Abstract
Numerous systematic reviews and studies have focused on the influence principals have on school improvement, but most of these studies have ignored the inclusion of students with special education needs. Building on the international attention to inclusion sparked by the 1994 Salamanca Statement, we have conducted a comprehensive review of empirical studies on principal leadership for inclusive schools published between 1995 and January 2024. Our search has yielded 38 studies across 13 countries. We have identified three areas of practice: (a) creating and sustaining a shared commitment to inclusion; (b) establishing and improving inclusive organizational conditions; and (c) building instructional and leadership capacity for inclusion. We have also identified 15 targeted practices. While most studies were focused within the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, common practices and challenges are apparent in all parts of the world. We conclude with recommendations for future research, policy, and practice.
Keywords
Introduction
In 1994, 300 participants from 25 international organizations and 92 countries met in Salamanca, Spain, to “promote the approach of inclusive education . . . enabling schools to serve all children, particularly those with special education needs” (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1994, p. iii). The Salamanca Statement was a significant document that prompted nations and education systems to move toward inclusive education. Some progress has been made over more than 30 years, but as Spandagou (2021) noted about the Australian context, “There is tremendous noise around inclusive education, but very little evidence realizing it” (p. 1). Researchers from other countries have documented similar challenges, including inadequate teacher preparation, insufficient resources, deficit-based attitudes, bureaucracy, and other physical, cultural, and institutional barriers within education systems and society (e.g., Braun, 2022; Genova, 2015; Qu, 2022; Sharma et al., 2016).
Principals play a pivotal role in improving schools and increasing achievement, even under difficult conditions and in historically marginalized communities (e.g., Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020). They are also well-situated to advance inclusive education given their location within education systems, schools, and communities (Ackah-Jnr, 2022; Gous et al., 2014; Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014). Perhaps, one of the most frequently quoted sections of the Salamanca Statement speaks specifically to practices principals are well-positioned to take: “Regular schools with an inclusive orientation are the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving education for all” (p. ix). Although not all principals are adequately prepared or committed to inclusive education (e.g., Rivera & Tilcsik, 2023; Sun & Xin, 2020) and can confront numerous challenges and dilemmas (e.g., Frick et al., 2013), a growing body of international research provides evidence that principals can foster inclusive environments, combat discriminatory attitudes, and establish a welcoming culture oriented toward high levels of achievement (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2021; Lambrecht et al., 2022).
Some contexts are more conducive to inclusive education, particularly if they have adequate resources and a legal framework requiring all children with special education needs (SEN) to be educated in schools. For example, in Portugal, Neves et al. (2023) documented several principals’ efforts to foster new meanings of diversity and inclusion among staff, involve communities and families within the school, and provide teacher trainings amid a national policy context orienting toward inclusion. Yet, these principals still confronted challenges, such as teacher resistance, a lack of adequately prepared teachers, bureaucratic roadblocks, and managing other top-down reform priorities. In Ghana, resources are far less available and thousands of school-age children with SEN remain out of school. 1 In this context, Opoku-Nkoom and Ackah-Jnr (2023) reported that principals provided training for teachers while struggling to ensure all students can access toilets, ramps, and classrooms with adequate light and ventilation.
These studies and others indicate that principals can play an important role in creating inclusive schools even amid great obstacles (Ainscow, 2020a). To date, some reviews have focused on inclusive principal leadership within a country or locale (e.g., Cobb, 2015; Kugelmass & Ainscow, 2004; McMillan & Hoppey, 2021). Several reviews have focused on the U.S. context or have reviewed theoretical and epistemological aspects of inclusion and leadership (e.g., Riehl, 2000). Other prescriptive writings have presented frameworks, tools, or guides to support principals in creating inclusive schools (e.g., Capper & Frattura, 2009; Esposito et al., 2019; Hehir & Katzman, 2012). The term inclusion and inclusive leadership has also evolved since the Salamanca Statement and researchers have developed frameworks and conducted reviews on leadership approaches that are inclusive of many historically marginalized groups (e.g., Gümüş et al., 2021; Khalifa et al., 2016). Yet to the best of our knowledge, no international systematic review has identified, evaluated, and reviewed empirical research focused on principal practice in inclusive schools for students with SEN. To address this need, we reviewed international research on principal leadership practice in inclusive schools or in schools working to become inclusive between January 1995 and January 2024. Specifically, our review is guided by three research questions:
How do principals describe the challenges and contextual factors that shape their efforts to create and sustain inclusive schools for students with SEN?
What leadership practices have principals employed to create and sustain inclusive schools for students with SEN?
What gaps and limitations exist in the current research on principal leadership for inclusion?
More than 30 years after the Salamanca Statement called for inclusive education worldwide, progress remains uneven, and the role of principals—widely recognized as pivotal to school improvement—has received limited systematic attention in relation to supporting students with SEN. By synthesizing three decades of empirical research, our review provides the first comprehensive map of leadership practices that foster inclusion for students with SEN, identifies persistent challenges across diverse contexts, and highlights critical gaps in the evidence base. These insights advance conceptual understanding by clarifying how established leadership frameworks (e.g., Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2016) intersect with inclusive education and by revealing where adaptations or enhancements are necessary. The findings from this review also inform principal preparation, learning standards, and professional development as well as next-generation inclusion policies and cross-country collaborations. An examination into research methods, approaches, and contexts also identifies research gaps that inform the research community as well as philanthropic and government agencies that fund next-generation studies. The implications of expanding this body of knowledge can lead to field-shaping innovations that help to address longstanding oppressive structures and practices within schools (Boveda et al., 2023). In what follows, we provide a background on inclusive education and inclusive schools as well as a conceptual framework for this systematic review. Next, we provide an overview of our review methods. Then, we present findings with a broad overview of all studies and their contexts and challenges before presenting three areas of practice, which include 15 targeted practices identified through our review. We conclude with a discussion of key findings and implications.
Background and Context: Defining Special Education Needs and Inclusion
Various policies exist across countries defining and identifying students who receive special education. In the United States, the term “students with disabilities” is commonly used in relation to those students found eligible for special education under the nation’s federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). In many other countries, similar laws use the terms special education needs (SEN) and students with SEN (e.g., United Kingdom’s Special Education Needs and Disability Regulations, 2014; New Zealand’s Education and Training Act, 2020). Several leading educational nongovernmental organizations, including the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), also use the term SEN and students with SEN. For example, according to UNESCO (2017), a student with SEN is a “term used in some countries to refer to children with impairments that are seen as requiring additional support,” which includes special education, or “Classes or instruction designed for students categorized as having special educational needs” (p. 7). We use the term students with SEN in this review, given our global focus on inclusion and inclusive education for students with disabilities who are receiving special education.
The inclusion of students with SEN is a significant and pressing issue in international research, policy, and practice (Amor et al., 2019), especially as researchers continue to document disparities in enrollment and completion rates in both low, middle, and high-income countries (Banks et al., 2017; Groce & Kett, 2013; Male & Wodon, 2017; World Bank, 2019). Conceptualizations of inclusion and inclusive education continue to vary and evolve across national and cultural contexts, with no widely agreed-upon definition among researchers or policymakers. For example, some view inclusion as an approach to educating students with SEN within the general education classroom when possible, but tempering inclusion by prioritizing academic achievement measured through interventions and standardized assessments over broader opportunities and outcomes of inclusion (e.g., Kauffman et al., 2023). Others have argued for the end of special education altogether, given how students from historically marginalized groups have been subjected to further marginalization through special education and related policies (Slee, 2019). A more widely accepted and holistic definition of inclusion comes from UNESCO (2015), which includes the following principles (adapted from UNESCO, 2005):
(1) Inclusion is a never-ending process of finding better ways of responding to diversity.
