Attached.

Mini Research Survey 1
Questions Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater 4 Rater 5 Self rating
1.

4

4

3

2

5

4

2.

3

4

4

5

4

3

3.

3

4

5

4

3

4

4.

4

4

5

4

4

5

5.

5

3

4

4

5

5

6.

4

5

3

2

1

4

7.

3

2

4

5

4

3

8.

5

3

2

5

5

4

9

4

5

3

3

4

5

10

2

3

4

5

5

4

11

4

4

3

3

3

3

12

5

5

5

4

4

4

13

3

4

5

4

3

5

14

3

5

4

4

5

4

15

2

3

2

3

3

3

16

4

4

4

4

3

4

17

4

3

4

5

4

5

18

2

3

4

2

5

4

19

4

3

2

4

4

3

20

5

4

4

3

2

5

21

3

3

2

4

4

4

22

4

4

3

2

3

3

23

5

3

2

3

4

5

24

2

4

3

2

3

4

25

4

3

5

5

3

3

26

2

3

4

5

3

5

27

5

4

3

2

1

3

28

2

4

3

1

3

5

29

5

3

2

3

4

4

30

5

4

3

2

1

5

ALQ Scoring Chart

Get on the

Rater

Rater

Rater

Rater

Rater

Average Self-

1

2

3

4

5

Rating

Rating

Difference

18

16

13

14

17

15.6

15

-0.6

16

14

16

11

9

13.2

16

2.8

Regulate Distress

17

19

15

16

15

16.4

19

2.6

Maintain

14

14

19

23

18

17.6

18

0.4

balcony
Identify the
adaptive
challenge

disciplined

attention
Give the work

17

16

15

16

14

15.6

14

-1.6

14

19

18

14

18

16.6

17

0.4

back to the
people
Protect
leadership voices
from below


Administration
International
Studies in
Educational Administration
Journal of the Commonwealth
Council for Educational
Administration & Management

CCEAM

Volume 48 Number 1 2020

International Studies in Educational Administration by the Commonwealth Council for Educational
Administration and Management (CCEAM). Details of the CCEAM and its affiliated national societies
throughout the Commonwealth are given at the end of this issue.
Enquiries about subscriptions and submissions of papers should be addressed to the editor, Associate
Professor David Gurr via email at: admin@cceam.org; website: www.cceam.org.

Commonwealth
Members of CCEAM receive the journal as part of their membership. Other subscribers in Commonwealth
countries receive a discount, and pay the Commonwealth rates as stated below. Payment should be made
to the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM).

The rest of the world
Subscribers in the rest of the world should send their orders and payment to the Commonwealth Council
for Educational Administration and Management (CCEAM).

Account details for all payments are as follows
Account name: Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration c/o Dr. Patricia Briscoe
Bank: Royal Bank of Canada, 2855 Pembina Hwy – Unit 26, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2H5
Institution number: 003
Transit number: 08067
Account number: 1009232
Swift code: ROYCCAT2

Subscription rates for 2020
Institutions, Commonwealth

£150

Institutions, rest of world

£170

Individuals, Commonwealth

£30

Individuals, rest of world

£35

© CCEAM, 2020

International Studies in
Educational Administration
Journal of the Commonwealth
Council for Educational
Administration & Management

Volume 48 ● Number 1 ● 2020

International Studies in Educational Administration
(ISEA)

Professor Alma Harris, Director of the Institute
for Educational Leadership, University of Malaya

An official publication of the Commonwealth Council
for Educational Administration and Management
(CCEAM)

MALAYSIA

EDITOR
Associate Professor David Gurr
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
The University of Melbourne
3010 Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Dr Daniela Acquaro
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
The University of Melbourne
3010 Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Professor Christopher Bezzina
University of Malta, Msida
MSDV 2080, MALTA
Associate Professor Lawrie Drysdale
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
The University of Melbourne
3010 Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Professor Paul Miller
University of Greenwich Avery Hill Campus
Mansion Site London SE9 2PQ, UNITED KINGDOM
CCEAM OFFICIALS
President: Professor Paul Miller, University of Greenwich
Avery Hill Campus, Mansion Site
London SE9 2PQ, UNITED KINGDOM
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Dr A.O. Ayeni, Department of Educational
Management, Faculty of Education, University of
Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, NIGERIA
Professor Ray K. Auala, University of Namibia
PO Box 13301, 340 Mandume Ndemufayo Avenue
Windhoek, Pioneerspark, NAMIBIA
Professor Christopher Bezzina, University of Malta
Msida, MSDV 2080, MALTA
Professor Mark Brundrett, Liverpool John Moores
University, Barkhill Road, Aigburth, Liverpool
L17 6BD, UK
Professor Emeritus Brian Caldwell, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, AUSTRALIA
Professor Emeritus Christopher Day, The University of
Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
Professor Gang Ding, East China Normal University
Shanghai 200062, CHINA
Professor Fenwick English, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA
Professor Philip Hallinger, College of Public Health
Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, THAILAND

Dr A.A.M. Houtveen, Utrecht University, PO Box 80140
3508 TC Utrecht, NETHERLANDS
Professor Lejf Moos, Danish University of
Education, Copenhagen NV, DENMARK
Professor Petros Pashiardis, Open University of
Cyprus, PO Box 24801, Lefkosia 1304, CYPRUS
Professor Vivienne Roberts, The University of the West
Indies, Cave Hill Campus, PO Box 64, Bridgetown
BARBADOS
Professor Sun Miantao, Research Institute of Educational
Economics and Administration, Shenyang Normal
University, Shenyang, CHINA
Professor Paula Short, Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost, University of Houston, Texas, 77204
USA
Dr Clive Smith, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg 2092, SOUTH AFRICA
Professor Duncan Waite, Texas State University – San
Marcos, Texas, 78666, USA
Professor Philip van der Westhuizen, Potchefstroom
Campus, North West University, 2520, SOUTH AFRICA

ISSN 1324-1702
International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA)
aims to enhance the effectiveness of educational
leadership, management and administration to support
intellectual, personal and social learning in schools,
colleges and universities and related educational, social
and economic development in a range of national contexts.
It publishes research- and scholarship-based papers within
the broad field of educational leadership, management, and
administration including its connections with educational/
social policy, and professional practice. It focuses on the
Commonwealth and beyond. It is strongly international in
that, while it may publish empirical research or scholarship
undertaken in specific national or regional contexts, papers
consider issues and themes of interest that transcend
single national settings. Papers offer new facts or ideas to
academics, policy-makers and practitioners in education in
varied national contexts ranging from advanced economies
to the least economically developed countries. The journal
aims to provide a balance between papers that present
theoretical, applied or comparative research, and between
papers from different methodological contexts, different
scales of analysis, and different access to research resources.
Editorial Correspondence and Books for Review should be
sent to the Editors. Business Correspondence should be sent
to the President or the CEO. ISEA adopts review
procedures common to highly regarded international
academic journals. Each paper is reviewed by the editors to
judge suitability for the journal, and if accepted then
undergoes a double-blind review process involving two
international reviewers.

