environment

Communicating with respect

Open line of communication

Themes that arose from the interview and observation data were examine through the
lens of transformational leadership theory to help understand, explain, challenge, or extend the
existing knowledge within the inclusion phenomena. Figure 7 illustrates the correlation between
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 94
transformational leadership factors and recurrent terms that emerge from data collected in this
study.

Figure 7. Transformational leadership theme matrix.
Summary
High schools are increasingly being called upon to provide inclusive education
programs for students with disabilities in general education settings. It is believed that inclusive
education will better meet the academic needs and social needs of students, as well as prepare
students for future career. However, several studies contest that inclusion of students with
disabilities in general education setting can be plagued by challenges. A study conducted by Van
Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2001) concluded that successful inclusion to a degree was
dependent upon the attitudes of teachers and supports received in the implementation of
inclusion. The findings of the study called into question the need for further clarification on what
constitutes teacher attitudes and supports.
The focus of this study was to examine practices that support the inclusion of
students with disabilities in general education classes as identified by high school stakeholders
and investigate if a correlation exists between stakeholders’ transformational leadership practices
and inclusive school culture at a high school. The review of literature in chapter 2 revealed that
Transformational
Leadership
Inspirational
Motivation
Idealized
Influence
Intellectual
Stimulation
Individualized
Consideraton
Team
Building
Visionary
Thinker
(what is the
next for
Decision
Based on
Data
Analysis
Supportive
Commitment
not
compliance
Common
Understanding
Build
Trust
Respectful
Communication
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 95
there exists limited research linking leadership style and inclusion of students with disabilities in
high school. Previous studies have either focused on leadership style or inclusion. For this
reason, further study on the inclusion phenomenon was warranted.
A survey carried out by Horrocks, White, and Roberts (2008) on principals’ attitudes
regarding the inclusion of students with autism found that, despite the fundamental role of
principals in initiating and maintaining the support for change, only a few empirical studies have
been reported on principals’ views regarding inclusion. Overall, studies on school principals’
attitudes regarding inclusion have revealed mixed results. Some findings demonstrated that
school principals supported the benefits of inclusion while others revealed a tendency for low
expectations for success (Avissar et al., 2003). Avissar et al. (2003) also corroborated findings
that the principal’s vision and leadership behavior can promote inclusive policies. However,
support for inclusion depends on the severity of the student’s disability (Horrocks et al., 2008).
Transformational leadership assumes leaders produce greater effects and moves
followers to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them. Leaders become motivated
to transcend their self-interest for the good of the group or organization (Bass & Avolio, 1990).
Bryman (1992) considered transformational leadership a part of the new paradigm. Bass and
Riggio (2006) proposed that transformational leadership a recent idea model is suited for today’s
work groups, striving for motivations, inspiration, and empowerment to become successful, in
times of uncertainty. Transformational leadership is a process that changes and transforms
people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals (Northouse,
2007). A transformational leader assesses followers’ motives and treats followers as full human
beings (Northouse, 2007). Transformational leaders influence the followers to accomplish more
than what is expected of them. It is a process that often includes charismatic and visionary
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 96
leadership. High school principals can utilize transformational leadership skills to influence
teachers, school staff, students, school community and overall school culture on a micro to
macro level.
Ten general education teachers involved in the inclusion of students with disabilities and
three administrative (one bridge coordinator, one assistant principal, and one principal) personnel
at one high school participated in this study with a total of 13 participants. The instrument used
in this study was semi structured interview, and transformational leadership survey by Don Clark
developed based on Burns (1978) and Bass (1998) transformational leadership theory. The
responses from data collected were compiled and analyzed to respond to the following research
questions:
3. What are the perceptions of key stakeholders about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?
4. What do key stakeholders identify as factors that are receptive to the inclusion of students
with disabilities and positive school culture in an urban high school?
Based on the responses to the interview questions and the transformational leadership
survey, five major themes arose out of the data collected. First, general education teachers
understood and described the inclusion program in ways that seemed to include both students
with disabilities on the core curriculum and students with disabilities on the alternative
curriculum. Although the terminology seemed inclusive of students with disabilities, the
intended goal of inclusion remained similar, and the rudimentary principles of the inclusion
program’s framework were present throughout the interviews. However, there were fundamental
differences between the general inclusion of students receiving special education services and
support to students in the inclusion program.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 97
The second theme was awareness of resources and support available to general education
teachers for the inclusion of students with disabilities. The presumption about awareness of
available resources was two-fold and centered on resources for teachers at the district level and
resources at the school level. While many interviewees acknowledged awareness of resources
and supports available at their school site, very few stated that they were knowledgeable about
resources and supports available at the district level. The challenges were that some of the
resources identified as school level support, such as the assignment of individual student
inclusion facilitator and the school site assistant principal in charge of special education, were
school site assigned district personnel. Additionally, some special education professional
development training was district level training. It should also be noted that many district
personnel support specific school site staff that are responsible for supporting and disseminating
support and training to other stakeholders at the school sites.
The third theme was participants’ perspectives about inclusion at Treasure High School.
Participants’ responses were characterized into three sections. The first was beliefs and opinions
about inclusion, as the data revealed that 10 participants had favorable opinions and beliefs about
the inclusion program. Two interviewees were new to Treasure High School and explained that
they were still learning more about the inclusion program. The second was how inclusion works
in the classroom. Participants articulated that the inclusion program was aesthetically seamless in
the classroom. Students in the inclusion program are treated fair and equitably as any other
student at the school. The third was building relationships, as school site stakeholders built
lasting cohesive professional relationships across subject areas through collaboration, partner co-
teaching, and by working and learning together at professional development and professional
learning communities.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 98
The fourth theme was intentional support in terms of providing general education
teachers with ongoing professional development and professional learning communities, guest
speakers, and training on special education priority topics, which helped build general education
teacher capacity and knowledge about students with disabilities. Professional learning
communities and professional learning communities also helped improve general education
teachers’ willingness to work with students with disabilities.
The fifth and final theme that was discovered in this study was the school leadership
component. Some general education teachers reported that support from school administrators
was crucial to ensuring the tone and perception of the inclusion program. Lindsey, Daly, and
