The Interplay of Policy, Culture, and Practice: Perceptions of Principals’ through the Index for Inclusion

Abstract

Purpose: Assessing the IE process is not linear and poses challenges to researchers because of several factors. One such factor is the complexity of defining the indicators for assessment inclusion. Using the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2011), the researchers attempted to examine the opinions of school principals towards IE in Chennai City, Tamil Nadu State, India.
Design/methodology/approach: This study used a descriptive survey approach involving 81 school principals from secondary and higher secondary schools in Chennai city, Tamil Nadu State, India, using convenient sampling. The researchers used the Index for Inclusion (adapted from Booth & Ainscow, 2011) to measure school principals’ perceptions of IE. This index measures three dimensions of inclusion: creating an inclusive culture, producing inclusive policies, and evolving inclusive practices. Principals were asked to rate their perceptions of IE in their schools on a 4-point Likert scale (1= need more information, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree to some extent, 4 = definitely agree). Descriptive statistics, such as Mean and Standard Deviation, were used to determine principals’ perceived level of inclusion in their schools. In addition, inferential statistics such as the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to determine the differences in the perception of principals based on the number of trainings they received in IE and the number of students with special needs (SWSN) in their schools. Spearman’s correlation was used to determine the relationship between the three dimensions of the index for inclusion.
Findings: Descriptive data analysis revealed that the majority (88%) of the principals perceived that their schools performed at moderate to low levels in IE. In addition, of the 47 indicators, school principals were perceived to have a high level of inclusion with respect to eight indicators, a low level in eight indicators, and a moderate level of inclusion in 31 indicators. In addition,the results revealed that the number of trainings received in IE and the number of SWSN enrolled in their schools did not influence principals’ perceptions of IE. Furthermore, significant positive correlations were reported between the dimensions of the index for inclusion, revealing the interconnectedness of inclusive school culture, policies, and practices.
Practical Implications: Given that 88% of principals perceive their schools to perform at moderate to low levels of inclusion, school improvement plans should be developed to focus on specific indicators where schools are under performing. Such schools should be provided with targeted and practical support to improve IE. As the number of trainings received by principals did not influence their perceptions of inclusion, this suggests the need to revisit the content and delivery of IE training programs. As the number of special needs students did not influence principals’ perceptions, inclusion efforts should focus on all students, not just those with disabilities. Schools should work to better align their inclusive policies, culture, and practices as these areas are interconnected.
Originality/value: This study’s findings contribute to the existing body of literature by offering valuable insights into how principals’ perceptions of IE can be measured using the index for inclusion.