International Studies in Educational Administration
Volume 48, No. 1, 2020

Contents
Editorial Note
DAVID GURR

1

Speak a Different Language: Reimagine the Grammar of Schooling
YONG ZHAO

4

Leadership of Special Schools on the Other Side
BRIAN J. CALDWELL

11

Inclusive Leadership During the COVID-19 Pandemic: How to Respond Within an Inclusion
Framework
ELAINE FOURNIER, SHELLEYANN SCOTT AND DONALD E. SCOTT

17

Leadership for Challenging Times
DAVID GURR AND LAWRIE DRYSDALE

24

Adaptive Leadership: Leading Through Complexity
RYAN DUNN

31

Leading With Empathy and Humanity: Why Talent-Centred Education Leadership is Especially
Critical Amidst the Pandemic Crisis
HENRY TRAN, SUZY HARDIE AND KATHLEEN M. W. CUNNINGHAM

39

Educational Inequality and the Pandemic in Australia: Time to Shift the Educational Paradigm
TERESA ANGELICO

46

A Policy Maker’s Guide to Practical Courses of Action for Current and Post COVID-19 Effects in
Liberian Schools
BOLUMANI SONDAH

54

Understanding Educational Responses to School Closure During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case for
Equity in Nigeria
IDOWU MARY MOGAJI

59

Home Education as Alternative to Institutional Schooling in Nigeria: Lessons From COVID-19
ADELEKE AYOBAMI GIDEON

66

The Role of Local Authorities in the English School System: Why Did the Coronavirus Pandemic
Subvert 30 Years of Neoliberal Policy?
IAN DEWES

72

Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary
SARAH ELAINE EATON

80

Can Ghanaian Universities Still Attract International Students in Spite of COVID-19?
FESTUS NYAME AND EKUA ABEDI-BOAFO

86

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Work of University Administrators in Ghana
GEORGE KWADWO ANANE, PAUL KWADWO ADDO, ABRAHAM ADUSEI AND
CHRISTOPHER ADDO

93

Transitioning to Online Distance Learning in the COVID-19 Era: A Call for Skilled Leadership in
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)
DARCIA ROACHE, DINA ROWE-HOLDER AND RICHARD MUSCHETTE

103

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 1

Editorial Note
Worldwide Educational Responses to the Pandemic: Issue One of Four
In these challenging times the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and
Management (CCEAM) is exploring ways to help support the education community to continue
to do their important work. As one of the oldest journals in the educational leadership field, the
academic journal of CCEAM, International Studies in Educational Administration is well placed to
make an important contribution and so four issues of the journal have been devoted to focusing
on responses to the Coronavirus pandemic that is currently gripping our world.
As the editor, I invited short articles that either describe country or more local responses to
education during the pandemic, or short articles that provide educators with knowledge to help
them lead their educational organisations during this time. From more than 150 submissions, 60
papers were accepted for publication. The four issues will be published between July and
September, 2020. Most of the papers are not empirical research papers, but rather informed
opinion pieces documenting personal observations of local educational responses to the
pandemic crisis, or about key leadership and management ideas that will help educators lead
through the crisis and after.
Across the 60 papers there are 27 countries represented, including: Australia, Bangladesh,
Canada, China (mainland and Hong Kong), Cyprus, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica,
Japan, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South
Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of
America, and Vietnam. There are papers also focusing on the broader contexts of Africa, Arab
countries, Asia, and the wider world. Conceptual papers include foci on leadership ideas to do
with adaption, crisis and future education. The papers were not limited to any education sector
and so there are papers focusing on pre-school, school, post-school, tertiary, and other education
providers.
In this first issue there are 15 papers. The issue begins with two conceptual papers. The first, from
Zhao, describes his call for re-thinking schools through considering moving away from the
constraints of schooling as we know it, to the broader concept of education and the extended
possibilities that this allows. He provides commentary on scheduling, subjects and student
grouping. In the second paper Caldwell considers special schools and the particular challenges
that these schools face as a result of the school closures. Written as a conversation with educators,

2 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

possibilities and cautions arising from the disruption are raised, including increased use of
blended learning, renewed calls for de-schooling, the need for strategic navigation, and changes
to external student assessment. The next paper provides an illustration of how educators can
provide for students with special needs during school closures. Using the story of one student
with special needs in Canada, Fournier, Scott and Scott document, through a case study framed
by their inclusive leadership framework, an extraordinary effort to ensure continuity of learning
for this student. The next collection of three papers describes leadership ideas that might be
useful to educational leaders as they work through the challenges of 2020 and beyond. The first
was prepared by me and builds upon a paper by Drysdale and Gurr (2017) previously published
in ISEA. It describes a seven element leadership view that is well suited to disruptive and
challenging times. Similarly, in the next paper, Dunn shows how adaptive leadership and
building adaptive organisations can help in times of change and complexity, whilst in paper 6,
Tran, Hardie and Cunningham propose talent-centred education leadership as important
because of its focus on providing support to staff. The next four papers describe country contexts
and make recommendations for the resumption of schooling. In paper 7, Angelico describes the
impact of the pandemic on Australian education and shows how this is exacerbating inequalities
in education; she calls for greater linkage between schools and families, better provision of digital
learning, and more equitable resourcing approaches. For paper 8, Sondah considers the Liberian
context, and makes five recommendations for when schooling resumes after the 2020 summer
break including practical strategies in regard to advancing students, developing more supportive
learning cultures, and considering the needs of teachers. In paper 9, Mogaji describes the
complexity of school closures in Nigeria, focusing on educational disparities and calling for a
concerted government effort to address these. Paper 10 sees Adeleke proposing a possible
education provision solution for some in Nigeria through the greater adoption of, and focus on,
home-schooling. Dewes, also describes a context, but in paper 11 the context is England and the
focus of the paper is on school governance arrangements and how the government response to
use local authorities during the pandemic has stimulated the possibility of a greater role for local
authorities in school governance going forward. The remaining papers focus on higher
education. Eaton, in paper 12, highlights issues about academic integrity in remote and on-line
environments and suggests several solutions centred on multi-stakeholder responses to improve
academic integrity. Nyame and Abedi-Boafo in paper 13 consider the problems and likelihood of
universities in Ghana still being able to attract international students. Again, several suggestions
for action are given including improved marketing, customer relations and communication and
the use of incentives. Still focused on Ghana, Anane, Addo, Adusei and Addo provide a small
survey and interview study of the work of university administrators. During the shutdown of
universities, most administrators still went to work because of cultural issues and lack of home
and work resources, but the respondents agree that for the future that the shutdown will
stimulate greater use of blended working schedules. In the last paper, Roache, Rowe-Holder and
Muschette provide insights into the importance of leadership to facilitate a quality transitioning

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 3

of learners to online distance learning in higher education institutions. In a conceptual paper, the
authors explore how skilled leadership is needed to sustain and expand online learning
provision, and they do so by considering several areas including, policy and planning, financial
management, designing and delivering lessons, student support services and student
engagement.
Three more issues will be produced on education responses during the pandemic and I
encourage you to read these issues also.