Ibarra (2009) contest that an important cornerstone of public education and private education is
the province of transformational leaders to serve diverse communities.
The rating scale used in determining the strength and weakness of transformational
leadership style of the school administration presents challenges in that the ratings are primarily
based on a combination of three questions each that made up each of the six factors of
transformational leadership. A closer inspection of the survey instrument demonstrated that
there was not an indication of ambiguity in the survey responses. All survey participant
responded to the survey questions. An analysis of the group survey data was conducted to
evaluate all survey participants’ survey result. The group survey result was evaluated and
categorized based on charisma, social, vision, transactional, delegation, and execution. The
survey data was tabulated and represented. It is believed that the survey data accurately
measured and represented the leadership style of the school administration.
Based on the study data it is evident that to serve the academic needs of all students’
learner recognizing discrepancies is an important understanding for those in our society that lead
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 99
schools. To this end, Ibarra (2008) suggests that transformational leaders influence followers to
look beyond self-interest. Cultural proficiency begins with school key stakeholders wanting to
know how best to serve the educational needs of students irrespective of the demographic
characteristics of the school.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 100
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
When explored from a philosophical, sociological, philosophical, and economical view
point, inclusion is a liberal idealistic philosophy where the public school is seen as a major
avenue for implementing desired social change (Lowenbraun and Affleck, 1979). Inclusion is
based on the assumption that students with disabilities were inherently equal to their non-
disabled peers in school-related characteristics. The separation of students with disabilities from
majority of the school population for educational purposes was stigmatizing and impeded
students with disabilities from attempts to achieve real potential (Baglieri and Knopf 2004, pg.
33-34).
Literature review indicate that since the mid-1990s, the United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization’s commitment to inclusive education has increased for all
students irrespective of disability. This stance has resulted in steady rise in the relative number of
students in mainstream schools identified with a disability (Snyder & Dillow, 2013). A review of
numerous studies conducted to better understand facilitators and barriers to success for students
with disabilities discovered that increasing number of these students are being educated in
schools primarily designated for general education students. However, educational outcomes for
these students are meager when compared to their typical peers (Roberts & Simpson, 2016).
High school students spend greater amounts of their time with their peers. Their
social network becomes complex because their attitudes towards others becomes more salient.
Increased access to the general education curriculum can expand the opportunities that students
with disabilities have to interact with their non-disabled peers. Furthermore inclusion may
provide pathways that promote positive educational experiences for all students, improve
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 101
students’ tolerance and understanding for diversity, and improve postsecondary outcome for all
students (Shalev 2015).
High school education is both an important educational phase in students’ lives as well as
a preparation for their future. Foreman and Arthur-Kelly (2017) crystallized that the importance
of high school education is clear for a general education student on the core curriculum who
aspires to gain entrance to a university or takes a desired course of their choosing. However, the
importance of school beyond high school is ambivalent for some students with disabilities. Some
students with disabilities who have completed 12 years of schooling have learned very limited
skills that prepare them for their future environment. Inclusive schools may help bridge the gap
between sheltered classrooms and mainstream classrooms and ensure that students gain the
relevant skills needed to navigate through their future after high school.
Innumerable legislation, policy, and research developments have reformed the
expectations for what students with disabilities on the alternative curriculum should learn and
where instructions should be received. Overall, 61.8% of all students with disabilities spend 80%
or more of their regular school time in general classes (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
Although the statistics are not disaggregated by level of disability, 57% of students with autism,
43% of students with intellectual disability, and 28% of students with multiple disabilities spend
at least 40% of their school day in general education classes in secondary school (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012). In spite of years of debates and discussions, dire questions
remain about how to best support students with disabilities in general education classrooms
(Carter et al., 2015). Future studies should explore how strengthening collaboration affects
implementation fidelity, student outcomes and long-term sustainability of approaches in typical
schools.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 102
Overview of Current Study
This study examined key school stakeholders’ role in implementing special education
inclusion program in an urban high school and the impact of school leadership style on the
school culture. A number of compelling reasons prompted this study: to explore the knowledge
general education teachers have about an inclusion program, to assess key school stakeholder’s
awareness of available resources both at the district level and at the school site, and to develop an
understanding of the relative impact of stakeholders’ actions and resources required to ensure
fair and equitable educational access in the general education classroom for students with
disabilities in the inclusion program.
Inclusion reflects a commitment to social justice and equal access to education for all
students (Foreman & Arthur-Kelly, 2017; Obiakor, 2012). Hence, studies intended to better
understand and effectively implement inclusion program are warranted. The goal of this study
was to develop an in-depth understanding of the components necessary to successfully include
students with disabilities on the alternative curriculum in the general education classroom. As
such, two research questions propelled the methodology and analysis of this study:
1. What are the perceptions of key stakeholders about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in high school?
2. What do key stakeholders identify as factors that are receptive to the inclusion of students
with disabilities and positive school culture in an urban high school?
This qualitative study analyzed information collected from four data sources: individual
interviews, individual transformation survey data, group observation, and document/artifact
review. The primary motivational reason to use a qualitative research design for this study was to
collect data from a high school site where key school stakeholders were actively engaged in
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 103
educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom to better understand the
phenomenon of inclusion (Creswell, 2014). Data from 13 interviews, nine surveys, one whole
group observation, two artifacts, and three documents were analyzed for this study. Recruitment
letters were distributed in the school mailboxes of general education teachers and administrators.
Interested individuals were verbally asked of their availability and future interview dates were
scheduled with each participant. The interviews were conducted, using interview, guides with
general education teachers involved in the inclusion program and a bridge coordinator and
administrators at the school. Surveys were given to the participants at the completion of the
interview. The surveys were anonymously returned in an envelope at a later date. The
observation was conducted during the weekly staff meetings and professional development
training. Lastly, the document and artifacts collected were the professional development plan for
the previous and current school years, the school’s mission statement, weekly calendar, and
website, the school district’s mission statement, and the special education website.
The data for this study were analyzed using the transformational theoretical framework
first coined by Downton (1973). The emergence of transformational leadership as an important