(2) Inclusion is concerned with the identification and removal of barriers and using evidence to stimulate creativity and problem-solving in addressing these challenges.
(3) Inclusion is about the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.
(4) Inclusion involves a particular emphasis on groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalization, exclusion, or underachievement. (p. 15–16)
The definition is often used in UNESCO policies and guidance documents. Yet, UNESCO guidance consistently highlights that inclusion and addressing segregation is not the “exclusive domain of disability” but rather the rethinking of education in ways that “address any and all barriers to participation,” which might include exclusion by race, general, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and geography as well as the intersections of these various identities and characteristics (Hunt, 2020, p. 6). For the purposes of this review, we define inclusion for students with SEN based on UNESCO (2015) principles, recognizing that inclusive schools must continually seek and find better ways to respond to the assets and needs of students with SEN while being actively engaged in removing structural, instructional, and attitudinal barriers that limit all students’ presence, participation, and achievement.
Building from this definition, we recognize that schools are not neutral spaces or separate from society, education systems, or communities. We also recognize that many real and perceived challenges exist when attempting to enact inclusive principles or even beginning to do so in some contexts. For example, challenges can include parents’ fears about their child receiving inadequate support, being bullied or socially isolated in large classrooms, falling behind academically, or losing specialized services that they believe are likely to be more available in separate educational settings (e.g., De Boer et al., 2010; Mann & Gilmore, 2023). Similarly, both general and special education teachers can be resistant to inclusion if they feel unprepared to work with students with disabilities or have concerns about increased workloads, classroom management issues, the lack of adequate support or resources, and the potential impact on academic outcomes, particularly in the context of high-stakes accountability (e.g., Göransson et al., 2022; Moberg et al., 2020; Zoniou-Sideri & Vlachou, 2006). Wider discourses and beliefs within country contexts about the role of schools in addressing societal inequities also play a role in building buy-in or resistance to inclusion (e.g., Engelbrecht et al., 2013).
Principals work within schools embedded within education systems and society. While they do not control all that happens within their education systems or society, they are in a pivotal position to work toward inclusive principles, especially if they are appropriately trained and oriented to do so. Depending on context and individual circumstances, principals may or may not have received adequate training in relation to disability, critical disability studies, evidenced-based instructional practices and interventions, legal and ethical frameworks, and a variety of other knowledge and skills that can help them understand and successfully navigate the unique contexts of their particular school community (DeMatthews et al., 2020b; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Sider et al., 2017). Their work aimed toward promoting inclusion consists of a set of contextually situated practices embedded within systems and communities confronting longstanding and emergent challenges as well as new possibilities. Thus, a principal’s understanding of inclusion, their practices, and their understanding of challenges and context are of great importance in any efforts oriented toward inclusion.
Conceptual Framework and Research Purposes
Schools are difficult organizations to change—particularly for inclusion, given they embody a complex set of values and beliefs associated with education policies that prepare educators, provide resources, and set expectations, but also because schools have deeply rooted cultures and practices socially constructed by people within and outside of schools (Riehl, 2000; Scanlan & López, 2012). Within education systems, principals are formal leaders with access to finite resources that report to district or regional supervisors and must adhere to a broad array of laws, policies, and bureaucratic expectations. They also have unique prior experiences and bring to their work a set of beliefs, values, and identities that shape their practice (Nordholm et al., 2023; Ritacco & Bolivar, 2019). Consequently, principals are not always prepared, open, empowered, or effective change agents in the face of exclusion and other marginalizing conditions. The context in which they work also matters, as they can become mired down in administrative work, dilemmas, resistance, and maintaining compliance with policies rather than being innovative and courageous (Day, 2014; Dor-Haim & Nir, 2023; Frick et al., 2013). Yet, several meta-analyses of principal leadership literature detail leadership practices that enable principals to improve schools and advance student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020). Table 1 outlines these practices, which are similar across these studies. For example, Leithwood et al. (2020) identify “setting direction” as a key domain, which is similar to Hitt and Tucker’s (2016) “establishing and conveying a vision” and Grissom et al.’s (2021) domain of “creating a productive climate.”
Principal Domains of Practice or Drivers for Academic Achievement
Although these practices do not specifically address inclusion for students with SEN, they highlight a common repertoire of leadership practices that principals use to improve their schools. Critical frameworks focused on inclusion include similar practices but with an emphasis on multiple identities, intersectionality, issues of marginalization, and alternative metrics—such as developing a critical consciousness to identify forms of marginalization, supporting teachers in developing culturally responsive curricula, and creating classrooms and environments that are affirming and welcoming (e.g., Khalifa et al., 2016; Scanlan & López, 2012). Informed by these leadership practices and the UNESCO (2015) definition of inclusion previously presented, the purpose of this synthesis is to understand the principal leadership practices that foster inclusive schools for students with SEN. While the focus of our analysis is on practice, we also attempt to describe the context of their work, their perceived challenges, and how they understand inclusion.
Methods
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
To be included in this review, a study needed to meet the following criteria: (a) published between 1995 and January 1, 2024, corresponding with the 1994 Salamanca Statement emphasizing inclusion throughout the world for students with SEN; (b) relying on any methodology (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods) that present findings focused on principal leadership practices for the inclusion of students with SEN in general education classes; (c) published in a peer-reviewed journal to ensure quality; (d) published in English; and (e) situated within an elementary or secondary school given policy differences across country contexts related to early childhood education and other educational settings. We did not impose a uniform definition or strict criteria for what constituted inclusion (e.g., all students educated within the general education classroom; no students bused to separate schools or programs) because our purpose was to synthesize how principal leadership was studied in contexts that authors themselves identified as inclusive or working toward inclusion specific to students with SEN. Imposing a single definition risked excluding studies that reflect the conceptual diversity of inclusion across international contexts and policy frameworks.
Our approach aligns with prior systematic reviews on inclusion where terminology can be contested (e.g., Amor et al., 2019), which allows for a more comprehensive mapping of the field as it exists rather than as we might define it a priori. 2 Thus, we deferred to authors’ claims and evidence that principals are continually seeking and finding better ways to respond to the strengths and needs of students with SEN and were engaged in removing barriers that limit their presence, participation, and achievement, in alignment with UNESCO’s (2015) inclusive education principles. For example, we included Salisbury (2006), which examined schools that had varied levels of implementation and principal support, and other studies that focused on inclusion of students with SEN and other marginalized groups (e.g., Theoharis et al., 2016). However, we excluded studies that did not explicitly include a focus on inclusion for students with SEN.