David Gurr
Editor of International Studies in Educational Administration
June 30, 2020

4 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

Speak a Different Language: Reimagine
the Grammar of Schooling
Yong Zhao

Abstract: The ‘grammar’ of schooling identified by David Tyack and William Tobin in the 1990s is
the core business of schools. Despite numerous efforts by numerous smart, innovative, and sometimes
even powerful individuals to make changes, the ‘grammar’ stays pretty much the same. There are plenty
of reasons why it should not be the way to organise schooling, yet it still is. During COVID-19, is it
possible to make changes to the ‘grammar’? My argument is that it probably is not. I argue that instead
of fixing or changing the grammar, we need to speak a different language: instead of speaking
schooling, we need to speak education.
Keywords: Grammar of schooling, educational change, innovations

Speak a Different Language: Reimagine the Grammar of Schooling
The COVID-19 pandemic has touched every aspect of the human society. Hundreds of
thousands of lives have been lost. Industries have been changed. How we live, work, and
play has been changed. Schools, too, have been changed. But one thing it has not changed is
the ‘grammar’ of schooling: ‘the regular structures and rules that organise the work of
instruction’ (Tyack & Tobin 1994: 454).
Over a quarter of a century ago, education historians David Tyack and William Tobin (1994)
made the very insightful observation that schools have a set of grammatical rules and
structures just like natural languages and:
Neither the grammar of schooling nor the grammar of speech needs to be consciously
understood to operate smoothly. Indeed, much of the grammar of schooling has
become so well established that it is typically taken for granted as just the way schools
are. It is the departure from customary practice in schooling or speaking that attracts
attention. (p. 454)
The grammar of schooling, such as ‘standardized organizational practices in dividing time
and space, classifying students and allocating them to classrooms, and splintering knowledge
into “subjects”’ (Tyack & Tobin 1994: 454) is so powerful that it has persisted despite many
repeated challenges by very courageous, intelligent, and powerful innovators. It has persisted

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 5

despite mounting evidence and widespread acknowledgement that it is obsolete and does
not serve our children well. It has persisted even during the most powerful pandemic—
COVID-19 in this century, when students are not attending the physical school.
COVID-19 forced the closure of virtually all schools in the world for different amounts of
time. But when schools were closed, when students were staying home, and when there were
specific policies and restrictions for students not to be together physically, the ideal was still
to offer schooling to all students, to replicate schools online, and in essence to follow the
grammar of schooling. By and large, when schools were closed, governments and schools
have worked together and/or independently to create a sense of ‘schooling’ for all students
using whatever technology they had. So in essence, schools were expanded into the large
society. Students were taking classes from TVs, mobile devices, computers and/or paper
packages and teachers were teaching online. But the format kept the grammar of schooling:
teachers were managing their students in the same way as they did before, the content of
online teaching was pretty much the same, classes were offered the same way as before (with
some variation of amount of time, perhaps), and knowledge was still splintered into subjects
as before.

COVID-19 and Schools
Perhaps the basic ‘grammar’ of schooling cannot be changed just like the basic grammar of
English cannot be changed. In fact, if the grammar of English were changed, it would not be
English anymore. Likewise, if the grammar of schooling were changed, it would not be school
anymore. And that is very worrisome to people who want a ‘real school’ and that worry of
not having a real school is responsible for defeating attempts to reform schools because ‘so
powerful is the hold of the cultural construction of what constitutes a “real school”’ (Tyack &
Tobin 1994: 478).
But what if we cannot have schools anymore, not because we don’t want them but because
we cannot have them due to COVID-19. The virus is still alive and far from eradicated.
Vaccines have not been developed and there is still much to learn about it. Many experts are
expecting an even worse second wave. As such, schools may or may not be open as they were
before the pandemic.
Many governments and school systems have been working on reopening schools with serious
considerations of the impact of COVID-19. While the details of the reopening plans and
strategies differ, there are a few points in common. First, students will go through serious
checks to ensure that they are not infected with the virus. Second, frequent hand washing is
to be implemented. Third, social distancing is to be implemented. That is, students need to sit
at least six feet apart. The third one makes it impossible for many schools to have all students
back to school as before. Additionally, some parents will not send their children to schools.
Thus schools will have to adopt other methods to make sure education goes on for all
students, even when they are home.

6 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

The system that manages schools is changing as well due to COVID-19. These changes may
be short term but have happened. Hopefully they will be changed forever. Such changes
include the suspension of accountability measures such as state and national assessments.
Many education systems have suspended their accountability assessments. Large influential
high-stakes testing such as the SAT and ACT in the U.S. have been suspended. International
education systems such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) have stopped testing as well.
In essence, many schools will be different and the difference may be so big that schools are
not schools as before. In this case, does it make sense to make non-schools school? Can we
rethink a different grammar? Instead of changing the grammar of schooling, can we think
about a grammar of learning or a grammar of education? What would that look like?

Speak a Different Language?
What the public wants and society needs is not schooling; it is education. The school happens
to be the institution we built at a certain point of time to deliver education. The design was
inevitably constrained by the understanding of learning and the learner, teacher and teaching,
and operating of organisations as well as the resources and technology available at that
moment. The rules that govern schools were made and further refined for schools, typically
physical locations with a group of adults to teach a predefined curriculum to a group of youth.
This arrangement defines the most basic grammar of schooling: the school has something to
teach students (the curriculum); the teaching is best done with similar children (age-based as
was understood); children must be managed and monitored by adults (classes); children must
go through so many subjects so they need to rotate through them (class and subjects) each
and every day. Moreover, schools had to respond to the needs of the human society so
summer and winter vacations were built in line with the norm of the societies when schools
were built.
Without schools, we can think about education. The grammar of education can be quite
different from that of schooling. Because the purpose of education can be different in different
societies, the education I am writing about in this paper may not apply to all societies and
cultures. If the purpose of education is to help each and every individual to realise their full
potential, to help each and every child to be able to succeed in modern societies, and to help
each and every child to become responsible citizens of local and global communities, we
could imagine a different set of grammatical rules.
These rules, for example, could start from the learner. If the learner were the owner of learning
rather than a recipient of pre-determined instruction, the first rule would be the learner
decides what to learn in collaboration with adults so the curriculum is not predetermined.
Instead, it is emergent. When the curriculum is emergent and largely determined by the
learner, the role of the adults changes. The adults or teachers do not supervise or teach the
learner. Instead, they respond to the learners’ emerging needs. As a result, since learning is
owned and managed by individual learners, teachers/adults do not necessarily teach

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 7

prepared lessons to groups of students. Instead they can refer students to hosts of online
instructions and may provide highly personalised tutoring or mentoring. If adults do not
teach a group of learners, their relationship with the learner changes drastically, so do their
responsibilities.
This arrangement changes other rules in schools too. When adults do not teach classes as
instructors, we do not need to split a day into so many classes each day. They can meet with
groups of learners or individual learner based on needs. The learners do not need to be in one
place or pretend to be in one place through technology because they do not need to be in one
place listening to the same instructor.
There can be many other changes as we begin to reimagine what’s possible when there are
no schools. I am hoping that education leaders would begin thinking about education and
learning rather than keeping schools operating as before during COVID-19. Below are some
examples of how to start reimagining the grammar of schooling.

Reimagine the Grammar of Schooling
To move away from traditional grammar of schooling to a grammar of education or learning
can take a long time, but we need to start. To start changing, education leaders can consider
how to change some of the most salient features of the grammar of schooling. These features
have been discussed before and some schools have tackled them quite successfully already.
So these are not new ideas or novel approaches.

Scheduling
Schooling sometimes works against education. How it structures time is a good example: a
year is divided into different segments, some of which (terms/semesters) are designated for
learning while others (summer/winter vacations) are not; terms/semesters are divided into
different chunks marked by exams (mid-term and end of term); days are divided into class
periods. When schools are structured this way, following the traditional grammar of
schooling, the outcomes are not necessarily great.
For example, there is ample evidence of ‘summer learning loss’ (Cooper 2003; Kerry & Davies
1998; Sandberg Patton & Reschly 2013). A Brookings Institution review of research shows: (1)
on average, students’ achievement scores declined over summer vacation by one month’s
worth of school-year learning, (2) declines were sharper for math than for reading, and (3) the
extent of loss was larger at higher grade levels (Quinn & Polikoff 2017).
There have been many different proposals to address this issue. But it seems apparent that
keeping the schools operating all the time may be the obvious solution. Thus, could we
change learning into year-round? Is it possible for schools to reorganise staff so that the
learners can be with professional adults all the time, online and or face-to-face?