approach to leadership began with the 1978 classic work of Burns. In 1985, Bass extended
Burns’ work on transformational leadership by giving additional attention to followers rather
than leader’s needs (Northouse, 2007). Transformational leadership provides a broad set of
generalizations regarding what is typical of leaders who transform or work in transforming
contexts. Transformational leadership provides a general way of thinking about leadership that
emphasizes ideals, inspiration, innovations, and individual concerns (Northouse, 2007).
Transformational high school leaders are aware of how their behaviors relate to the needs of
other stakeholders at the school and the changing dynamics within their school.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 104
Discussion of Findings
The findings from this study provided adequate information to address the two research
questions. Data not only converge with past findings. In addition, the results clarify
contradictions in the literature.
Summary of the Findings for Research Question 1
Several themes emerged from the data around the first research question about the
perceptions of key stakeholders on the inclusion of students with disabilities in high school. A
closer basic assumption through this analysis suggests that some general education teachers
understood and described inclusion program at Treasure High School in ways that seemed to
include both students with disabilities on the core curriculum and students with disabilities on the
alternative curriculum. Although, the terminology seemed inclusive of all inclusion of students
with disabilities the intended goal of inclusion remained similar and the rudimentary principals
of inclusion program framework was present throughout the interview process, however there
were fundamental difference between the general inclusion of students receiving special
education services and support to those of student in the inclusion program.
The lack of clarity on the difference between inclusion of students on core curriculum
and the inclusion program for students with disabilities is problematic. The nebulousness, if left
elucidated hampers general education teachers’ effort to fully support students with disabilities in
their classroom. Consequently, the lack of clarity may impede the full benefit of the inclusion
program.
A subsequent theme that emerged from the findings was the awareness of resources and
support available to general education teachers for the inclusion of students with disabilities in
the inclusion program both at the school site and at the district level. While many interview
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 105
participants acknowledged the awareness of resources and supports available at their school site,
very few participants stated that they were knowledgeable about resources and supports that are
available to general education teachers at the district level.
A closer inspection of the assumptions surrounding participants’ beliefs about which
supports were available from the district and which were from the school site suggests that there
are some misconceptions about inclusion program resources. For example, resources identified
as school level support such as the assignment of individual student inclusion facilitator and the
school site assistant principal in charge of special education were district assigned school
personnel. Additionally, some special education professional development training was district
level trainings. It should also be noted that many district personnel support specific school site
staff that are responsible for supporting and dissemination support and training to other
stakeholders at the school sites. It is important to inform and provide school stakeholders,
particularly general education teachers transparent access to resource available both at the school
and at the district level.
Another theme that arose pertaining to research question 1 was school stakeholder’s
belief about inclusion program. 76.9% of the study participants agree that students need to learn
from each other and not be excluded. Ten participants had favorable opinion and belief about
inclusion program at Treasure High School. Two out of 13 interview participants were new to
Treasure High School and explained that they were still learning more about the inclusion
program, because they were unfamiliar with inclusion program prior to joining the educational
faculty at Treasure High School for the 2017-2018 school year they did not believe themselves to
be knowledgeable to rate inclusion program. One out of 13 total interview participants had
mixed opinion about inclusion program at Treasure High School. It appears that stakeholders
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 106
tend to rate inclusion program based on how familiar or unfamiliar each school stakeholders are
with the inclusion program. A parallel analysis appears to be that the favorable or unfavorable
ratings and assumption of success or lack of success of the inclusion program was attributed to
the school stakeholder’s level of knowledge about the inclusion program.
Summary of the Themes in Research Question 2
Themes that arose from the second research question about what key stakeholders
identify as factors that promote the inclusion of students with disabilities and positive school
culture in an urban high school were (1) providing stakeholders with ongoing trainings, and
ongoing support, (2) ensuring that general education teachers involved in the inclusion program
have input and access to (a) co-teachers or team teachers and (b) time to collaborate. Equally
important is the school leadership role to provide (3) clear vision and direction for the inclusion
program.
Most participants revealed that (4) on-going professional development and professional
learning communities, guest speakers, and training on special education priority topics has
helped build general education teacher capacity and knowledge about students with disabilities.
Professional learning communities and professional development have also helped improve
general education teachers’ willingness to work with students with disabilities. These
participants conveyed that professional development and professional learning communities are
critical to the success of the inclusion program.
General education teachers attributed team teaching or co-teaching teaching as a positive
factor of inclusion at Treasure High School. Several other interview participants expressed that
team teaching made including students with disabilities in general education classes beneficial
for all students. These participants emphasized the need to have co-teaching or team teaching
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 107
available to all teachers involved in the inclusion program and not limited to only core subject
teachers. Participants explained that, with co-teaching, general education teachers are provided
an individual student passport in which is written information containing specific student’s IEP
goals, curriculum, accommodation, modifications, English language development level and
behavior needs. Team teachers or co-teachers provide needed accommodations and
modifications for students; co-plan lessons, activities and instructional delivery; supervise
students and assist with classroom management to help ensure a safe and inclusive learning
environment for all students. The new culture of compulsory education encourages team
teaching and collaboration as factors important for success in inclusive schools (Moen, 2003)
Furthermore, teachers and students gain from working with others and, consequently, need time
to plan and collaborate with teacher other.
Bruggencate (2012) discerns that schools in the improvement process often examine the
various leadership factors that play a substantial role in school effectiveness. Although some
experts have criticized transformational leadership as being elitist and antidemocratic (Avolio,
1990), other studies have suggested that transformational leadership style as a style of leadership
that advocated success in school improvement setting. An important theoretical assumption was
that transformational leadership provided a broad set of generalizations regarding what is typical
of leaders who work in transforming context (Northouse, 2007).
The standard way of thinking about transformational leadership is that leaders are
recognized as change agents and good role models as well as creators and articulators of a clear
vision for the school who give followers reasons to trust them and give meaning to the
organization. The largest proportion of the survey participants rated the school administrators
highest in social (88), execution (86), charisma (84), and vision (84). The school’s key
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 108
stakeholders seemed concerned with the collective good of students at the school (Howell &
Avolio, 1993). Treasure High School was one of the first schools to implement a school wide