We recognized that the decision not to impose a single definition of inclusion introduces variability in what “inclusive” or “inclusion” means across studies. During analysis, we observed substantial variation in how inclusion was conceptualized across studies. To capture this variation systematically, we developed a four-category typology that reflects a continuum from a narrower, compliance-oriented or legal/policy-based definitions to broad, rights-based approaches rooted in social justice and human rights principles. Each study was assigned to a category based on its primary focus, observable indicators (e.g., placement patterns, instructional practices, cultural language), and leadership emphasis. When definitions were not explicitly stated, we inferred conceptualization from descriptions of practices and contextual framing. This approach makes transparent the conceptual boundaries of inclusion represented in the literature, including cases where inclusion was defined primarily in terms of physical placement rather than full participation. Table 2 summarizes the typology and provides examples of studies within each category. Across these categories, we did not identify leadership practices that were antithetical to inclusion; rather, principals demonstrated varying perspectives and responded to contextual constraints in different ways and at different paces of change. While some studies accepted limited forms of exclusion—often due to district policies or resource structures—no principal was actively resegregating students or resisting inclusive principles. Moreover, we closely reviewed the site and/or principal selection criteria used by researchers in the identified studies, which also clarifies how inclusion was operationalized in each study and highlights the diversity of contexts and definitions (See Online Appendix A).
Inclusion Definition Types Across Studies
We excluded gray literature (e.g., reports, books, white papers, dissertations) or other non-peer-reviewed documents out of concerns for trustworthiness, bias, and overreliance on anecdotal or selective data representations. Relatedly, we also excluded studies that lacked sufficient data (e.g., only one or two comments about a principal in a findings section related to inclusion for students with SEN [e.g., Burstein et al., 2004]), did not include a basic description of methods, or were focused on creating inclusive school districts and educational organizations but did not focus on principal leadership practice (e.g., Scanlan, 2009; Theoharis, 2010). We also excluded studies primarily focused on principal perceptions of inclusion or serving students with disabilities, given that these studies did not focus on leadership practices and that principals were not necessarily working toward creating inclusive schools (e.g., Dyal et al., 1996; Jahnukainen, 2015). Lastly, we excluded studies in non-English journals due to our language proficiency limitations that would have made it difficult to accurately interpret and synthesize non-English studies, resource constraints in translating documents, and the fact that our target audience for this article is primarily an English-speaking audience that may also want to access the studies included in this review.
Search and Review Methods
We engaged in a multistep search strategy process beginning in December 2023 through January 2024, which included: (a) identifying key articles, (b) searching databases, and (c) conducting an ancestry search. In the first step, we identified key articles, reports, books, and documents focused on the inclusion of students with SEN and principal leadership. To do so, the first author reached out to a set of experts and organizations to suggest key documents to review. Several key documents focused on inclusion and principal leadership were identified based on expert recommendations (including Ainscow, 2020b; Billingsley et al., 2018; Cobb, 2015; Council of Chief State School Officers & The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center, 2017; DeMatthews et al., 2020a; Sharma & Desai, 2008). In addition, we searched the databases of leading international education leadership (e.g., Journal of Educational Administration; International Journal of Educational Management; Education Management, Administration & Leadership) and special education journals (e.g., International Journal of Inclusive Education; European Journal of Special Needs Education; International Journal of Disability, Development and Education). We read these documents and articles to enhance our understanding of the topic and identify keywords and terms relevant to our next step.
Next, we searched using multiple online search engines (APA PsychInfo, Educational Source, Education Resources Information Center [ERIC], Google Scholar, JSTOR, Scopus, Web of Science) from 1995 through January 1, 2024, with the support of a university research librarian. These academic databases and search engines provide broad coverage of international social science research and include citation tracking and impact methods. We searched peer-reviewed articles’ keywords, titles, and abstracts using a Boolean phrase, with terms reflecting (a) principal, (b) leadership, (c) disability (dis*), and (d) inclusion (e.g., inclus*) (See Online Appendix B). Finally, we conducted an ancestry search of citations in reference lists of each study to identify any potential study our prior steps might have missed. Figure 1 outlines the search process and the identification of studies. The initial search yielded 4,098 articles—2,905 after duplicates were removed. To build consensus about inclusion criteria for each study, the first three authors coded the same 50 studies with about 75% agreement. We then coded another 50 studies, with about 96% agreement. The remaining studies were divided up, with each author coding their assigned studies. We identified 430 articles through our initial coding process and found that 402 did not meet criteria upon a close reading. We identified 28 articles that met the criteria. We conducted an ancestral search of the 28 articles, which yielded an additional 10 studies. The total number of articles in the literature review is 38.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews, which included searches of databases and registers only.
Data Analysis
All members of the research team analyzed data to answer our primary research questions in four phases. First, we read and created holistic summaries for each article that included summaries of research questions/purpose, definitions/meaning of inclusion, site selection and demographics, results, key quotes, and methodological critiques. Second, we developed analysis tables examining challenges to inclusion and areas of practice derived partly from our review of literature and the conceptual framework. Third, we reviewed and refined our analysis until we arrived at three areas of practice. Then, we identified targeted practices within each area. For each practice, we created analytic memos detailing the related studies, key findings, quotes, and contextual information relevant to the practices and targeted practices. We met weekly between January 2024 and July 2024 to discuss these areas of practice and targeted practices where we regularly discussed, debated, defined, and refined these terms until we reached full consensus. Lastly, after we completed these steps, the first author reread all the analytic memos and the methods and results for all the studies included within the review to ensure our data, tables, and online appendices were accurate.
Limitations
This review should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the evidence base is constrained: Empirical research on principal leadership for inclusion remains limited, particularly outside the United States, and most studies employed qualitative case study designs. Second, the methodological homogeneity restricted generalizability and comparability across diverse contexts. Third, definitions of “inclusion” and “inclusive leadership” varied substantially across studies, complicating our synthesis and interpretation. Fourth, our review processes involved scope decisions that may have affected comprehensiveness. To ensure rigor and feasibility, we restricted inclusion to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English and focused specifically on students with SEN. These choices excluded dissertations, book chapters, reports, and practitioner-oriented publications, as well as studies published in non-English journals. While these decisions enhanced consistency and quality control, they may have omitted relevant perspectives and practices from other contexts. Similarly, by centering students with SEN, we excluded studies focused on inclusion for other historically marginalized groups, even though these studies may have included students with SEN. Finally, we did not disaggregate findings by disability type or regional context, which may limit applicability for practitioners and researchers with highly contextualized interests.
Findings
In our conceptual framework, we emphasize that principal identity and context are important factors that shape principal leadership. Thus, we begin with a broad overview of the diverse geographic contexts, school types, and locales that were identified in this body of research. Next, we broadly describe principal perceptions of challenges to inclusion and a continuum of inclusion definitions that principals offered in several studies. We include an abbreviated continuum of inclusion definitions offered by principals in this body of research, but not a comprehensive analysis due to our focus on practice and space limitations. This overview sets the stage for the study’s primary findings: three areas of inclusive principal practices consisting of 15 targeted practices.