8 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

Another issue with school time is timetabling. Quite often deep, authentic,
product/project/problem-based learning projects can last much longer than one semester, but
the project must end when a semester ends because the teacher needs to give the students a
grade and/or the course is not continued the next semester. Furthermore, it is known that
meaningful learning requires much more than 35 or 45 minutes, but the learning must stop
because students have to go to another class. Timetables have also been one of the most
challenging problems when trying to introduce new ideas. Even when school leaders and
teachers recognise the importance of teaching something new, they often run into the problem
of lacking openings in the timetable.
In the language of education, these constraints or rules that govern schooling should be
removed. There is no particular good reason to chunk school time as we used to do. When
students are learning from home, they do not have to be in ‘class’ with others at the same
time. Perhaps they can study in small groups at times of their choice.

Subjects
Another example of schooling working against education is the practice of ‘splintering
knowledge into subjects’, which goes hand in hand with splitting learning time into class
periods. While there are some subjects that may be better taught as individual subjects for
some students, the habit of splintering everything into subjects and then translating subjects
into courses is detrimental to the development of the whole child. It forces the development
of essential competences such as creativity, entrepreneurial thinking, and global competence
into isolated boxes as if these competences could be developed without deep knowledge and
skills in certain domains or as if math or science could be divorced from these competences.
For example, social and emotional wellbeing has to be taught as a separate class, as if social
and emotional wellbeing could not be developed in other subjects.
Is it then possible for educational leaders to consider combining subjects into large projects
so that the learner can learn the content of multiple subjects together? This is an excellent time
to try changing this rule of the grammar of schooling. School leaders can ask teachers of
different subjects to examine the essence of their subjects and work on designing large
projects for the learners. To take a step further, the learners can be invited to the examination
and design process so that their views are respected.

Student Grouping
Grouping students by age is another feature of the ‘grammar of schooling’ that runs contrary
to education. We know that children’s abilities vary a great deal and are not neatly aligned
with their chronological age, but they are often stuck in the grade level corresponding to their
age. Some children may be above and others may be below what is taught. The result is that
both groups are frustrated and disengaged. While the topic of ability grouping is
controversial (partly because the term has many different meanings), we cannot ignore the

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 9

fact that grouping students according to their ages does lead to poor educational experiences
for a large proportion of children.
Students must be put into groups in schools because a group of students must be taught or
supervised by an adult. The image of a class without a teacher in front of a blackboard violates
the ‘grammar’ of schooling. But the need to meet the needs of each and every child has long
been recognised. There has been a growing call for personalised learning (Xie, Chu, Hwang
& Wang 2019). In addition, there is ample evidence of benefits of peer mentoring, social
learning, and collaborative learning online and face-to-face (DuBois & Karcher 2013; Laal &
Ghodsi 2012). In other words, learners can learn from each other, from the Internet, and from
other adults who are not their teachers.
At a time when students cannot come to schools at the same time, it would be wonderful to
rethink how to group students. Perhaps one way is to have students organise their own
groups as small learning communities or project teams. Another way would be for individual
students to follow their own pathways, but when they feel necessary, the teacher can group
students with similar questions.

Summary
Tyack and Tobin’s essay in 1994 has a depressing and discouraging message for innovators.
The history of education is not filled with success stories of innovations that challenge the
‘grammar’ of schooling. According to them, the innovators have tried:
•

to create ungraded, not graded, schools

•

to use time, space, and numbers of students as flexible resources and to diversify
uniform periods, same-sized rooms, and standard class size

•

to merge specialized subjects into core courses in junior and high schools or,
alternatively, to introduce departmental specialization into the elementary school

•

to group teachers in teams, rather than having them work as isolated individuals
in self-contained classrooms.

Typically, these innovations have not lasted for long. (Tyack & Tobin 1994: 455)
I hope this time can be different. The changes I propose here have been advocated elsewhere
(Zhao 2012, 2018; Zhao, Emler, Snethen & Yin 2019) but I see COVID-19 as a great
opportunity. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused so much damage and disruption in every
aspect of human society that its impact will last a long time into the future. It will alter many
industries forever. I hope it has given us the opportunity to abandon schooling for education.
But the key is not to improve schooling or replicate schooling online. Instead, we should try
to speak a different language so we can adopt a different grammar.

10 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

References
Cooper, H. M. (2003). Summer Learning Loss: The problem and some solutions: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education Champaign, IL.
DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2013). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Kerry, T., & Davies, B. (1998). Summer learning loss: The evidence and a possible solution. Support for
Learning, 13(3), 118-122.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
31, 486-490.
Quinn, D. M., & Polikoff, M. (2017). Summer Learning Loss: What is it, and what can we do about it?
(retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/summer-learning-loss-what-is-it-and-what-can-we
-do-about -it/).
Sandberg Patton, K. L., & Reschly, A. L. (2013). Using curriculum‐based measurement to examine
summer learning loss. Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 738-753.
Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The 'grammar' of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American
Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.
Xie, H., Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Wang, C.-C. (2019). Trends and development in technologyenhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2017.
Computers & Education, 140, 103599.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World Class Learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Zhao, Y. (2018). Reach for Greatness: Personalizable education for all children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zhao, Y., Emler, T. E., Snethen, A., & Yin, D. (2019). An Education Crisis Is a Terrible Thing to Waste: How
radical changes can spark student excitement and success. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Author Details
Yong Zhao
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
University of Melbourne
School of Education
University of Kansas
Email: yongzhaoeducation@gmail.com

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 11

Leadership of Special Schools on the
Other Side
Brian J. Caldwell
Abstract: This paper is concerned with leadership in special schools, that is, schools that support
students with disabilities and who are not in mainstream schools. The context is Australia but
experiences during the pandemic are similar to those in comparable countries, including greater
reliance on online learning and a loss of equity, together with minimal attention in the media to the
circumstance of these schools. The narrative is in the second person to invite a personal reflection by
readers and their engagement with possibilities for the future, ‘on the other side’ of the pandemic.
Leaders will face further calls for the abandonment of special schools and will continue to experience
‘wicked problems’ in pursuit of their goals. Possibilities include more ‘blended’ learning of online and
face-to-face, responding to perennial challenges to their existence while protecting their achievements
in personalised learning, strategic navigation rather than strategic planning, and new forms of
assessment.
Keywords: Special schools, school leadership, wicked problems, strategic navigation

Introduction
The changes in policy and practice during the pandemic have been far-reaching and
fundamental, and you, the leader in a special school, have been challenged as never before.
There are more challenges ‘on the other side’ when we are on top of the virus and the ‘curve’
has flattened. Will the changes be transformational or will the ‘new normal’ be very much the
same as the ‘old normal’? Will styles of leadership that came to the fore be sustained or be
useful in the future?
The challenges have been global. For example, at a conference of policymakers from Latin
America, Middle East and Africa, participants in the Global Online Learning Alliance (GOLA)
reported on 2 April 2020 that ‘20 years of talk of digital literacy and educational preparedness
for the knowledge economy has been condensed into 20 days of urgency’ (GOLA 2020: 7).
This paper is for leaders in special schools, that is, schools that serve students with disabilities
who do not attend ‘mainstream’ schools. The context is Australia, but the issues addressed
are common to many countries. As leaders, your agility during the pandemic is

12 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

acknowledged. The issue of whether sufficient account was taken of the needs of special
schools is canvassed. A recent proposal to abandon special schools in Australia is addressed
along with ‘wicked’ problems encountered in special education. Possibilities for the future
that may challenge the transforming leader are listed.

You Have Been Agile
As school leaders, together with staff, you were remarkably agile in responding to the closure
of schools. Home schooling for all or most students and teachers working from home were
unimaginable at the start of the year.
This experience runs counter to the view that educators are inflexible and slow to change.
New knowledge and skills were swiftly acquired. Specifying the particular technologies is
beyond the scope of this paper – the focus is on leadership – but all of the elements of good
leadership (Kotter 1990) were displayed: establishing direction, securing alignment,
motivating and inspiring, and effecting change.

Support for Leaders
There has been little attention in the public media to the way schools supporting students
with disabilities have been challenged. In Australia, only one mention was located, in this
instance (Campanella 2020) an ABC radio news story about difficulties faced by disabled
students and their families. In the United States, a feature article in the New York Times (Levine
2020: n.p.) reported that:
… for the millions of students in the United States who are living with disabilities –
including those with autism, intellectual disabilities, developmental delays and more
– this task [of supporting students] has proved especially challenging. Parents and
teachers of students with special needs have reported feeling overwhelmed, with little
to no instruction on how to proceed once schools shut down.
Jurisdictions are providing assistance and professional organisations have stepped up; for
example, in the United States, there is the Educating all Learners Alliance
(https://www.educatingalllearners.org) of many entities that can provide resources and other
assistance. The Australian Special Education Principals Association (ASEPA) was active
through its partnership with the UK-based National Association for Special Educational
Needs (NASEN) in March 2020 in bringing together in one place the many links to online
resources that may be helpful when home-based learning was required (see
https://www.asepa.edu.au/covid19). They will continue to be helpful as students return to
school.

But Was It Transformational?
In the everyday use of the term, these changes were transformational, but how many will be
sustained ‘on the other side’? At Educational Transformations, we have adopted a rigorous

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 13

definition of transformation as significant, systematic, and sustained change that secures
success for all students in all settings. Aside from the fact that, with few exceptions, schools
will return to their previous mode of operation, the ‘moral purpose’ in the definition was not
achieved during the pandemic (‘all students in all settings’). Lack of equity arising from
availability of technology or engagement of parents was as evident as it was before, despite
the efforts of school systems to distribute thousands of machines and provide good guidance
for parents. The equity issue may have been especially applicable to students in special
schools under these conditions.

The Bigger Picture
One aspect of transformation that will engage leaders in special education in Australia is
Kathy Cologon’s (2019) updated report, the first being in 2013. Her new report has the title
Toward Inclusive Education: A necessary transformation. The transformation that she calls for is
the abandonment of special schools, offering a recommendation to ‘Ensure that no new
segregated settings (schools, pre-schools, centres, units or classrooms) are created’ (p. 51). It
is beyond the scope of this paper to undertake an analysis or commentary on her report except
to note that she has adopted a strict interpretation of the UN’s convention on the rights of
persons with disabilities (General Comment of 2016) (United Nations 2020) which
governments generally have not adopted in practice. She noted (p. 20) that, in the Australian
Government’s ratification of the convention in 2018, it is stated that Australia’s obligations
will be met
… through an education system that allows for funding of different modalities so
students with disability are able to participate in a range of education options
including enrolment in mainstream classes in mainstream schools with additional
support, specialist classes or units in mainstream schools and specialist schools.
Researching independently, I found that none of the 30 countries reporting to the European
Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education has a ‘fully inclusive system’ and that
there had been no decrease in the number of students attending special classes and special
schools (EASNIE 2018: 7-8).

You Will Face More ‘Wicked’ Problems
In Australia, you have seen played out a matter that has proved virtually intractable to
policymakers in most parts of the country and elsewhere, internationally. It concerned
whether schools should remain open or closed during the pandemic. According to the
headlines this, more than any other, was what was confusing parents. Five principles were
agreed by the National Cabinet of Prime Minister and Premiers/Chief Ministers of
states/territories in its attempt to determine a course of action. Two of these were as follows:
•

Our schools are critical to the delivery of a high-quality education for students and to
give our children the best possible start in life. Our education systems are based on the

14 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

•

recognition that education is best delivered by professional teachers to students in the
classroom on a school campus.
Our schools must be healthy and safe environments for students, teachers and other staff
to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of education to students.

While young children appeared relatively safe from the virus, the same may not have been
the case for older adults on staff, so achievement of the first principle may not have been
possible if due weight was given to the second.
This is an example of a ‘wicked’ problem (APSC 2018) in the sense [not the evil sense] that
how to successfully address both principles was unclear at the time. Information was lacking;
it was an extraordinarily complex problem and different stakeholders had different views on
the way forward. Subject to these agreed principles, states and territories determined their
own strategies, and school and system leaders were left with the challenge of implementation.
Rather than adopting authoritative or competitive strategies, the work of the National Cabinet
was collaborative in nature as it came to a resolution. An even larger ‘wicked’ problem was,
of course, how to balance the health and economic imperatives.
Educational leaders already face more ‘wicked’ problems than is usually recognised, and
more are likely to surface ‘on the other side’. An example are the conflicts and ambiguities
associated with the first principle above, and another principle that recognised ‘alternative
flexible, remote delivery of services’, of which many exciting practices emerged during the
pandemic.
There is, of course, an even more ‘wicked’ problem in the case presented by Cologon for
abandoning special schools. What can one do if one accepts the case, but governments cannot
or will not implement it, for good reason, as has been demonstrated in Australia and
throughout Europe?
Special education appears to be a field that is rife with ‘wicked’ problems (Henebery 2017).
Your role as a transforming leader is indeed a challenging one.

What Changes May Be Sustained Or Expected?
What changes are likely to be sustained or emerge, including to your role as a leader in a
special school? These prognostications are presented in the absence at the time of writing of
rigorous research on the nature, extent and impact of changes that have occurred thus far.
1.

Once things settle down, there is likely to be more extensive ‘blended’ learning
(blend of online and face-to-face learning), given the extensive knowledge and skills
acquired during the pandemic. The online variety will become more sophisticated,
to the extent that individual differences are acknowledged through online contact
between teachers and students, especially when artificial intelligence is brought to
bear that spots students’ responses and adjusts ‘content’ to suit. This is some time in
the future. At the very least, well-designed online education can reflect the principles

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 15

of good learning and teaching. The harms of excessive use of computers (Gonski
Institute 2020) need not be experienced. You have a head start in important respects,
including the long tradition of truly personalised learning in special education and
relatively high levels of parental engagement.
2.

An informal scan suggests that many proposals for change that have been made for
years, before the pandemic, are re-surfacing, not just those that call for the
abandonment of special schools. Variations on the theme of ‘de-schooling’ society
may emerge. Their merit is likely to be debated anew. You should be prepared!

3.

Changes during the pandemic may have finally driven a stake through the heart of
traditional approaches to strategic planning. While pandemics or similar crises will
be rare, there is little point in making painstaking efforts to develop detailed longrange strategic plans that will be out of date soon after they are written. OECD (2018)
is undertaking a major international study of likely/preferred curriculum change by
2030 but, understandably, no major dislocating change for schools like a pandemic
or world war is foreshadowed in the intervening years. ‘Strategic navigation’ will be
the order of the day, with short-term strategic priorities set and addressed at the
system and school levels. After all, you have already demonstrated agility in the face
of unexpected change! ‘We need swift boats, not ocean liners’ (Osborne 2020: n.p.).