inclusion program. The basic assumption is that values at the school reflect a more human
standard of fairness and justices. Based generally on the finding that the school stakeholders are
committed to a shared vision, this has the potential to influence the school culture and positively
impact student outcome. A study on transformational leadership style by Jung, Chow, and Wu
(2003) on study 32 upper-level leadership Taiwanese companies, found that transformational
leadership was directly related to organizational innovation.
According to Moolenaar (2010), transformational leadership is one of the most prominent
contemporary theories regarding leadership. It has been found to have an impact on school
stakeholder perception of school culture, commitment, change, and student learning outcomes.
Transformational leadership created a culture of empowerment, encouragement and the freedom
to openly discuss and try new ventures.
Implicit in the theoretical analysis of the preceding context was the indication that a
school’s key stakeholder’s leadership style can influence the school’s culture. An unhealthy
school culture can lead to school ineffectiveness, while a healthy culture was likely to lead to
positive and effective conditions necessary for all student success. Transformational style of
leadership has particular relevance to successful inclusive school culture for students with
disabilities in the inclusion program.
Implications for Practice and Policy
The implications of the findings in this study for educational practice for the inclusion
program are multifaceted and are as follows:
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 109
1. Inclusion stakeholders’ desire more training and support systems to better understand
inclusion programs and support students in the general education classes.
2. School stakeholders involved in inclusion require explicit and implicit school and district
level support systems.
3. Administrators should allow both formal and informal networks to brainstorm, resolve
problems, as well as time to reflect and think.
4. Mentor programs are necessary for both beginning and experienced inclusion support
providers.
5. University preparation programs are in a good position to establish centers for general
education teachers as one mechanism of support. Second, educational administration
training programs need to better prepare future principals for the realities of inclusion and
inclusive school culture.
6. Leadership skills should be fully taught so that future principals have a strong foundation
and belief systems on which to base their difficult decisions.
7. School administration reparation programs, should include an emphasis on
transformational style of leadership and personality characteristics that might match or
conflict with the demands of the principalship.
Limitations
There were limitations to this study, first of which was that the sample for this study was
a few stakeholders at one urban high school. A second limitation is that the selection of the
sample was conducted using a convenience sampling method. This methodology resulted in rich
data, but decreased ability to generalize the findings to other inclusion programs at other urban
high schools. The third limitation is that all participants were key stakeholders of an inclusion
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 110
program at a single urban high school. Hence, the findings of this study may not be
representative of all urban high school inclusion programs. The fourth limitation is that the
findings are limited by the validity and reliability of the instruments and by the precision and
discernment of the participants. It was assumed that the principal/administrator and other school
key stakeholders provided honest feedback/responses and interpreted the instrument as intended.
The findings are subject to the limitations of the interview, survey, and observation data
collection methods. The findings are based on Likert-type scale questions, which, to some extent,
allowed participants to construct their responses or enable the researcher to delve for further
discernment.
Recommendations for Future Study
Future research is needed to address several findings and limitations of this study.
1. Future research on inclusion programs should evaluate general education teachers
understanding about inclusion program. It is markedly germane that, prior to the involvement of
general education teachers in the inclusion program, the training, professional development, or
professional learning communities discussed the fundamentals of inclusion. This includes
inclusion program description, criteria, and resources.
2. To further the aim of inclusion, future studies are needed to explore how strengthening
collaboration affects implementation fidelity and outcome of co-teaching/team teaching in
inclusion program. Although participants reported that, through co-teaching/team teaching, they
were better able to provide instructions, services, and supports for students with disabilities in the
inclusion program, generalization on co-teaching/team teaching is limited to the measures used
in this study.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 111
3. This study briefly investigated the impact of transformational leadership style, a direction
for further inquiry would be to examine the long-term impact of transformational leadership style
on future organizational ventures and innovations. Hoppey and McLeskey (2013) gave credence
to the ideas that, to provide favorable inclusive school environment, skilled school leaders should
promote compelling attitudes and beliefs in the stakeholders.
Conclusions
Findings from this study in combination with a growing number of other published
studies postulate that the success of inclusion is usually closely tied to administrators’ key
values, beliefs, positive attitudes as well as planning and willingness to implement the programs.
Social experience constitutes creating a positive school culture in which all students in the school
can be accepted (Collins & White, 2001). For an urban high school, this study described some
pathways for key stakeholder to support students with disabilities on the alternative curriculum
in a general education high school classes. At the same time, this study should prompt reflection
among district and school leaders concerning the role that key school stakeholders play in the
inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes. Working cohesively with all
school stakeholders can help students with disabilities on alternative curriculum access the rich
learning and social opportunities available in the general education classroom.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 112
REFERENCES
Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful inclusion of students with
severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 42–
59.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. West 1993.
Avissar, G., Reiter, S., & Leyser, Y. (2003). Principals’ views and practices regarding inclusion:
The case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 18(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000120233
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Baglieri, S., & Knopf, J. H. (2004) Normalizing difference in inclusive teaching. Journal of
Learning Disabilities. Vol. 37(6), 525 – 529.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–
40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616 (85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616
(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21–27.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599010135122
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 113
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541–554.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
Harper. Row.
Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (1992). The power of praise—A strategy for effective principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 76(548), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659207654809
Blatt, B. (1981). In and out of mental retardation: Essays on educability, disability, and human
policy. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Bonilla, A. R. (2013). I ’m in the principal ’s seat, now what? The story of a turnaround
principal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452290683
Brotherson, M. J., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P., & Schertz, M. (2001). Elementary school principals
and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programs. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/
027112140102100103.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Bruggencate, G., Luyten, H., Scheerens, J., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Modeling the influence of
school leaders on student achievement: How can school leaders make a difference?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 699-732.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 114

Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration.
In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57-78).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Ethics, research regulations, and critical social science.
In N. Denzin and Y Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 81–89).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cappelluti, J. (2013). The savvy principal: What streetwise principals know. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Capper, C.A., Frattura, E.M., & Keyes, M.W. (2000). Meeting the needs of students of all
abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Carey, R. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the
language and label used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49(4), 440–468.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913507459
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., & Moss, C. K (2015). Randomized evaluation of peer support
arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities.
Council for Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209–233.
Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2008). Creating inclusive schools for all students: An
education for children with disabilities that, as one principal puts it, offers ‘nothing
separate, no special spaces, no special teachers. Alexandria, VA: American Association of
School Administrators.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 115
Causton-Theoharis, J., & Theoharis, G. (2009). Creating inclusive schools for all students.
Education Digest, 74(6), 43.
Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Bull, T., Cosier, M., & Dempf-Aldrich, K. (2011). Schools
of Promise: A school District—University partnership centered on inclusive school
reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932510366163
Collins, L., & White, G. P. (2001). Leading inclusive programs for all special education
students: A pre-service training program for principals. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, J. M. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cosier, M. E., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). 2010). Economic and demographic predictors of
inclusive education. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0741932510362513
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Daresh, J. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013161X04267114
Daunarummo, A. (2010). Necessary supports for effective high school inclusion classrooms:
Perceptions of administration, general education teachers, and special education teachers
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses publishing.
(3415840)
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 116
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1983). Culture: A new look through old lenses. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 19(4), 498-505.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1983). Culture and School Performance. Educational Leadership,
40(5), 14.
DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School principals and
special education: Creating the context for academic success. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 37(1), 1.
Downing, J. (2010). Academic instruction for students with moderate to severe 156 intellectual
disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781483350400
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary
process. Washington, DC: Free Press.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–
24.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (1975).
Falvey, M. A., Givner, C. C., & Kimm, C. (1995). What is an inclusive school? In R. A. Villa &
J. S. Thousand (Eds.), Creating an inclusive school (pp. 1–12). Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Federici, R. A., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2012). Principal self-efficacy: Relations with burnout, job
satisfaction and motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education: An International
Journal, 15(3), 295–320.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and
quantitative methods in social research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 117
Florida Department of Education. (2000). Least restrictive environment considerations related to
individual education plans. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Ford, D. Y. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to
move forward. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029
1207800401
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Inclusion in action (5th ed.) South Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What ’s worth fighting for in your school? (Rev ed) New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with
description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Goldstein, H. (2006). Toward inclusive schools for all children: Developing a synergistic social
learning curriculum. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Gordon, I., & Monastiriotis, V. (2006). Urban size, spatial segregation and inequality in
educational outcomes. Urban Studies, 43(1), 213–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500409367
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational administration quarterly, 32(1), 5–
44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X96032001002
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: An assessment
of methodological progress, 1980–1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 118
Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and
administration (pp. 723–783). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980‐1995. School effectiveness and school improvement, 9(2), 157–
191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
Halvorsen, A. T., & Neary, T. (2009). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for
success (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., Danielson, L., Garet, M., & Taylor, J. (2012).
The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability Systems. Interim
Report. NCEE 2012-4056. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance.
Hauserman, C. P., & Stick, S. L. (2013). The leadership teachers want from principals:
Transformational. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l ’éducation, 36(3),
184–203.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Next generation methods for the study of leadership and
school improvement. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Administration (2nd ed., pp. 141–162). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association
Hedgecock, D. J. (2012). The principal ’s role in the implementation of a middle school inclusion
program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1284158132).
Hehir, T., & Katzman, L. I. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide
programs (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 119
Heppner, P., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and
research: A guide for students in the helping. Belmont, CA: Thomson, Brooks/Cole.
Hoppey, D., & McLeskey, J. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an effective
inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910390507
Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of
children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 38(8), 1462–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 and Part 300 Regulations, June 1997.
Johns, M., Burke, R., Vest, K., Fukuda, M., Pavlin, J., Shrestha, S., … Blazes, D. (2011). A
growing global network's role in outbreak response: AFHSC-GEIS 2008-2009. BMC Public
Health, 11(Suppl 2), S3.
Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenmoser, R. M. (2010). The beyond access model:
Promoting membership, participation, and learning for students with disabilities in the
general education classroom. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Jorgensen, C. M., Schuh, M. C., & Nisbet, J. (2006). The inclusion facilitator ’s guide. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 120
Jung, Chow, & Wu. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational
innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4),
525-544.
J. Whitaker & Sons. (1988). Whitaker's Books in Print.
Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A
survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43–56.
Kloo, A., & Zigmond, N. (2008). Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing
School Failure, 52(2), 12–20.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). Leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things
done in organizations (1st ed.). San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). Seven lessons for leading the voyage to the future. In S.
R. Graves & T. G. Addington (Eds.), Life @ Work on Leadership (pp. 77–88). San Franciso,
CA: Jossey-Bass
Kuhnert, K. W. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through delegation. In B.
M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership (pp. 10–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Kurland, H., Peretz, Hilla, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and organizational
learning: The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1),
7-30.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research planning and design (9th ed.) Boston, MA:
Pearson Education International.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 121
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leadership effects: A
replication. School Leadership & Management, 20(4), 415–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/713696963
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on student
engagement in school. In K. A. Riley & K. S. Louis Leadership for change and school
reform: International perspectives (pp. 50–66). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational
conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230010320064
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times.
London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Logan, B. E., & Wimer, G. (2013). Tracing inclusion: Determining teacher attitudes. Research in
Higher Education Journal, 20, 1–10.
Lowenbraun, S., & Affleck, J.Q. (1979). In bureau of education for the handicapped
(DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C. LRE: Developing criteria for the evaluation of the least
restrictive environment prevision. Exploring issues in the implementation of P.L. 94-142.
LINC Resources, Inc., Columbus, OH. Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Lynch, L. M. (2017). Responsibilities for today’s principal: Implications for principal
preparation programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education
Quarterly, 31(2), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100205
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 122
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What ’s good, what ’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781483328591
McLaughlin, M. J., & Nolet, V. (2004). What every principal need to know about special
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M. S., & Westling, D. L. (2012). Inclusion: Effective practices for all
students. New York, NY: Pearson Higher Ed.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2007). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 42(3), 162–168.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512070420030501
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with
learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00324.x
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 123
Mees, G. W. (2008). The relationships among principal leadership, school culture, and student
achievement in Missouri middle schools (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (3371083)
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and interpretation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. J. (2000). A descriptive study of the high school administrator in the implementation
of inclusive education for severely disabled students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (304648040).
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (Dist. Court, Dist. of
Columbia 1972).
Milner H.R., & Lomotey K. (2014). Introduction. In Milner H.R., Lomotey K. (Eds.), Handbook
of urban education (pp. xv-xxii). New York, NY: Routledge.
Moen, T. (2008). Inclusive educational practice: Results of an empirical study. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 52, 59–75.
Moolenaar, N., Daly, A., & Sleegers, P. (2010). Occupying the principal position: examining
relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’
innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623-670.
Mulford, W., Silins, H., Leithwood, K. A., & ebrary, I. (2003; 2004). Educational leadership for
organizational learning and improved student outcomes. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.). National Center on Intensive Intervention
mission and approach. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2010). NICHCY ’s New Home.
Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 124
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion
work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(3), 477–
490. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0020
Patterson, J., Marshall, C., & Bowling, D. (2000). Are principals prepared to manage special
education dilemmas? NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/
019263650008461303
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pazey, B., & Cole, H. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of
socially just leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013161X12463934
Perez, J., & Mason, M. (2017). Professional Development Plan 2017-18 [presentation slides].
Glendale, CA: Glendale Unified School District. Retrieved from https://www.gusd.net/cms/
lib/CA01000648/Centricity/domain/6/board%20meeting% 20presentations/2017-05-
23.PrpsdPrfsnlDvlpmntPln.pdf
Philbin, L. P. (1997). Transformational leadership and the secondary school principal (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (9808502)
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440290306900201
Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and
teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership,
19(5), 504–532.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 125
Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., Correa, V. I., McLeskey, J., & Langley, L. K. (2009). The role of
collaboration in supporting the induction and retention of new special education teachers.
NCIPP Document Number RS-2. Gainesville, FL: National Center to Inform Policy and
Practice in Special Education Professional Development.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The elementary school
journal, 83(4), 427-452. https://doi.org/10.1086/461325
Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Review of educational research, 70(1), 55–81.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001055
Roberts, J., & Simpson K. (2016) A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on
inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 20(10), 1084–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145267
Rosenholtz, S. J., Bassler, O., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational conditions of
teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 91–
104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(86)90008-9
Ryan, J. (2010). Establishing inclusion in a new school: The role of principal
leadership. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 6–24.
Ryan S., Bozick R., Daugherty L., Scherer E., Singh R., Jacobo Suárez M. (2013) Transforming
an urban school system: Progress of New Haven School Change and New Haven
Promise Education. Santa Monica, CA. RAND Corporation
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University
of Kansas Press.
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 126
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 394 (1973).
Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and
school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 272–
298. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345940050305
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 ed.).
Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success, LLC.
Slaten, J., Hartmeister, F., & Olivarez, A. (1999). A study of the relationship between Texas
superintendents' moral stage development and leadership style (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (9925673)
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties
and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly,12(1), 31–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00063-7
Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). What every principal needs to know to create equitable
and excellent schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre-service teachers for inclusive
classrooms: Revising lesson-planning expectations. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15(7), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903350321
Theoharis, G., & Causton-Theoharis, J. N. (2008). Oppressors or emancipators: Critical
dispositions for preparing inclusive school leaders. Equity & Excellence in Education,
41(2), 230–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680801973714
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 127
Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial
practices? Group & Organization Management, 23(3), 220–236.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198233002
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Digest of
Education Statistics (NCES 2016-014). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2010). Free appropriate public education
for students with disabilities: Requirements under section 504 of the Rehabilitation act of
1973. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
docs/edlite-FAPE504.html
Van Horn, S. M. (2011). The principal ’s role in managing special education: Leadership,
inclusion, and social justice issues (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (3460446).
Vehkakoski, T. M. (2008). Inclusive education ideal at the negotiating table: Accounts of
educational possibilities for disabled children within inter-disciplinary team meetings.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 495–512.
Vitello, S. J., & Mithaug, D. E. (1998). Inclusive schooling: National and international
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing special education administrators for inclusion in
diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the council for exceptional children and the
interstate school leaders licensure consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education,
33(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356676
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 128
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal
in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership,
24(2), 51–60.
Wallace, D. S., Paulson, R. M., Lord, C. G., & Bond Jr, C. F. (2005). Which behaviors do
attitudes predict? Meta-analyzing the effects of social pressure and perceived difficulty.
Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 214–227.
Ware, L. P. (2002). A moral conversation on disability: Risking the personal in educational
contexts. Hypatia, 17(3), 143–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2002.tb00945.x
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers. The art and method of qualitative interviewing.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Westlove, M. W. (2012). The perception of special education teachers regarding the effects of
NCLB and IDEA on the academic achievement of students with disabilities (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3544583)
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–
305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the
climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189–204.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903231986
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 129