Overview of Studies
Geographic Context
We found 38 studies over a 30-year period that described the leadership practices of principals working to create or sustain inclusive schools for students with SEN. The studies were conducted in 13 different countries, although 19 of 38 studies were conducted within the United States, followed by no more than three studies in any other country (Australia, 3; Canada, 3; Cyprus, 2; Israel, 2; Thailand, 2; Cameroon, 1; China, 1; Ghana, 1; Ireland, 1; Pakistan, 1; Portugal, 1; Sweden, 1). Of note, 22 studies were conducted in North America, and no studies were conducted in South America (Asia, 6; Australia, 3; Europe, 5; Africa, 2). Table 3 provides an abbreviated description of the methods used across studies as well as a brief statement on each study’s purpose or research question. Only one of 38 studies utilized quantitative methods, which surveyed Israeli principals on their practices and perceptions of inclusion and school demographic and educational placement data (Avissar et al., 2003). Twenty-nine of 38 studies were classified as either case study or multi-case study (e.g., Angelides et al., 2010), interview study (e.g., Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014), or survey/questionnaire (e.g., Petersen & Swan, 1997). The overwhelming majority of studies relied on interviews as a data source.
Summary of Study Purposes, Methods, and Data
School Types and Locales
The school type (e.g., primary, secondary, special education schools) and geographic locale of the studies varied (e.g., rural, urban or suburban). Among the studies reviewed, 18 focused on primary school principals (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018), two on secondary school principals (e.g., Petersen & Swan, 1997), and 18 on principals serving both elementary and secondary settings (e.g., Neves et al., 2023). One study is focused on principals of special education schools (Merrigan & Senior, 2023). Four studies were conducted in large urban school districts in the United States (e.g. DeMatthews, 2015b). Several studies compared different contexts, such as differences between rural and urban settings (e.g., Kamens et al., 2013). Contexts also varied by student demographics. Some studies included racially and economically diverse communities with an emphasis on bilingual education (e.g., Digiorgio, 2008) while others were racially and economically segregated (e.g. DeMatthews, 2015b). Some schools were selected to study the inclusion of students with particular disabilities, including emotional disturbance (e.g., DeMatthews, 2018) or cerebral palsy (e.g., Bourke-Taylor et al., 2018). The contexts also varied based on national, state/region, or school level policies and history with inclusion (e.g., Neves et al., 2023). Some principals worked in schools that were in the beginning stages of developing inclusive programs (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014) while others were in schools with high levels of inclusivity (e.g., Waldron et al., 2011). Two studies were conducted to highlight the impact of inclusive practices during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Anderson et al., 2022).
Challenges
Principals commonly reported challenges to inclusion, which we classified into four interrelated and historically situated areas: physical, cultural, institutional, and situational challenges. Physical challenges to inclusion were associated with a lack of adequate infrastructure for students with SEN to physically access school and classrooms. For example, in some contexts with less resources, like Pakistan or Ghana, principals reported a lack of physical access to ramps, education technology, adequate lighting, and ventilation that certain students with SEN needed to access the school and the general education classroom and/or be successful (Khan & Behlol, 2014; Opoku-Nkoom & Ackah-Jnr, 2023).
Cultural challenges to inclusion were associated with community, staff, and student deficit views about including students with SEN (e.g., Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2014; Theoharis et al., 2016). In Cameroon, some principals recounted instances where students and teachers would ask questions like, “Why are the sending those types of students to our school?” (Mbua, 2023, p. 10). In the same study, some teachers reported that “inclusion of children with special needs may be detrimental to the education of the rest of the class” (p. 12). In some studies, teachers were nervous about change or resistant. For example, in one school, some teachers felt the school already did a good job serving students with SEN in segregated settings while others were unsure they would be successful (Theoharis et al., 2016). In another example, some teachers began to complain about having to educate students with emotional and behavioral disabilities partly because they felt these students were too disruptive (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014). In protest, some of the teachers broke school policy by continually having students with SEN removed from class and sent to the principal’s office for disruptive behaviors. In another school, several teachers challenged the principal’s authority in faculty meetings by being disruptive, including an instance of yelling at the principal in public (DeMatthews, 2015b). Families could also pose a challenge to inclusion. A principal in an urban district undergoing rapid gentrification reported that some newer parents wanted to see Black students with SEN sent elsewhere. She said, “This is the politics of gentrification, of race, of class. As these White parents are moving in, they don’t want to have this [special education] program, where these—quote, unquote—bad black boys from all over the city go” (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014, p. 870).
Institutional challenges to inclusion were associated with inadequate resources and poor preservice and in-service training for teachers to meet the diverse needs of students with SEN within schools and the general education classroom (e.g., Kamens et al., 2013; Poon-McBrayer, 2017). Many principals reported that teachers lacked a clear understand of the types of instructional practices, structures, collaboration, and problem-solving approaches necessary to educate students with SEN in general education classrooms (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018; Kamens et al., 2013). In some instances, principals confronted teacher or staff shortages that made inclusion more difficult (Salisbury, 2006). Principals also reported a lack of upper-level administration support, misaligned policies in opposition to inclusion, and heavy bureaucratic workloads (e.g., Neves et al., 2023; Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2014).
Finally, situational challenges were associated with emergent and unpredictable challenges to inclusion. Principals commonly reported that some teachers and students with SEN struggled immensely in inclusive classrooms (e.g., Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999; Kantavong, 2018). Some families also mistrusted inclusion causing resistance, especially if their child was struggling with the transition (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015a, 2015b). Other situational challenges involved the need to balance teacher-preparedness with the pace of inclusion efforts—as some principals wanted to move toward inclusion faster, but teacher resistance or a lack of preparation limited the pace of change or gave the principal pause amid emerging opposition (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015b; Kantavong, 2018). These situational challenges were hard to plan for and interrupted principals’ daily plans. As one elementary school principal noted, “A principal’s job is never done. Probably the toughest thing about the job is you cannot schedule for it” (DeMatthews, 2021, p. 15)
Perceptions of Inclusion
Many studies provided insights into how principals understood inclusion. In certain instances, principals reported drawing on their prior experiences and training (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014) or on their perceptions of challenges associated with inclusive education (e.g., Smith & Leonard, 2005). Among studies that included perspectives, some principals strongly supported inclusion while others had more moderate views. The following are several examples of principal definitions. All principals in this literature supported inclusion but not to the same extent. A continuum of inclusion definitions emerged influenced by principals’ perceptions of disability types, neighborhood/community perspectives, and school resources, capacity, and preparedness:
In Pakistan, one principal said: “Including students with mild and moderate disabilities in mainstreaming schools is called IE [inclusive education]” (Khan & Behlol, 2014, p. 8).
A principal in the United States was strongly oriented toward inclusion, noting, “All students have the right to be in the regular class . . . a school can serve all students in the regular class if they are thoughtful, have a strong team, and use data to drive their instruction” (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014, p. 858).
A principal in Queensland, Australia, viewed inclusion not just as being physically present in a general education classroom—but about finding ways in all areas of the school to best meet the needs of every child. She said, “Students were all, at one point, fully included in classes [i.e., placed in mainstream classes], but we have now moved to inclusion in the form that best meets students’ needs and achieves the best outcome for every child” (Carter & Abawi, 2018, p. 54).
An Irish principal in a special education school said, “Inclusion from our perspective describes the process which avoids exclusion from involvement in activities and experiences. It relates to climate and attitude rather than location” (Merrigan & Senior, 2023, p. 283).
A principal in the United States viewed inclusion as “part of the whole school’s plan for improving achievement for all students. . . . It’s not about students with disabilities or gifted students, it’s about how can we make every child successful” (McLeskey et al., 2014, p. 64).
Principal Practices to Foster and Support Inclusion
Principals who supported inclusion across these studies engaged in a range of practices to advance inclusion. Specifically, we identified three areas of practice: (a) creating and sustaining a shared commitment to inclusion; (b) establishing and improving inclusive organizational conditions; and (c) building instructional and leadership capacity for inclusion. Within these areas, we identified 15 targeted leadership practices, such as modeling inclusive values, adapting or recreating plans, and providing individualized teacher support. These areas of practices were not isolated or discrete, but rather interrelated and heavily influenced by the principals’ experiences as well as school, community, and national context. Table 4 outlines these areas of practice and targeted leadership practices.
Areas of Inclusive Principal Leadership Practice
Creating and Sustaining a Shared Commitment to Inclusion
Creating and sustaining a shared commitment to inclusion was one of three areas of inclusive leadership practice, which included four targeted leadership practices: (a) building a coalition and shared vision for inclusion; (b) providing opportunities for dialogue and expression; (c) communicating the harmful impact of exclusion; and (d) modeling inclusive values and actions in daily interactions.
Building a coalition and shared vision of inclusion
One of the most commonly reported practices taken by principals was creating a shared vision of inclusion (e.g., Avissar et al., 2010; Petersen & Swan, 1997). For most principals, building a coalition started with creating a sense of readiness. One U.S. elementary principal stated, “Before you can get people on board [for inclusion], you have to make sure the conditions are in place for people to listen and work together” (DeMatthews, 2021, p. 12). Some principals expressed the valuing of diversity, love, care, and acceptance as well as the need to express these sentiments in an accessible and clear manner that pulls in all stakeholders (e.g., Angelides et al., 2010; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999). Building a coalition also required learning about the school-community context (e.g., Angelides, 2012) and engaging teachers in the visioning process, which some principals believed would make them “more likely to have a better attitude [and be] more productive” (Smith & Leonard, 2005, p. 275). However, in some contexts, principals took direct approaches to building an inclusive vision. In Hong Kong, one principal recognized a need to build teacher buy-in, but still unilaterally decided to move toward inclusion, noting, “We must have a firm vision . . . work through the process with teachers and let them see why that should be the school’s direction” (Poon-McBrayer, 2017, p. 303).
Providing opportunities for dialogue and expression
Several principals reported facilitating conversations, asking questions, and taking other strategic actions that demonstrated a commitment to a student-centered and individualized approach to supporting students with SEN (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015b; Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2014). Opportunities for dialogue and expression were encouraged by some principals in grade-level planning meetings, professional learning communities, faculty forums and regularly scheduled faculty meetings, back-to-school nights where parents were invited to campuses, and in a variety of other formal and informal settings (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015a; McLeskey et al., 2014). For example, one principal scheduled a series of meetings to help “people in the school work through their resistance” and alleviate fears (Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999, p. 431). In some instances, principals reported deeply listening but in other instances actively challenged, questioned, and provoked teachers and staff to think differently about the value of diversity and inclusion (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018; Keyes et al., 1999). One clear example from the United States was a principal’s message during a schoolwide faculty meeting. The principal told the faculty: This is the direction we are going. We are going to make this school the model of inclusion. If you feel like you cannot travel this path with us, I will help you find another place to work, but you cannot stay here and jeopardize this work. We are moving in this direction and I hope you come with us. (Theoharis et al., 2016, p. 14)
Communicating the harmful impact of exclusion
Some principals communicated the harmful impact of exclusion as a method to build teacher buy-in. Across several studies, principals used data to show how prior staffing and budget allocations, school improvement plans, disciplinary approaches, and school–family interactions marginalized students with SEN, with implications for their educational experiences and outcomes (e.g., Neves et al., 2023; Theoharis et al., 2016). Communicating the harm of exclusion was viewed by some as a proactive practice to address resistance to inclusion (e.g., DeMatthews et al., 2020b; Keyes et al., 1999). Many principals gathered and presented evidence throughout the process of inclusion, including data on student achievement outcomes, discipline, and observational insights (e.g., Coviello & DeMatthews, 2021; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013).
Modeling inclusive values and actions in daily interactions
Across several studies, principals modeled an open-minded, flexible, and welcoming attitude; used language that values inclusion and students with SEN; and included others in disciplinary decisions, school improvement planning, and setting other school-related agenda and discussion items (e.g., Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Merrigan & Senior, 2023). In one study, principals reported a need to “walk the walk” or set an example of inclusion for their staff and students (Sider et al., 2021). In another study, a principal noted, “They follow me because they know I am in it just like them” (DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014, p. 868). In addition, some principals privately and publicly interrogated their own prior leadership practices, admitted to their shortcomings, and sought to learn and grow from their mistakes or new experiences (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015b; Keyes et al., 1999). As one principal noted, “No matter how good I get at this job, there’s always one new issue to address I wasn’t expecting” (Guzman, 1997, p. 447). Yet, not all principals were consistently reflective. In some instances, principals promoted inclusion for certain students but less so for others (Digiorgio, 2008).
Establishing and Improving Inclusive Organizational Conditions
Establishing and improving inclusive organizational conditions was the second area of practice, which included six targeted leadership practices: (a) strategically allocating resources, (b) reshaping service delivery, (c) structuring opportunities for collaboration and problem-solving, (d) fostering a safe and supportive school environment, (e) adapting or recreating plans, and (f) building strong relationships with families and communities.
Strategically allocating resources
Principals frequently reported “finding financial and human resources to accommodate all student needs” (Duncan et al., 2021, p. 100). Principals allocated resources through revising the school budget, annual improvement plans, special education teacher caseloads, teaching assignments and co-teaching schedules, and considerations into hiring new personnel (e.g., Poon-McBrayer, 2017; Theoharis et al., 2016). In some instances, principals worked with district leaders to “shift resources allocated for more restrictive models of service delivery toward a more inclusive model” (Hoppey et al., 2018, p. 32). Some principals strategically paired special education teachers with general education teachers for co-teaching purposes. One principal noted, it was important to “find the right staff to provide great instruction in the regular class” (DeMatthews, 2015a, p. 1015). In several studies, principals reported matching students with SEN in classes with the “right teachers” or those they believed would have the most success in an inclusive classroom (Bourke-Taylor et al., 2018, p. 160). However, some principals adhered to a more rigid approach rooted in a desire not to conserve resources (Waldron et al., 2011). Others sought to remain flexible as new challenges arose (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015b; Digiorgio, 2008).
Reshaping service delivery
Principals worked to reshape service delivery from pullout, resource, and self-contained classrooms to the general education settings (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Keyes et al., 1999). Principals reported making an effort to use the general education classroom as the default placement for students with SEN, with supports provided through co-teaching or support facilitation and, when possible, push-in related services. Several principals developed or revised service delivery maps, master scheduling for co-planning, audits and rewrites of students’ individualized educational programs, and progress monitoring to both move students with disabilities into the general education and tried to maintain natural proportions of students with SEN across classrooms. For example, one principal described a key step in inclusive reform: eliminating pullout and self-contained programs and redeploying special education teachers to co-teach in general education classrooms. “We have set a goal of creating balanced classrooms . . . so we have to redeploy our special education teachers to create teams with classroom teachers instead of pulling students out or educating special education students down the hall” (Theoharis et al., 2016, p. 12). Similarly, another principal described the incremental but decisive dismantling of self-contained programs: I started working with the V.E. [Varying Exceptionalities] teachers . . . and let them know that I really would like to move toward inclusion. So I started a [Grade] four–five inclusion classroom and I moved probably ten or more students out of the V.E. setting . . . at the end of that year there was a lot less [student] behavior issues, teachers were more satisfied . . . so I just continued every year until there were no more V.E. classrooms and everyone was in inclusion. (Hoppey et al., 2018, p. 30)
For many principals, shaping service delivery took time and navigating dilemmas, such as district use of cluster units, “two-grade-level” norms that excluded students perceived as unlikely to succeed on standardized assessments, and occasional safety-related placements in more restrictive settings (e.g., DeMatthews, 2018; Hoppey et al., 2018).
Structuring opportunities for collaboration and problem-solving
Principals improved conditions for collaboration through establishing routines for teachers to work together (e.g., Mbua, 2023; Sider et al., 2021). Many principals recognized that inclusive systems “take time to develop” (Coviello & DeMatthews, 2021, p. 522). In Sweden, principals described inclusion as a collaborative process, emphasizing dialogic leadership to build consensus and adapt teaching for diverse learners. One principal explained the approach as “we need to talk, interpret, analyze, evaluate together with others. Challenge, maybe even provoke” (Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014, p. 82). In the United States, a principal stressed the importance of listening, holding off on quick decisions: “When I talk with people, I really listen, I am there with them. I don’t feel like I have to know what to say or what to do next” (Keyes et al., 1999, p. 226). At Hawk’s Nest Elementary—a school recognized for both high academic achievement and a model inclusive program that increased general education placement for students with SEN and implemented co-teaching—the principal described his role as “lubricating the human machinery,” focusing on supporting teachers and shielding them from external accountability pressures (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013, p. 245). Principals also buffered staff from distractions (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). In one study, a principal directed professional learning communities to problem-solve and helped establish teacher-led committees on inclusion and emergent topics, such as concerns around student discipline (DeMatthews, 2015b). Several principals prioritized active participation in formal meetings where a student with SEN’s individualized education program was created or in conducting observations of co-planning and co-teaching to provide feedback and support (e.g., Guzman, 1997; DeMatthews, 2015).
Fostering a supportive and safe environment
Many principals described practices to ensure their school was supportive and safe for all students, teachers, and families (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018; Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014). In Thailand, a principal reported that “creating a safe environment and providing a positive climate and good environment for learning” was an essential component of creating an inclusive school for students with SEN (Kantavong, 2018, p. 776). Being physically present in the school and celebrating successes were two ways principals fostered support (e.g., Angelides, 2012; Mayrowetz & Weinstein, 1999). In other studies, principals actively supported teachers with classroom discipline (e.g., Hoppey et al., 2018; Peterson & Swan, 1996). Fostering a supportive and safe environment for teachers also meant improving working conditions, which for one principal meant listening to teacher concerns and acting in response (Waldron et al., 2011). Some principals facilitated contentious meetings where teachers or families felt uncomfortable (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015a; Guzman, 1997).
Adapting or recreating plans
Many principals annually revised school improvement plans, resource distributions, or approaches used to serve students with SEN. In the United States, one principal noted that inclusion took “incredible coordinating, incredible planning. We meet, we meet, we meet . . . because you cannot coordinate all these people and services without meeting” (Salisbury, 2006, p. 77). Another U.S. principal noted, “Every year you have to make changes because every year things are going to be different” (DeMatthews et al., 2021, p. 27). In a statewide survey, many U.S. middle school principals reported devoting significant time to developing and revising inclusion plans that prioritized scheduling students with SEN into general education classes, creating common planning time for teachers, and mobilizing resources to support co-teaching and collaborative service delivery (Petersen & Swan, 1997). Similarly, a principal in Australia emphasized building distributed leadership structures by empowering staff with expertise to lead inclusive practices, creating committees focused on student support, and using feedback to adapt strategies—explaining that “the key is to empower the right people and listen to their input when they suggest changes” (Carter & Abawi, 2018, p. 56). On this campus, the principal offered support in formal reviews, revising annual reports and plans, as well as opportunities for dialogue in staff, family, and student meetings. For another principal, after consultation with staff and reviewing data, a principal made a significant human resource shift by eliminating an assistant principal position to hire a specialist to other pressing needs (DeMatthews, 2015b). During the global pandemic, principals in Canada and Israel reported working with teachers to experiment and find alternative ways to provide individualized support through distance education tools and trying to address the disparate impacts of this move for students with the most needs (Anderson et al., 2022; Ganon-Shilon et al., 2023).
Cultivating Strong Relationships With Families and Communities
Although many studies excluded any findings related to family and community engagement, several studies documented efforts of principals to cultivate relationships with families. This included establishing regular parent forums, sending home regular written communications, beginning and ending the year with parent meetings, and preparing faculty and staff to welcome and engage families (DeMatthews, 2018; Khan & Behlol, 2014). In Australia, several principals reported advocating within the community. One principal noted, “Advocating for inclusive education amongst parent and wider communities” was an important duty (Duncan et al., 2021, p. 100). In Thailand, a principal talked about the importance of having an “open gate” starting from the beginning of the year so that questions could be asked and information could be shared freely (Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2014). Several principals in the same study invited parents to the school to build a community network, share information, and establish a support system. Other principals reported building trust with families by providing a bit of extra support for a short period of time—like when a child gets frustrated in an inclusive setting (e.g., Bourke-Taylor et al., 2018; DeMatthews, 2018). A common practice was encouraging parents of students with SEN to join school organizations like the Parent Teacher Association and engage in home visits (e.g., Guzman, 1997; Khan & Behlol, 2014). In one instance, a principal was able to work with a local university to support the inclusive reform process, which included opportunities for the university’s faculty to help engage in initial conversations, planning, and professional development (Theoharis et al., 2016).
Building Instructional and Leadership Capacity
Principals consistently reported cultivating teacher and school capacity for inclusion (e.g., Opoku-Nkoom & Ackah-Jnr, 2023; Waldron et al., 2011). These practices included: (a) implementing schoolwide professional development, (b) developing effective teams, (c) cultivating teacher leadership, (d) providing individualized teacher support, and (e) hiring and inducting inclusive-oriented teachers and staff.
Implementing schoolwide professional development
Across many studies, principals used data, teacher feedback, and their own observations to develop schoolwide professional development goals and an annual calendar for professional development (e.g., Keyes et al., 1999; Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014). Common professional development topics included the benefits of inclusion, co-teaching, differentiating instruction, and classroom management for diverse learners. When possible, principals took advantage of district supports and trainings (e.g., Hoppey et al., 2018; Smith & Leonard, 2005). In a study in Australia, many principals internally built teacher capacity through regular mentoring, workshops, and peer-support groups (Duncan et al., 2021). In a few instances, principals sent small groups of teachers to trainings with an expectation for them to teach others back on campus (Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2014). In addition, some principals hired consultants to bolster professional development options (e.g., Bourke-Taylor et al., 2018; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014).
Supporting effective teams
Principals created or supported effective teacher teams with the expectation that these groups could identify their own problems and areas of growth, strategize about how to handle complex situations, and take proactive steps or make data-informed recommendations (e.g., McLeskey et al., 2014; Smith & Leonard, 2005). To do so, one principal worked with teachers to establish regular inclusion planning meetings, book studies, and co-teach chats (Waldron et al., 2011). Several principals observed teacher meetings and provided feedback to maximize meeting times (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018; Digiorgio, 2008). Principals also helped teams working to support a child struggling: “I then meet with the class teachers so that we can discuss the child and negotiate what plan best links to each child within the constraints that are imposed (e.g., budget and human resources)” (Carter & Abawi, 2018, p. 59). In the United States, one principal emphasized the importance of a team continuing to help teachers figure out how to better serve students. The principal said, “We’ve had to look for strategies, and then look for more strategies, and then look for alternative strategies and have that mind-set that there is no pat answer” (Salisbury, 2006, p. 76). Some principals provided all-year support based on observations of teams that start off “really strong” but later struggled with “consistency and follow through” (Coviello & DeMatthews, 2021, p. 526). In Portugal, a principal reported the use of “virtual cafes” where teachers share a problem or challenge and work collectively to try and solve them together (Neves et al., 2023, p. 7).
Cultivating teacher leadership
Many principals cultivated teacher leadership by tapping experienced or inclusive-oriented general and special education teachers for leadership positions, empowering them, and coaching them on how to effectively lead teams (e.g., Angelides, 2012; Poon-McBrayer, 2017). Several principals provided feedback and coaching related to managing resistant or toxic teachers who were not supportive of inclusion. In some cases, particular teachers were identified as successful teachers within their grade level and then were given more responsibility for inclusion within that grade (DeMatthews, 2015a). Some studies emphasized the important role of special educational needs coordinators and how they can be supported and empowered as leaders for inclusion (Lindqvist & Nilholm, 2014). In Cyprus, a few principals empowered teachers by supporting their initiatives and giving them freedom to make instructional decisions (Angelides, 2012). Some principals recognize that certain teachers were inclusion advocates and provided them opportunities to advocate among teachers (Angelides et al., 2010; DeMatthews, 2015a). One principal noted that cultivating teacher leadership was not just about supporting current staff, but also recruiting new teachers with leadership experience that can be built upon (DeMatthews, 2015a).
Providing individualized teacher support
Some principals reported providing direct support to struggling or novice teachers (e.g., Duncan et al., 2021; Waldron et al., 2011). As one principal noted, “I’ve sent teachers to observe other teaching pairs and we have discussed their roles” (Kamens et al., 2013, p. 180). Other principals reported conducting classroom observations, monitoring classroom performance data, and developing professional improvement plans (e.g., DeMatthews, 2018; Smith & Leonard, 2005). In Cameroon, one principal described how “they hold regular meetings with teachers to discuss how to improve learning for all” (Mbua, 2023, p. 10). Though teacher conversations and monitoring were identified as an important practice by many principals, some also noted the importance of trusting teachers as professionals and giving them control and autonomy over their learning (Keyes et al., 1999). When principals felt they lacked the capacity to offer support, some identified professional development opportunities outside and found ways to connect teachers with those learning opportunities (e.g., DeMatthews, 2018; Smith & Leonard, 2005). In few instances, principals counseled teachers to leave their campus if they would not commit to inclusion, even if they were effective at raising student achievement for other students (DeMatthews, 2021; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014).
Hiring and inducting inclusive-oriented teachers and staff
Few studies described hiring and induction, although some principals focused attention on hiring and inducting teachers and staff who they believed fit well into an inclusive school (e.g., DeMatthews, 2015a; DeMatthews et al., 2021). Many principals broadly spoke about identifying certain traits within teachers and staff, such as “confidence,” “positive attitudes,” and an ability to recognize and appreciate a “child’s strength” (Bourke et al., 2018, p. 160). One principal noted, “You build a commitment to inclusion by hiring people who fit your vision” (Coviello & DeMatthews, 2021, p. 525). Relatedly, in the induction process, some principals set clear expectations around their inclusive vision and teaching. An elementary school principal in the United States noted, “Hiring is important for obvious reasons, but I spend an equal amount of time on induction . . . it’s the signals you send as a principal about what is valued and what is not accepted on your campus” (DeMatthews, 2021, p. 12).
Discussion
More than 30 years after the Salamanca Statement called for inclusive education worldwide, progress remains uneven, and the role of principal leadership in realizing this vision has been underexamined. This review addresses that gap by providing the first international systematic synthesis of empirical research on principal leadership for the inclusion of students with SEN. Our findings demonstrate that inclusive leadership is not an add-on to existing frameworks but requires rethinking core domains such as vision setting, resource allocation, and capacity building through an inclusion lens. This reconceptualization matters because leadership standards, preparation programs, and policy frameworks rarely embed inclusion for students with SEN explicitly, leaving principals and other stakeholders without clear guidance. By identifying three interrelated areas of practice and 15 targeted practices, our review offers a conceptual map that can inform leadership preparation, policy design, and future research agendas. These findings position principals as pivotal actors in advancing global inclusion goals and highlight the urgent need for systemic supports to make inclusion a reality.
To illustrate how these findings take shape in practice, we next describe the three areas of inclusive leadership identified in this review. Each area encompasses a set of targeted practices that principals employ to create and sustain inclusive schools (creating and sustaining a shared commitment to inclusive schools, establishing and improving inclusive organizational conditions, and building instructional and leadership capacity for inclusion). Each area of practice was applied within the unique national and local contexts and also guided by principals’ identities, values, and levels of expertise. Our findings not only reflect similar practices identified in research more broadly focused on increasing student achievement (e.g., Grissom et al., 2021), but also further solidify how a common repertoire of leadership practices can improve schools when applied in contextually responsive ways (Leithwood et al., 2020). Moreover, these findings provide clear evidence that principals are in a pivotal position to create and sustain inclusive schools, even with limited resources, time, and organizational support. However, findings also make clear that principals cannot simply demand change or rearrange deck chairs to make inclusion work—rather, they are often constrained by the need to build shared understandings and capacity amid challenging organizational conditions.
Our systematic review provides important insights into principal perceptions of inclusion and the challenges they believe complicate their efforts—although this was not the purpose of our review. We highlighted principal perceptions of inclusion to demonstrate that the practices principals take (or do not take) may partly be influenced by their perspectives about inclusion, disability, or the context in which they lead. Some perceptions were similar to the UNESCO’s (2015) definition of inclusion, while others were far more tempered by principals’ notions of disability and school readiness, resource availability, and competing priorities. Similarly, we also identified and classified four broad challenges principals consistently identified to inclusion: physical, cultural, institutional, and situational challenges. These challenges were strikingly similar across contexts, although principals in countries with more recent inclusive education policies or contexts that lacked infrastructure or a broad mandate for educating all students confronted deeper levels of challenges. Many of the areas of practice identified in this study were linked to these challenges, as principals sought ways to limit resistance, maximize the use of finite resources, combat discriminatory attitudes, and problem-solve emergent and evolving situations with individual teachers, families, and students.
Critique and Recommendations for Future Research
Although we identified areas of practice that principals can take to create and sustain inclusive schools for students with SEN, the body of research was limited in many ways. Given the important role principals play in strengthening schools and the noteworthy attention focused on inclusion worldwide since the Salamanca Statement, we found a relatively disjointed body of research. For example, site selection, methodological approaches, data collection techniques, and time in the field significantly varied among the case studies in this analysis. Several studies included few participants and offered only limited data to support findings. Moreover, researchers in many case studies spent a limited time within a school context, and many did not include perspectives or observations of other important stakeholders, including general and special educators, related service providers, special education coordinators and directors working with districts, and families. The attention to principal leadership for inclusion was also limited in particular regions of the world. We were unable to identify one such study in South America, while most of the research was situated in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Thus, additional research is needed to more rigorously identify and select schools and principals across more contexts to better understand inclusive principal leadership and how it may vary or shift based on culture, context, and locale. Similar inconsistencies were found among studies using different methods and data collection approaches.
Additional in-depth qualitative research is also needed to further investigate principal leadership practices within both schools that are becoming inclusive and those that have already had some success. Rigorous selection criteria for identifying such school contexts should be applied, which was only the case in a subset of studies in this review (e.g., DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; McLeskey et al., 2014). Eight studies relied only on principal interviews to gather data, which meant researchers could not triangulate findings through observations, documents, and other stakeholder input. Researchers should strive to include more voices and time in the field. In addition, few studies spent more than 6 months to a year following a school and principal. Researchers should also consider longitudinal studies to better understand how change and resistance unfold over time and the impact of leader turnover and succession. While the study did not meet our search criteria, Sindelar et al. (2006) highlighted how the sustainability of an inclusive school reform was jeopardized by principal turnover. Such studies can also provide greater insight into how principals apply inclusive leadership practices in contextually responsive ways and strategies that support continuous and sustained improvement. Researchers should also consider the use of quantitative methods to examine inclusive principal leadership. The one study in this review relied on principal survey data (Avissar et al., 2003), but future research might leverage longitudinal administrative data, teacher and parent surveys, student achievement data, and other forms of quantitative information to further identify and explore inclusive schools and principals leading for inclusion. Philanthropic, government, and research organizations should consider international collaborations to design, develop, and utilize similar research approaches across contexts to better understand principal practice and disseminate findings.
In alignment with UNESCO’s (2015) broader focus on inclusion as a never-ending process of responding to diversity and removing barriers to access, additional research is needed on principal practice in inclusive schools with more expansive forms of diversity. Critical scholars have long argued that a student does not simply hold one identity (e.g., a student with SEN) but rather multiple identities (Annamma et al., 2013; Boveda et al., 2019). For students with SEN, multiple and intersectional forces of marginalization can limit their opportunities to be included and fully benefit from the resources and opportunities provided to their peers (Ainscow, 2020a). Yet, few studies in this review consider principal practice for inclusion for students with and without SEN in combination with race, class, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, and other aspects of their identity and culture. DeMatthews et al. (2021) interviewed principals on the U.S.-Mexico border that provided some insight into how principals understand inclusion and act to promote inclusion for students with SEN and other identities (e.g., emergent bilingual students, recent immigrants, students experiencing homelessness), but this work is limited in scope and provides just a glimpse into how inclusive leadership can be applied to foster inclusive environments and learning experiences for all students.
Several other aspects of inclusive principal leadership would also help fill in knowledge gaps. Researchers have documented that families play an important role in educational outcomes for their children, especially for students with SEN (e.g., Zhang et al., 2011). Yet, few studies in this review focused on family engagement relative to other aspects of inclusive leadership practice (e.g., supporting teachers, changing master schedules). This gap reflects a significant blind spot, especially since family perspectives of disability, inclusion, and schooling may vary significantly by geographic location (Munyi, 2012). No study compared inclusive principal leadership practices across countries. Future comparative and international studies would benefit the field, particularly as nations and education systems continue to aspire to the goals of the Salamanca Statement. This review also provided some brief findings related to principal perceptions of inclusion and the challenges they face in including students with SEN. While this systematic review focused specifically on practice, additional systematic reviews on educators’ perceptions of inclusion and challenges, as well as aspects of their preservice and in-service preparation and professional development, could contribute to understandings of inclusive principal leadership. Researchers might also consider conducting more expansive reviews that focus on or include non-English journals and include early educational centers.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Countries and education systems seeking to be more inclusive should focus attention on the principalship. Specifically, greater attention and investments into principal preparation and professional development can support efforts to promote inclusion. In addition, in rolling out new policies, education system leaders should consider how principals might experience new inclusion-oriented programs given other education policies, competing work demands, and educator and community perspectives. Several studies in this review provided insights into how new inclusion policies can prompt some action, but also cause frustration, confusion, and resistance at the campus level (e.g., Opoku-Nkoom & Ackah-Jnr, 2023; Poon-McBrayer, 2017). Countries can be thoughtful in the design of inclusion policies and ensure they are integrated into their existing accountability, preparation, and financial systems. For all countries, educator and leader preparation and access to adequate resources were clear challenges for principals. As a result, areas of practice often were not narrowly oriented toward inclusive education but on how to maximize resources, pace change, manage resistance, and build capacity. Countries and other education systems can work to ensure principals have a strong starting point to enact inclusive education improvements. For example, principal preparation programs and standards can be oriented to serving students with SEN in regular schools and in the general education classroom. In addition, principals can be prepared to think about inclusion beyond a single marker of identity, such as SEN, in efforts to work toward creating a school that values and includes all forms of diversity and is even responsive to shifting demographics.
Countries and education systems also cannot rely on principals to be the sole or primary levers for creating and sustaining inclusive schools—general and special educators and other support staff require appropriate training. Researchers have documented the importance of high-quality preservice training for teachers (e.g., Leko et al., 2015; Sharma & Nuttal, 2016). A common challenge across all contexts was inadequate training for general and special educators, which required principals to invest significant time and resources to address. Consequently, principals’ ability to foster inclusive schools was likely slowed and constrained.
Conclusion
Inclusion is a complex and contextually situated process taking place in schools that are constantly influenced by a broad array of factors at the national, state, and local levels. Findings from the systematic review provide insights into the important role principals play in creating and sustaining inclusive schools for students with SEN. We found that principals rely on a common set of practices, although they are applied in ways that are interconnected with the principal’s personal and professional experiences, as well as how they understand the context and challenges of their work. These insights are important to pursuing inclusion in schools around the world, but our findings also indicate a need for more systematic and rigorous research in diverse contexts to better understand the ways principals can create and sustain inclusive schools for all students—not just students with SEN.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-rer-10.3102_00346543261446662 – Supplemental material for Inclusive Principal Leadership from 1995 to 2024: A Systematic Literature Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rer-10.3102_00346543261446662 for Inclusive Principal Leadership from 1995 to 2024: A Systematic Literature Review by David E. DeMatthews, Karly Conroy and Lauren McKenzie in Review of Educational Research
Footnotes
Notes
Authors
DAVID E. DEMATTHEWS is W. K. Kellogg Endowed Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin, where he directs the Cooperative Superintendency Program and founded the Texas Education Leadership Lab; email:
KARLY CONROY is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin; email:
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