4.

Expect a major change in external student assessment. This may have limited
application to special schools where a highly differential approach is taken to
participation in NAPLAN, (Australia’s national system of standardised tests of
literacy and numeracy in years 3, 5, 7 and 9). The way may have been paved with
the suspension of NAPLAN in 2020 but, as in other areas of potential action, there
are several ‘wicked’ problems at play. What if NAPLAN 2021 reveals a dramatic
decline in student achievement, or no change, or even an improvement? NAPLAN
is under review at the time of writing so there may be important changes in the years
ahead.

Conclusion
Expect more proposals for change. Some may challenge the very existence of special schools.
Others acknowledge the unique contributions of special schools, and good practices during
the pandemic may be ramped up to contribute to an exciting future. Transforming leadership
is required of you and your successors.

References
Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). (2018). Tackling Wicked Problems: A public policy
perspective. Canberra, Australia: APSC (retrieved from https://www.apsc.gov.au/tackling-wickedproblems-public-policy-perspective).

16 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

Campanella, N. (2020). Parents Call for More Support To Ensure No Disabled Student Is Left Behind
Amid Coronavirus Pandemic. ABC News. April 7, 2020 (retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/
2020-04-07/coronovirus-homeschooling-parents-call-for-disability-support/12124548).
Cologon, K. (2019). Towards Inclusive Education: A necessary process of transformation. A report for
Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA). Canberra: Australian Government
Department of Social Services (retrieved from https://www.cyda.org.au/inclusion-in-education).
European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EASNIE). (2018). European Agency
Statistics on Inclusive Education: Key messages and findings (2014/2016). (A. Watkins, J. Ramberg & A.
Lénárt, Eds.). Odense, Denmark: EASNIE (retrieved from https://www.european-agency.org/sites/
default/files/easie_ key_messages_and_findings_2014-2016_0.pdf).
Global Online Learning Alliance (GOLA). (2020). Report on the First GOLA Video Conference. 2 April
2020 (available online on application to GOLA at https://www.brains.global/global-online-learningalliance).
Gonski Institute for Education. (2020). Growing up Digital Australia. University of NSW: Gonski Institute
(retrieved from https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/growing-digital-Australia).
Henebery, B. (2017). Addressing the ‘Wicked Problems’ in Special Education. The Educator/K12.
Australian Edition (retrieved from https://www.theeducatoronline.com/k12/news/addressing-thewicked-problems -in-special-education/244474).
Kotter, J. P. (1990). A Force for Change: How leadership differs from management. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Levine, H. (2020). Parents and Schools Are Struggling to Care for Kids with Special Needs. New York
Times, March 31, 2020 (retrieved from https://nytimes.com/2020/03/31/parenting/kids-special-needscorona virus.html).
OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills – Education 2020 (retrieved from https://www.oecd.
org/ education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf).
Osborne, D. (2020). Public Education in the Age of the Coronavirus: We need swift boats, not ocean liners.
The Late, Late Bell. Newsletter of The Fordham Institute. 14 April 2020 (retrieved from https://
fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/public-education-age-coronavirus-we-need-swift-boats-notocean-liners).
United Nations. (2020). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): Article 24 –
Education (retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rightsof-persons -with-disabilities/article-24-education.html).

Acknowledgement
This article is an adaptation of one prepared for the Australian Special Education Principals
Association (ASEPA) and published in its newsletter ASEP Bulletin in June 2020.

Author Details
Brian J. Caldwell
Principal consultant at Educational Transformations Pty Ltd and professor emeritus at the
University of Melbourne.
Email: brian@educationaltransformations.com.au
Web: www.educationaltransformations.com.au

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 17

Inclusive Leadership During the COVID19 Pandemic: How to Respond Within
an Inclusion Framework
Elaine Fournier, Shelleyann Scott and Donald E. Scott

Abstract: This paper explores the approach of a rural, Canadian principal and her educator-team to
support the learning of all students within the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. It
explores the suitability of the Inclusive Leadership Framework (ILF) in informing this leader’s decision
making in support of appropriate inclusion. Even though the ILF has been useful in guiding principals’
inclusionary approaches, to date it has not been tested under the level of challenge presented by this
pandemic. We describe a case where the ILF informed this principal and her team’s approach to
innovating their instructional approaches to meet the unique needs of a student with exceptionalities
who was unable to access and/or engage in online learning. This pandemic created significant stress for
all in schools; however, the ILF served as a useful reflective tool to guide this team’s approach to
promoting successful learning through educator–parent–child communication and instructional
innovation.
Keywords: Inclusive leadership, student with exceptionalities, pandemic, online learning,
collaboration, innovation

Introduction
A number of years ago, my colleagues and I sought to solidify the theoretical and pragmatic
work that we had been doing related to ethical inclusive leadership (Fournier, Scott & Scott
2016). We had explored the intersections and relationships between social justice, effective
inclusionary practices, and ethical leadership and found there was a lack of cohesion in the
literature related to these themes. As a result of our research we designed the Inclusive
Leadership Framework (ILF) (Fournier et al. 2016: 207) which articulated the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes and beliefs that school leaders (both formal and informal) should develop
in order to be successful in leading effective inclusion in their schools. Importantly, the ILF
includes a set of core belief statements that serves as a practical guide for leaders who are
striving to enact more inclusive practices. The framework enables leaders to reflect on their
beliefs and actions to see how they align with the framework’s suggested core values and

18 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

beliefs. We hoped that the ILF would provide useful direction in how to approach inclusion,
as well as pragmatic strategies founded on evidence-based good practice.
Since we first posited the ILF, we found that this framework has been helpful to many school
leaders, has influenced our own inclusionary efforts, and has been adopted into graduate
programming as a valuable model for leading inclusion. However, to date our ILF had not
been tested in the extraordinary circumstances that we currently find ourselves in, that is,
within the worldwide health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presents a case of
how the ILF influenced one of the author’s and her educator-team’s thinking and actions in
addressing the unique learning needs of a student who has particular exceptionalities during
this difficult time when we could not be in school.

Background
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced the closure of schools in our small rural community in
Northern Ontario, Canada, educator-teams comprised of teachers and paraprofessionals (e.g.
educational assistants) under my guidance, as principal, set about the task of quickly
developing reliable and pertinent instructional tasks using online platforms with which
students were familiar. For me, there were many complexities to consider in the transition
from traditional face-to-face classes to a technology-mediated learning environment. First,
most of my teachers had never been formally trained in online teaching; second, access was
sometimes unstable; third, many families in this community could not afford computers or
devices necessary for online learning and these complexities were further compounded by
the high incidence of students with special needs in our school. This resulted in layers of
complexity for me, my teachers, and our paraprofessionals. The purpose of this paper is to
demonstrate how the ILF supported my decision making related to inclusive leadership
practices during this difficult period.
Before elaborating further, it is important to clarify the terms that are used throughout this
paper. We have borrowed the term, Emergency Remote Teaching, from Hodges, Moore,
Lockee, Trust and Bond (2020), who described this current teaching situation as being
temporary in nature, with the goal to provide instruction in a reliable and easy to establish
approach within a crisis situation. Hodges et al.’s suggested Emergency Remote Teaching
offered a delivery method that is specific to the ever-changing needs faced in a crisis, such as
this current pandemic.
Hodges’s et al. argued that this method of teaching is not the same as online teaching and
learning. They asserted, numerous research studies indicated that effective online learning
was as a result of careful instructional design and planning. This theme was also highlighted
by Means, Bakia and Murphy (2014) who described several key dimensions for effective
online instruction. These dimensions encompassed:
•
•

modality – online or blended modes;
pacing – self-paced or class-paced;

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 19

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

student instructor ratio – this could vary from face-to-face to extremely large classes;
pedagogy – could be expository or move towards collaborative and/or exploratory;
instructor/teacher role – monitors progress and motivates students, and/or students
become knowledge builders;
student role – move from listen or read to explore, collaborate, and complete
assignments;
communication – synchronous and/or asynchronous;
role of assessment – determine if students are ready, identify students at risk of failure,
provide information, and input grades/marks; and
sources of feedback – automated, from the teacher, and/or from peers. (Means et al. 2014:
27-28)

Furthermore, interaction (e.g. student-content, student-student, and student-instructor/
teacher) in a rich online environment is of the utmost importance and contributes to positive
academic achievement. When all of these dimensions are coalesced, these create an ecosystem
that supports learners. Likewise, Keeler and Horney (2007) assert that it is the responsibility
of online course designers (in the case of schools, this is the teachers and educator-teams) to
have an intentionality in their design which would meet the individual needs of students,
including those with exceptionalities.
Kerr, Rynearson and Kerr (2006) suggested there were a number of skills required for success
in an online learning environment; for example, computer skills, independent learning skills,
and academic skills. Deficits in these areas are frequently found in the Individual Educational
Plans (IEP) of students with exceptionalities. Consequently, one could infer that learning, as
it is configured in our current pandemic context, might further disadvantage students with
exceptionalities. Carnahan and Fulton (2013) cautioned that teachers in an online learning
environment may not be able to see or discern if a student was struggling, off-task, or simply
not engaging with the task at all (p. 48). Hence, online learning may present further challenges
for educators in supporting and monitoring the learning of their students with
exceptionalities.
Contrastingly, Marteney and Bernadowski (2016) offered the perspective that online learning
environments may provide opportunities for greater success and learning outcomes for
students with special needs who were challenged by traditional learning environments. They
cited features such as self-paced coursework, flexible scheduling, and the ability to repeat
lessons as many times as necessary as key benefits to overcoming barriers often encountered
in usual face-to-face classrooms. However, it is important to note that these authors were
referring to a rich online learning environment. They were not discussing Emergency Remote
Teaching; thus, it is difficult to gauge whether the benefits they describe would hold true
under the current pandemic situation.
How then do we reconcile our ethical obligation to students with exceptionalities when faced
with the need to quickly deliver course materials to meet this sudden change in educational

20 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

situation? Confronted with this dilemma, and the urgency to address students’ special needs
in as expedient a manner as possible, we returned to the Inclusive Leadership Framework
since it has previously served us well. As stated previously, the ILF encompasses core belief
statements that connect to a series of actions and strategies, for example:
Inclusive Leaders…
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

hold fast the belief that all students can learn;
value student voice and understand that students’ motivation increases when they have
a input into their learning, assessment tasks, and their Individual Education
Programme/Plans (IEP);
ensure that all students are integrated as valued members within their school
community;
actively promote teacher/paraprofessional engagement with professional development
and provide opportunities for their growth;
appreciate the importance of a broad range of diversity in learning experiences and
authentic assessments;
promote the implementation of creative and alternative activities and remove barriers to
innovation; and
foster an atmosphere of collaboration, based upon trust, respect, and courtesy, with
parents, advocates, and staff members, avoiding patronisation and remaining ever
mindful of the power differentials that exist. (based upon Fournier et al. 2016)

While the Emergency Remote Teaching approach was able to reach most of the learners in
our rural school community, it was not effective for all. In Lawson’s† story, we describe issues
that we encountered in supporting the learning of one student, Lawson, who has an
exceptionality, and the way in which we utilised the ILF to guide our instructional design to
support him during the pandemic.
†

Please note pseudonyms have been used throughout.

Lawson’s Story
Lawson is a grade two student with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. He is
imaginative, funny, and creative. In his traditional, face-to-face learning environment, he
receives the support of a paraprofessional who assists him with the flow of his day using a
number of specialised apps on his iPad. Lawson also has sensory needs, and as part of his
daily routine, he visits the sensory room which has specialised equipment prescribed by an
occupational therapist. This equipment allows for one-to-one interaction and support from
the paraprofessional. Academically, Lawson is lagging behind his peers in literacy and
numeracy. An effective strategy embedded into Lawson’s IEP is ‘task analysis’, which is
where the paraprofessional reinforces the lessons taught by the classroom teacher by
deconstructing them into smaller visual segments.

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 21

At home, Lawson enjoys playing with his ‘superheroes’ and helping to take care of and riding
his neighbour’s horse. Lawson’s mother, Mrs Fairbridge, is his sole caregiver and is also
currently dealing with significant personal health challenges, which limits her capacity to
provide considerable academic support to Lawson. Lawson’s family does not have reliable
access to the internet at home, which is partially due to their rural location and also due to
the expense involved in internet connectivity.
Unfortunately, faced with no reliable internet, Lawson was not able to access the Remote
Emergency Teaching that had been established by the classroom teacher. Given Mrs
Fairbridge’s current health issues, it was unreasonable to expect her to be able to establish
and support an at-home learning environment for her son. In discussing the complexities in
Lawson’s situation, there was a strong temptation for the team to declare the situation
‘impossible to manage’ as each team member was simultaneously coping with their own
stress related to the myriad of issues emerging from the pandemic.
As an educator fully committed to inclusive leadership, Lawson’s situation became an
important opportunity for me to demonstrate that, when we say we believe that all children
can learn, we do believe this is true at all times and under all circumstances. I felt Lawson
could not be left behind the rest of the school. The classroom teacher was feeling
overwhelmed at the task of setting up the Emergency Remote Teaching, so this was the right
juncture to turn to the ILF core skills which indicated that inclusive leaders should actively
build the capacity in their educators by promoting teacher/paraprofessional engagement with
professional development and provide opportunities for their growth. As the teacher was
struggling, Ms Carberry, the paraprofessional who had been working with Lawson prior to
closure, was ready to take on a greater teacher-leadership role in Lawson’s education in order
to alleviate the stress on the teacher. Ms Carberry was committed to focusing on effective
programming for Lawson. Together, Ms Carberry and I (as principal), returned to Lawson’s
IEP. Lawson’s plan had been created with his ‘student voice’ present and integrated
throughout, and this enabled us to make revisions for authentic learning during this social
distancing period within the boundaries of Lawson’s home situation.
Another core dimension of the ILF is leaders’ knowledge and expertise in innovative pedagogies.
This means inclusive leaders value innovation for differentiation and promote the
implementation of creative and alternative activities, while simultaneously removing barriers
to innovation. This dimension served as the basis for our decision making, as we
collaboratively sought to remove barriers related to the absence of reliable internet in
Lawson’s home, and we selected low-tech, hands-on, creative, and alternative tasks that used
a voice recorder and coloured print outs, all of which remained aligned with the curricula
outcomes specified in Lawson’s IEP.
In collaboration with the team, Ms Carberry created a series of activities based on Lawson’s
interests, home toys and equipment, and usual activities such as riding and caring for the
horse. The learning tasks were designed to strengthen his functional literacy and mathematics

22 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

skills. A weekly delivery schedule enabled the work to flow back and forth, with Ms Carberry
taking the lead in monitoring progress, while the teacher took responsibility for assessing the
completed work.
Employing the collaboration skills in the ILF (i.e. engaging in collaborative partnerships with
parents and paraprofessionals to support their child’s learning), we engaged with Mrs
Fairbridge who had always offered valuable insights into her son’s learning experiences at
school, and even though there were more challenges now as a result of the pandemic and her
own health issues, this was no time to forget the crucial role that she could play as an
important partner in her child’s education. More than ever, as an inclusive leader, I needed
to reinforce the ILF’s ethic of care regarding the value of parental advocacy with Lawson’s
educator-team by modelling and demonstrating trust, respect, and courtesy with parents,
advocates, and staff members; while avoiding patronisation and remaining mindful of the
power differential between educators and parents. While the trust the school had worked so
hard to build was still of vital importance, it was also crucial to bear in mind that trust is best
if it can be bi-directional. When a child with complex learning needs comes to school, every
effort should be made to ensure that parents trust the school-collective’s ability to provide
their child with the needed supports and appropriate learning opportunities, and this trust is
established through empathetic engagement with parents and their child, through active
listening (i.e. ILF – communication skills). Throughout the unique conditions of the pandemic,
the educator-team demonstrated they trusted Mrs Fairbridge to support Lawson’s at-home
learning programme to the best of her ability. While it is still early days related to Lawson’s
story, he has begun to engage in meaningful learning related to his interests and what is
available to him at home. Both Lawson and Mrs Fairbridge remain connected to our school
community and feel well-supported.

Discussion and Conclusion
The transition to Emergency Remote Teaching (Hodges et al. 2020) was, by necessity, rapid,
and while it offered a reliable and easy to establish approach, it did not incorporate careful
instructional design and planning which Means et al. (2014) highlighted as important.
Effective inclusionary leadership requires flexibility and innovative thinking which may
involve low-tech approaches. It requires a willingness to take risks, challenge the status quo,
and be the voice for those whose voice is often not heard, that is, the students and parents.
Whether the context is an Emergency Remote Teaching situation such as the one we are
currently facing during this pandemic, a rich online learning environment, or a traditional
face-to-face classroom, the core values and beliefs which guide our ethical actions must not
change! Fournier et al.’s (2016) Inclusive Leadership Framework (ILF) provided a necessary
structural framework to ground and guide our ethical decision making even within the
extraordinary challenges presented by a pandemic. Indeed, even though this pandemic
turbulence presented considerable and unanticipated challenges for me as a principal, and
my educators and paraprofessionals, we found the ILF to be valuable by helping us to remain

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 23

focused on: 1) promoting the learning of all students; 2) implementing successful inclusion
and differentiation strategies (pedagogical knowledge); 3) innovating our pedagogies and
assessment practices (inclusion knowledge); and 4) maintaining respectful collaboration and
engagement with parents, students, and the educator community (communication), which
were all navigated through our professionalism demonstrated by our core beliefs in an ethic of
care and appreciation of diversity.

References
Carnahan, C., & Fulton, L. (2013). Virtually forgotten: Special education students in cyber schools.
TechTrends, 57(4), 46-52.
Fournier, E., Scott, S., & Scott, D. E. (2016). Effective Leadership for Inclusionary Practice: Assessment
Considerations for Cognitively Challenged Students. In S. Scott, D. E. Scott & C. F. Webber (Eds.),
Leadership for Assessment, Inclusion, and Learning (Vol. 3, pp. 199-224). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)000001900723
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency
Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause Review (retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/
2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning).
Keeler, C. G., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: Are special needs being met? The American
Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640701298985
Kerr, M. S., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. C. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. The
Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.002
Marteney, T., & Bernadowski, C. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits of online instruction for
students with special education needs. British Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 178-194.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12129
Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning Online: What research tells us about whether, when and
how. London, UK: Routledge.

Author Details
Elaine Fournier
Faculty of Education
Western University
Email: efourni3@uwo.ca
Shelleyann Scott (PhD)
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
Email: sscott@ucalgary.ca
Donald E. Scott (PhD)
Werklund School of Education
University of Calgary
Email: descott@ucalgary.ca

24 | ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020

Leadership for Challenging Times
David Gurr and Lawrie Drysdale

Abstract: In times of great change, complexity, and uncertainty, like the global response to the 2020
pandemic, school leaders are challenged to adapt and navigate their way through the tide of internal
and external forces to create the best positive outcome for students and the school community. In this
paper we describe the pioneering future oriented principal work of David Loader, and present a model
for leadership in uncertain times. We propose that there are seven domains of practice (with underlying
capabilities) that will help school leaders in this period of uncertainty. The domains are: understanding
the context, setting direction, developing the organisation, developing people, improving teaching and
learning, influencing, and leading self.
Keywords: Leadership, capabilities, change, leadership practices

Introduction
In the 1990s, Methodist Ladies’ College (MLC) in Melbourne, Australia was a leading school
in the use of digital technology in teaching and learning. It was a ‘next practice’ school with
the adoption of 1:1 technology and associated supporting technologies to allow a more
constructivist and individualised approach to teaching and learning. David Loader was the
principal during this time of intense reform. He wrote about his leadership in a remarkable
book, The Inner Principal. First released in 1997, the book stands out for its candour and deep
reflection upon what it means to be a principal. It is also prescient for the current pandemic
situation in that Loader describes an approach to leadership that is deeply engaged with
futures in ways that few leaders are.
As we write this, it is April/May of 2020, and many people across the world are experiencing
a rapidly contracting physical world as they are confined to their homes to counter the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. As teachers at all levels are being asked to use
technologies to provide remote learning experiences, we have been drawn to consider how
leadership can help prepare educational organisations to respond well to unanticipated
future events in the short and long-term. We begin with one of Loader’s leadership views,
and then consider a framework that we use in our educational leadership development
programmes.

ISEA • Volume 48, Number 1, 2020 | 25

Responsive Direction
Loader had developed many important ideas that helped him to not only run a successful
school, but to also consider what might come next for the school. His use of technology to
enhance student learning was driven from an educational view, a belief that a more studentcontrolled, constructivist approach to learning was desirable. In one chapter, The Stumble
Principal, he described the process of arriving at the decision to adopt 1:1 computing, a process
that included four ‘stumbles’. First, there was the stumble that exposed Loader to the idea
that computers could help fulfil the school’s educational philosophy. Second, the idea of
using laptops was developed. Third, a philosophy of personal computing evolved. Fourth,
the conception of the school changed from a teaching institution to that of a learning
organisation. There was a fifth and last stumble that focused on changes that were occurring
in the conception of what a school should be – but more on that later. What is clear from
Loader’s description is that this was not uncontrolled planning, but a deliberate process of
venturing forth, stumbling over the unexpected, reflecting upon this, glimpsing new
possibilities, and then taking considered action. Loader’s leadership involved having a
driving vision or purpose, using prior knowledge and recognising the limitations of this
knowledge, having a curious and reflective disposition that sought new possibilities, the
involvement of many in change, and the decisiveness to act when a good idea or approach
appeared. Decisiveness was important for Loader and he identified two types of regret that
school leaders often experience: regret for what has happened, and regret for opportunities
lost. He challenges us: ‘When we next stumble, which of the two regrets will we have?’
(Loader 1997: 85).
We think of this as leadership that has a responsive direction orientation to change; others
may use labels like strategic intention. Responsive direction suggests that there is a clear sense
of direction, but one that is flexible enough to cater for changes...