APPENDIX A Interview Protocol
I would like to ask you some questions about inclusion at your school.
1. How long have you been a teacher/principal/site administrator?
2. How long have you been involved with inclusion program?
3. How many students in the inclusive program do you have at your school?
4. How familiar are you with inclusion program support? Would you please
elaborate about your familiarity?
5. How would you describe the inclusion program in your school?
6. What is your belief about inclusion?
7. Based on your experience, what is your opinion of inclusion program?
8. If I were an inclusion student, what would it be like for me at your school?
9. How familiar are you with students with disabilities? Please explain.
10. Do you think teachers are prepared to teach in inclusive settings?
11. What supports are available at your school for general education teachers who
have students in the inclusive program?
12. What supports are available at the district level for the inclusive program?
13. What do you think is needed to support inclusion at your school?
14. What do you think is needed to support students in the inclusive program?
15. What factors supports inclusion at your school?
16. What is the most important factors you would attribute to successful inclusive
practices at your school?
17. How was your school mission statement created?
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 130
18. How do you accomplish /get your staff to accomplish tasks?
19. What is your approach to working with your staff?
20. What are three of the most significant challenges you have encountered with
inclusion program?
21. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Thank you very much for your participation.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 131
APPENDIX B Transformational Leadership Survey Protocol
Scale: 1 = rarely 2 = sometimes 3 = often 4 = almost always
1. I go out of the way to make my staff feel good to be around me. 1 2 3 4
2. I help others with their self-development. 1 2 3 4
3. I help others to understand my visions through the use of tools, such as images, stories, and
models. 1 2 3 4
4. I ensure others get recognition and/or rewards when they achieve difficult or complex goals.
1 2 3 4
5. I let others work in the manner that they want. 1 2 3 4
6. I get things done. 1 2 3 4
7. I have an ever-expanding network of people who trust and rely upon me. 1 2 3 4
8. I provide challenges for my team members to help them grow. 1 2 3 4
9. I use simple words, images, and symbols to convey to others what we should or could be
doing. 1 2 3 4
10. I manage others by setting standards that we all agree with. 1 2 3 4
11. I rarely give direction or guidance to others if I sense they can achieve their goal. 1 2 3 4
12. I consistently provide coaching and feedback so that my team members know how they are
doing. 1 2 3 4
13. People listen to my ideas and concerns not out of fear, but because of my skills, knowledge,
and personality. 1 2 3 4
14. I provide an empathic shoulder when others need help. 1 2 3 4
15. I help others with new ways of looking at new and complex ideas or concepts. 1 2 3 4
16. I ensure poor performance is corrected. 1 2 3 4
17. As long as things are going smoothly, I am satisfied. 1 2 3 4
18. I monitor all projects that I am in charge of to ensure the team meets its goal. 1 2 3 4

Scoring
This survey measures your leadership skills on six factors, Charisma, Social, Vision,
Transactional, Delegation, and Execution. Each factor is measured by three questions as shown
below. Your score is determined by adding your three scores together for each factor in the chart
below. Note that the lowest score you can get for each factor is 3, while the highest score is 12.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 132
Strength and Weakness Chart for Transformational Leadership Factors

Charisma (questions 1, 7, 13) Total______
Social (questions 2, 8, 14) Total______
Vision (questions 3, 9, 15) Total______
Transactional (questions 4, 10, 16) Total______
Delegation (questions 5, 11, 17) Total______
Execution (questions 6, 12, 18) Total______
Total the scores and enter the number here ______.
The highest score possible is 72, while the lowest possible score is 18.
(donclark@nwlink.com)

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 133
APPENDIX C Observation Protocol
Observation Records
Location Date/Time
Observer
Classroom description
Description of room set-up
Materials
Participants

Classroom Diagram

Time Notes Comments
9:00 Observations:
Reflections:

Summary:

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 134
KEY STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING SPECIAL EDUCATION INCLUSION
PROGRAM IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL: LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE

APPENDIX D Consent Form

Inclusion and School Culture

You are being asked to take part in a research study about Key stakeholders’ role in implementing
special education inclusion program in high school and positive school culture. You are being
asked to take part because your school participates in the inclusion program. Please read this form
carefully and ask any questions you may have before you agree to take part in the study.

What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to examine the practices of an urban high
school key stakeholders in creating and maintaining positive high school culture necessary for the
effective inclusion of students with disabilities.

What I will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, no tasks can be completed during
work hours. I will conduct an interview with you and you will be asked to complete one 15-20
Minutes survey about leadership style. The interview will include questions about how long you
have been involved with inclusion program, your view about inclusion program, supports
available for inclusion program, and about your leadership style. The interview will take about
20 to 30 minutes to complete. With your permission, I would also like to tape-record the
interview.
Risks and Benefits:
There is the risk that you may find some of the questions about your leadership style to be
sensitive. “I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those
encountered in day-to-day life.”
There are no benefits to you. Inclusion of students with special needs is very complex and I hope
to learn more about how to implement inclusion program for students with disabilities and
maintain positive high school culture.
Compensation: There are no compensation for participating in this study
Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. Any sort of
report that is made public will not include any information that will make it possible to identify
you. Research records will be kept in a locked file; only the researchers will have access to the
records. If I tape-record the interview, I will destroy the tape after it has been transcribed, which
I anticipate will be within two months of its taping.
Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any
questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide not to take part or to skip some of the
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 135
questions, it will not affect you in anyway. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at
any time.
If you have questions: The researcher conducting this study is Love Anuakpado under the
supervision of Professor Patricia Tobey, Professor Patrick Crispen, and Professor Wayne Combs.
Please ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you may contact Love
Anuakpado at Anuakpad@usc.edu. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights
as a subject in this study, you may contact the USC Research Review Office at 213-821-1154 or
access their website at oprs@usc.edu.
You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.
Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any
questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date ________________________
Your Name (printed) ____________________________________________________________
In addition to agreeing to participate, I also consent to having the interview tape-recorded.
Your Signature ___________________________________ Date _________________________
Signature of person obtaining consent ______________________ Date __________________
Printed name of person obtaining consent _________________________ Date ______________
This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the
study.

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 136
APPENDIX E Recruitment for Research Participation (Teachers)
Dear Prospective Participant,

My name is Love Anuakpado. I am a student from the University of Southern California. I am
conducting a research about Key Stakeholders’ Role in Implementing Special Education
Inclusion Program in an Urban High School: Leadership and School Culture.

To participate in this study, you must have a student with disabilities on alternative curriculum in
the inclusion program enrolled in your general education class. Participation is voluntary. It is up
to you whether you choose to participate or not. There will be no compensation for your
participation. You may choose not to participate or discontinue participation.

If you agree to participate, it is expected that your participation may last up to three months. You
will be asked to complete one 15-20 minutes survey about leadership style, and one to two
interviews consisting of a total of 17 questions that may last up to 30-40 minutes. The interview
will be conducted during non-work hours. Any information that is obtained in connection with
this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential. No identifying
information will be used. Findings of the study will be reported without any identifying
information or name of the participant or school.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact at me at Anuakpad@usc.edu. You may
also contact my advisor Dr. Patricia Tobey at Tobey@usc.edu. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research participant, please contact USC Research Institution Review Board,
3720 South Flower Street Los Angeles, California, Phone: 213-821-5276, Email: upirb@usc.edu

Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above, that
you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty, that you have received a copy of this form, and that
you are not waiving any rights or remedies.

Print Name_______________________________________________________

Signature________________________________________________________

Date_________________________

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Love Anuakpado

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 137
APPENDIX F Recruitment for Research Participation (Administrators)
Dear Prospective Participant,

My name is Love Anuakpado. I am a student from the University of Southern California. I am
conducting a research about Key Stakeholders’ Role in Implementing Special Education
Inclusion Program in an Urban High school: Leadership and School Culture.

To participate in this study, you must be an administrator of a school with 20% of students with
disabilities participating in general education classes. Participation is voluntary. It is up to you
whether you choose to participate or not. There will be no compensation for your participation.
You may choose not to participate or discontinue participation.

If you agree to participate in this study, it is expected that your participation may last up to three
months. You will be asked to complete one 15-20 minutes survey about your leadership style,
one to two 30-40 minutes interview during non-work hours consisting of a total of 17 questions,
and monthly 30–40 minutes staff professional development or meeting observation in April and
May of 2018. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential. No identifying information will be used. Findings of
the study will be reported without any identifying information or name of the participant or
school.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact at me at Anuakpad@usc.edu. You may
also contact my advisor Dr. Patricia Tobey at Tobey@usc.edu. If you have questions regarding
your rights as a research participant, please contact USC Research Institution Review Board,
3720 South Flower Street Los Angeles, California, Phone: 213-821-5276, Email: upirb@usc.edu

Your signature indicates that you have read and understand the information provided above, that
you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty, that you have received a copy of this form, and that
you are not waiving any rights or remedies.

Print Name_______________________________________________________

Signature________________________________________________________

Date_________________________

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Love Anuakpado

LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 138
APPENDIX G USC IRB Approval

University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board
3720 South Flower Street Credit Union Building (CUB) #301
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702
Phone: 213-821-5272
Fax: 213-821-5276
upirb@usc.edu

Date: Sep 12, 2017, 12:25pm
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Love Anuakpado
ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Faculty
Advisor:
Patricia Tobey
OFFICE OF THE PROVOST
Co-
Investigator(s):

Project Title: School Leadership and Culture
Study ID: UP-17-00567
Funding
Types:
No Funding

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project quali fies for
exemption from IRB review under the USC Human Research Protection Program Flexibility Policy. The
study was approved on 09/12/2017 and is not subject to 45 CFR 46 regulations, including informed consent
requirements or further IRB review.
If there are modi fications that increase risk to subjects or if the funding status of this research is to
change, you are required to submit an amendment to the IRB for review and approval.
Study personnel are reminded to obtain site permission and any applicable ethics board review from
the participating sites prior to beginning study procedures.
Consent and recruitment documents are not required to be uploaded for exempt studies; however,
researchers are reminded that USC follows the principles of the Belmont Report, which requires all potential
participants to be informed of the research study, their rights as a participant, c onfidentiality of their data,
etc. Therefore, please utilize the attached Information Sheet For Exempt Research and revise the
template to be speci fic to your study. This document will not be reviewed by the IRB. It is the
LEADERSHIP AND SCHOOL CULTURE 139

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation reports on the findings of a qualitative case study conducted to investigate the role that school key stakeholders play in the comprehensive inclusion of students with disabilities in an urban high school. The basic premise of the study was to explore and provide an urban high school’s key stakeholders role in the inclusion program for students with disabilities in an urban high school. Furthermore, this study examined participants perception about inclusion program and what key school stakeholders say is needed for the successful inclusion of students with disabilities on the alternative curriculum in the general education classroom.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion: leadership and school culture

PDF

Examining the impact of continuation high schools on students' self-efficacy

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city

PDF

The Mackey University program for Innovation and Disruption: a case study analysis on innovation and disruption in higher education

PDF

Reclaiming the dream: credit recovery and graduation at a California model continuation high school

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Breakthrough: an outperforming model continuation school's leadership, programs, and culture case study

PDF

A case study of an outperforming urban magnet high school

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Challenging stigmas and perceptions in alternative high schools through mentorship: an innovation study

PDF

Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM

PDF

Analysis of innovative teaching strategies for students with learning disabilities

PDF

The arc of students with disabilities in California Community College through the lens of the disabled student programs and services coordinators

Asset Metadata

Creator Anuakpado, Love (author)

Core Title Key stakeholders' role in implementing special education inclusion program in an urban high school: leadership and school culture

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/17/2018

Defense Date 10/16/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,stakeholders,students with disabilities,urban high school

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email Anuakpad@usc.edu,padosix@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-81867

Unique identifier UC11670815

Identifier etd-AnuakpadoL-6864.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-81867 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AnuakpadoL-6864.pdf

Dmrecord 81867

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Anuakpado, Love

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA