Preparation of Zimbabwean special education administrators for inclusion in mainstream primary schools

Abstract

The current study explored the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion in mainstream primary schools in Zimbabwe. Entrenched within international research findings on preparation of special education administrators for inclusion, the present descriptive study drew on a purposive sample of 28 special education administrators. Throughout analysis, a comparative approach of organisation of data with continual adjustment, in order to ensure that the codes captured participants’ range of ideas, was utilised. Participants understood and had strong commitment and support for inclusion based on its benefits to both people with and without disabilities, nationally and globally. It was also found that participants were selective regarding children with disabilities to whom inclusive administrative services were rendered because of inadequate preparation. The study further established that limiting the appointment of special education administrators only to teachers with training in inclusion, provision of theory and practice of inclusion, comprehensive theory on inclusion and infusion of inclusion in school leadership and management courses in training of school administrators could enhance their preparation for inclusion. The current study serves as a springboard for future studies on special school administrator preparation for inclusion.

1 Introduction

Zimbabwe is located in southern Africa between the Zambezi River in the north and the Limpopo River in the south (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). It attained political independence from Great Britain in 1980 (Kuyayama-Tumbare 2013; Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education 2009). The post-colonial government has invested in massive construction of educational institutions from preschool to tertiary education levels, the training of teachers and the availability of materials and resources (Kuyayama-Tumbare 2013; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2012). Social justice and human rights underpin its social policies (Government of Zimbabwe 2012; Mutepfa et al. 2007). In Zimbabwe, education is a fundamental right of every child (Chireshe 2013; Mpofu and Shumba 2012). At 90%, Zimbabwe has the highest national literacy percentage in Africa (Education for All 2015).

The Ministry of Education of Zimbabwe constitutes the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) and the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development (MoHTES & TD) (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). The organogram of the MoPSE includes a minister, a permanent secretary, provincial education directors, district education officers and school heads (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). District education officers are special education administrators in inclusion in mainstream education (Majoko 2013). The general qualification for their appointment is at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Education (Government of Zimbabwe 2015). The MoPSE constitutes Infant Education and Primary School Education (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2012). Infant Education includes Early Childhood Development (ECD) A and B which caters for 3- to 4-year-olds and 4- to 5-year-olds, respectively (Mugweni and Dakwa 2013; Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education 2009). Primary School Education includes grades one to seven which caters for 6- to 12-year-olds (Kuyayama-Tumbare 2013; Majoko 2013). ECD A and ECD B are attached to primary schools (Kapfunde 2007; Mpofu et al. 2007). About 98% of the 5 625 primary schools provide ECD A and ECD B classes (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). The Curriculum Development Unit of Zimbabwe developed a common curriculum for the MoPSE (Kuyayama-Tumbare 2013). Learners sit for the Zimbabwe Schools Examinations Council Grade Seven Certificate at the end of Primary School Education (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2009). They are examined in English, Mathematics, General Paper and Ndebele/Shona (Education for All 2015). Practical subjects including Art and Craft, Home Economics, Music and Physical Education are non-examinable (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). Functional literacy and numeracy is the minimum expected educational outcome for all learners by the end of Primary School Education (Kapfunde 2007; Mugweni and Dakwa 2013; Mutepfa et al. 2007).

Secondary Education constitutes lower secondary and upper secondary school (Government of Zimbabwe 2012; Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). Lower secondary school includes forms one to four which cater for 13- to 16-year-olds (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2009). Sciences, practicals, liberal arts, commercials, languages and arts, which constitute 30 subjects, are offered (Government of Zimbabwe 2012). Learners choose subjects in which they wish to be examined (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). Learners sit for the Zimbabwe Schools Examinations Council General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level, at the end of Secondary Education (Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education 2009; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). Learners need to pass a minimum of five subjects, including Mathematics, English, History, Science or one of the technical/vocational subjects, to be awarded the General Certificate of Education, Ordinary Level, which is an admission requirement into upper secondary school (Majoko 2013). Upper secondary school includes forms five and six which cater for 16- to 18-year-olds (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2009). Languages, sciences, technical/vocational, humanities and mathematics, which constitute 24 subjects, are offered (Government of Zimbabwe 2012). Learners choose subjects in which they wish to be examined (Education for All 2015). Learners sit for the Zimbabwe Schools Examinations Council General Certificate of Education, Advanced Level, at the end of upper secondary school (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2009). Learners are required to obtain a passing grade in at least two subjects to be awarded the General Certificate of Education, Advanced Level, which is the admission requirement into university (Majoko 2013; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013).

The MoHTES & TD constitutes universities and colleges (Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education 2009). There are 12 universities, nine polytechnical colleges and 12 teachers’ training colleges (Education for All 2015). Universities award bachelor’s, honours, master’s and doctoral degrees, while colleges award certificates and diplomas (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). Learners who pass Ordinary Level and cannot enrol for Advanced Level, can pursue teacher education, nursing, agricultural training and polytechnic education which includes training and trade testing (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2012).

Zimbabwe has adopted the inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education since the Salamanca Statement and the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO 1994) reaffirmed its commitment to Education for All in 1994 (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). Although the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO 1994) informs inclusion in several countries, it does not specifically stipulate how it should be practised (Agbenyega 2007; Hornby 2010). Inclusion is defined differently across educational systems or countries because of conceptual difficulties in defining it including what counts as evidence of its practice (Ainscow 2005; Florian and Spratt 2013). Some define inclusion as educating more learners with special needs in mainstream schools while retaining special schools for a few in need of them (Forbes 2007; Florian and Rouse 2009), while others define inclusion as educating all learners including those with special needs in mainstream classrooms (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011; Forlin 2010). Proponents of the latter view perceive the education of learners with special needs in special schools as segregatory (Ballard 2012; Donnelly and Watkins 2011; Florian and Linklater 2010).

In Zimbabwe, inclusion entails the elimination of barriers to access, participation, acceptance and achievement of learners with disabilities in community, school and work settings (Majoko 2017; Mutepfa et al. 2007). Such learners have specific learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, visual impairments, mental retardation, autism, hearing impairments, emotional disturbances, orthopaedic impairments, other health impairments or traumatic brain injuries (Chakuchichi 2013; Kapfunde 2007; Mandina 2012). There are no reliable national official statistical data on the number and percentage of learners with disabilities in Zimbabwe despite the importance of such data in planning policy and provision (Mpofu and Shumba 2012; Mugweni and Dakwa 2013). Different reports reveal a significantly contrasting prevalence of disability (Majoko 2013). For instance, the last comprehensive study on the prevalence of disability among learners in Zimbabwe, the Inter-Censal Demographic Survey Report of 1997, reported that there were about 57 232 learners with disabilities (Mandipa and Manyatera 2014). In contrast, the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund Report of 1997 reported that there were about 150 000 learners with disabilities in Zimbabwe (Mandipa and Manyatera 2014). This is approximately three times as many as the first survey report. A comprehensive disability survey, as a part of a national census process, is needed since a significant number of babies are currently born with Human Immune Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, the majority of whom will also be orphaned (Mandipa and Manyatera 2014). Despite the lack of recent and reliable national official statistical data on the prevalence of disability, the most prevailing forms of disability among learners in Zimbabwe are hearing impairments, physical impairments, speech functional difficulties, mental impairments and intellectual and sensory impairments (Deluca et al. 2013; Musengi and Chireshe 2012; Mutepfa et al. 2007).

Zimbabwe has adopted several initiatives to promote the inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Majoko 2016; Mpofu et al. 2007). It is a signatory to several international human rights instruments including treaties, agreements, declarations, conventions, statements and charters (Majoko 2017; Mandipa and Manyatera 2014). These include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006), the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO 1994) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989) (Chireshe 2013; Mpofu and Shumba 2012). Zimbabwe has passed several policies and legislation on inclusion in mainstream education in compliance with civil rights movements as expressed in international human rights law (Majoko 2017; Mugweni and Dakwa 2013). These include the Zimbabwe Constitution Amendment Number 20 of 2013 Section 75, the Disabled Persons Act of Zimbabwe of 1996, the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 as revised in 2006 and recommended practice circulars, including the Principal Director’s Circular Number 20 of 2011, the Director’s Circular 12 of 2005, the Director’s Circular number 7 of 2005 and the Secretary’s Circular Number 14 of 2004 (Majoko 2017; Mugweni and Dakwa 2013).

The MoHTES & TD, in collaboration with the MoPSE and the University of Zimbabwe, oversees pre-service and in-service training of teachers in mainstream and special needs education in universities and colleges (Chireshe 2013; Education for All 2015). The Department of Teacher Education of the University of Zimbabwe, in consultation and partnership with the MoHTES & TD, the MoPSE and the Department of Schools Psychological Services and Special Needs Education, provides strategic support towards pre-service and in-service training of teachers in mainstream and special needs education (Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2012). The University of Zimbabwe, as well as its 18 associate teachers’ training colleges, provides pre-service and in-service training of teachers in mainstream and special needs education (Majoko 2016; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2012). Eleven primary school teachers’ training colleges and six universities in Zimbabwe offer full-time and part-time pre-service and in-service training of teachers in special needs education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels (Education for All 2015; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013).

The Department of Schools Psychological Services and Special Needs Education of Zimbabwe provides various programmes and services to promote the inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013; Ministry of Education, Sport, Arts & Culture 2009). These include staff development of national, provincial and district education officers, head teachers, teachers, Schools Psychological Services and Special Needs Education personnel and the expansion of educational provision (Mpofu et al. 2007; Majoko 2016). The Flemish Association for Development and Technical Assistance and other international and national donor agencies, in collaboration with the government, pool financial, material, technological and human resources for the inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Chakuchichi 2013; Chireshe 2011).

Significant demographic changes in the profile of mainstream classrooms in Zimbabwe, because of the pursuit of inclusion, require special education administrators who can support teachers to meet the increasingly diverse needs of primary school learners including those with disabilities (Chakuchichi 2013; Musengi and Chireshe 2012). This intensifies the necessity for the preparation of special education administrators for the inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Majoko 2013). The subsequent section presents special education administrator knowledge and skills for successful inclusion.

2 Special education administrator knowledge and skills for successful inclusion

The advanced standards for special education administrators include leadership and policy, programme development and organisation, research and enquiry, evaluation, professional development and ethical practice and collaboration (Bogatch 2011; Crockett et al. 2009). Despite the comprehensiveness of these standards, large gaps still exist regarding the knowledge and skills that special education administrators need to facilitate the successful inclusion of learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Hawley and James 2010; Diem and Carpenter 2013). Research reveals that it is fundamental to integrate content from special education, mainstream education, multicultural education and educational leadership for improved preparation of special education administrators in order to forge new designs for inclusive schools (Capper et al. 2010; Crockett 2011). This kind of leadership is needed to realise the successful inclusion of diverse learners with disabilities in mainstream education (Diem and Carpenter 2012; Gordon 2012). The knowledge and skills areas that go beyond the above-mentioned advanced standards include areas related to staff recruitment and retention, equity issues, instructional leadership, collaboration and assessment (Voltz and Collins 2010). Below is a presentation of each of these areas.

2.1 Staff recruitment and retention

Special education administrators need knowledge and skills in the recruitment and retention of a viable workforce in serving diverse communities (Capper et al. 2010; Theoharis 2007). Despite the evident special education teacher shortages throughout the world, such shortages are even greater in some diverse settings (Ainscow 2005; Chakuchichi 2013; Forlin 2010; Ncube 2006). For instance, in Botswana (Chhabra et al. 2010), Ghana (Agbenyega 2007) and South Africa (Naicker 2007), schools that are in high-poverty rural settings have more unfilled special education vacancies in comparison with those in urban settings. Similarly, learners with disabilities in high-poverty settings are significantly more likely to be served by a special education teacher who has not been fully trained for that position (Mpofu and Shumba 2012; Pazey and Cole 2012). Special education administrators need knowledge and skills in the recruitment of special education teachers for hard-to-staff schools (Crockett 2011; Passman 2008; Pazey et al. 2012; Theoharis 2009). These special education administrators require preparation to implement diverse recruitment strategies (Capper et al. 2010; Pazey and Cole 2012; Wagner and Katsiyannis 2010). Such strategies include that of Berry (2004) and Amrein-Beardsley (2007) which advocates for practices such as ‘grow your own’ programmes, which encourage high school learners and district para-professionals to pursue special education teaching careers. Other strategies include those designed to improve special education teachers’ working conditions (Passman 2008; Theoharis 2007).

Special education administrators also need skills in teacher retention (Harpell and Andrews 2010; Pazey et al. 2012; Shani and Ram 2015). New special education teachers are 2.5 times more likely than their mainstream education counterparts to relinquish their positions (Gehrke and McCoy 2007). New teacher attrition in urban settings is also greater than in suburban or rural settings (Artiles and Kozleski 2007). Thus, fledgling special education teachers in urban settings are vulnerable to attrition (Voltz and Collins 2010). Special education administrators need to be skilled in building high-impact mentoring programmes to support and retain new special education teachers in high-needs settings (Harpell and Andrews 2010; Passman 2008; Polat 2011; Shepherd and Hasazi 2008).

Support from building principals and teachers is a key variable associated with teacher retention (Harpell and Andrews 2010; Theoharis 2007). Special education administrators require preparation to facilitate these interactions (Green 2008; Jenlink 2009). Similarly, special education administrators need knowledge and skills in various approaches to mentoring that have significance for teachers in diverse settings (Pazey and Cole 2012). These include the New Teacher Center’s approaches (2002) to high-impact mentoring and mentoring for equity that illuminate fundamental considerations related to the academic achievement of diverse learners in high-poverty schools (Voltz and Collins 2010). Other induction strategies that special education administration should be familiar with include the provision of: continuous professional development opportunities; collaboration and networking opportunities, such as structuring peer coaching teams; and professional release days in which new special needs teachers visit the classrooms of experienced special needs teachers who can demonstrate strategies and skills (Capper et al. 2010; Green 2008; Theoharis 2009).

2.2 Equity issues

Special education administrators discover and address ethical issues of daily practice, including distribution of teaching expertise (Amrein-Beardsley 2007; Gordon 2012; Jenlink 2009). Teaching expertise is unequally distributed and learners in high-minority schools are less likely to be exposed to high-quality instruction because these institutions often experience a higher teacher turnover rate which results in less-experienced teaching staff (Voltz and Collins 2010). Culturally and linguistically diverse learners with and at risk for disabilities have the greatest need for quality instructional programmes of all learners in schools because of special education referrals, disciplinary actions and their disproportionate academic underachievement (Cartledge and Kourea 2008; Forbes 2007; Polat 2011). Cultural dissonance between the home and school and a lack of exposure to effective evidence-based instruction contributes to poor educational outcomes (Agbenyega 2007; Friend and Bursuck 2012). Special education administrators need knowledge and skills to develop more equitable strategies related to the recruitment of highly qualified teachers who are available (Passman 2008; Theoharis 2007), including the use of incentive programmes to attract teachers to high-needs schools (Amrein-Beardsley 2007; Berry 2004; Gehrke and McCoy 2007).

Special education administrators also need knowledge and skills to address other contemporary ethical dilemmas confronting the field such as the disproportionate representation of learners of colour in special education (Bogatch 2011). For instance, African American learners are more than three times as likely as their peers to be identified as having mental retardation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and minority learners are disproportionately represented among learners with multiple disability labels (U.S. Department of Education 2007). The disproportionate failure, dropout rates and placement of learners with disabilities in special education challenges teachers, special education administrators and educational systems (Florian and Rouse 2009; Kisanji and Saanane 2009; Naicker 2007). While international policies and legislation have evolved, which mandate equal access to educational settings, the equal opportunity to education continues to be a fundamental issue that must be addressed for learners with disabilities (Ainscow 2005; Black-Hawkins 2012; Voss and Bufkin 2011). Special education administrators need knowledge and skills to respond to ethical questions of how to guarantee equal educational opportunities for all and how to respond to individual learner and family needs for learner success (Kauffman and Landrum 2009; Pazey et al. 2012; Wagner and Katsiyannis 2010).

Besides illustrating disproportionate representation in a single category, minority learners may be disproportionately represented among learners with multiple disability labels (Cartledge and Kourea 2008). Learners with disabilities are more likely to be placed in restrictive educational settings once in special education (Berry 2010; Black-Hawkins 2012). Disproportionality manifests not only in who is placed into special education, but once in special education, in who has access to mainstream education environments and curricula (Amrein-Beardsley 2007; Artiles and Kozleski 2007; Smith and Kozleski 2005). For instance, while about 55% of White learners with disabilities spend 80% or more of the school day in mainstream education settings, only 46% of Hispanic learners with disabilities and 37% of African American learners with disabilities do so (U.S. Department of Education 2007). Similarly, in Tanzania (Kisanji and Saanane 2009), Mozambique (Ncube 2006) and Ghana (Agbenyega 2007), schools that accommodated White learners with disabilities during the colonial era are extremely well-resourced, whereas those that accommodate Black learners with disabilities are under-resourced.

The stigmatisation associated with the labelling process is among the reasons that special education administrators need to be prepared to address the issue of disproportionate representation (Harris-Murri et al. 2006; Theoharis 2009). ‘Mentally retarded’ and ‘emotionally retarded’ are among other labels with inherently negative connotations that can encourage teachers to teach down to learners, culminating in a self-fulfilling prophecy (Black-Hawkins and Florian 2012; Chireshe 2011). Disability labels usually reduce opportunities for learners so labelled to interact with typically developing peers, thereby restricting their opportunities to see typical academic and social behaviour models by counterparts (Black-Hawkins and Florian 2012; Donnelly and Watkins 2011; Pantic and Wubbels 2010). Grouping learners homogenously by ability depresses the academic achievement of learners assigned to low-ability groups (Friend and Bursuck 2012; Polat 2011). Special education administrators need knowledge and skills to assume leadership roles to assist districts and to respond appropriately to equity issues (Kisanji and Saanane 2009; Voss and Bufkin 2011). This can include cultural brokering which involves countering teachers’ or other stakeholders’ deficit views of diverse populations, modelling how to reach out to diverse learners and families and mediation of any cultural conflict between school and home (Amatea and West-Olatunji 2008; Berry 2004). Other strategies include the use of culturally responsive approaches to respond to intervention, examination of the special education eligibility determination process and preparation of teachers to implement culturally responsive pedagogy (Skiba et al. 2008).

2.3 Instructional leadership

Providing instructional leadership with respect to promoting inclusion in mainstream education is a challenge for special education administrators (Polat 2011; Wagner and Katsiyannis 2010). Special education administrators need preparation to prevent inappropriate referrals of culturally and linguistically diverse learners in inclusion in mainstream education (Artiles and Kozleski 2007; Theoharis 2007). This includes knowledge and skills in preventing underachievement through the establishment of a positive and supportive school environment and nurturance of collaborative relationships with parents; providing early interventions for struggling learners that reflects culturally responsive instruction; using diagnostic and prescriptive teaching that identifies strengths and weaknesses; and utilising collaboration between mainstream and special teachers to rise to the challenge of facilitating the successful inclusion of diverse learners with disabilities in mainstream classrooms (Garcia and Ortiz 2006). Special education administrators need these skills and knowledge to lead schools towards reducing the disproportionate representation of learners with disabilities in special education (Gordon 2012; Hornby 2010).

Special education administrators require skills in culturally responsive pedagogy, including strategies for strengthening teachers’ skills in this area (Ainscow 2005; Bogatch 2011; Deisinger 2007; Jenlink 2009). For instance, teacher-directed models of professional development such as that of Voltz et al. (2003) provide a promising vehicle for development of teachers. This model invites teachers to select individual goals to outline areas in which they perceive they most need growth. They then identify strategies such as reading/study groups and action research that they think would be most helpful in assisting them in attaining their goals (Voltz and Collins 2010). Professional development strategies such as these permit special education administrators to meet teachers where they are and to scaffold them to the next level (Shepherd and Hasazi 2008).

Teachers often perceive tension between individualised instruction and standard-based reform (Black-Hawkins and Florian 2012; Donnelly and Watkins 2011; Flecha and Soler 2013). On the one hand, teachers feel as though it is demanded that they designate individual learning goals (Chireshe 2011; Florian and Linklater 2010; Ncube 2006), while, on the other hand, they feel as if they are obliged to ensure that all learners reach the same goals simultaneously (Kim and Rouse 2011; Pantic and Florian 2015; Voss and Bufkin 2011). Special education administrators require knowledge and skills to talk through issues with teachers and to lead them in the development of Individualised Education Programmes (Amatea and West-Olatunji 2008; Bogatch 2011; Diem and Carpenter 2012; Gordon 2012).

Similarly, teachers perceive tensions between standards-based reform and inclusion as they view the two as competing, instead of complementary agendas (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011; Kim and Rouse 2011; Kisanji and Saanane 2009). While standards-based reform emphasises teacher standardisation of learning outcomes for all learners (Florian and Spratt 2013; Naicker 2007; Rouse 2008), inclusion emphasises teacher accommodation of greater learning diversity (Forlin 2010; Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011; Majoko 2016). These frustrations are even more pronounced in contexts based on an array of cultural, linguistic, social and economic differences that aggravate the complexity of the teaching process (Ballard 2012; Florian and Rouse 2009; Pantic and Florian 2015). The more diverse a school population is, the more complicated it becomes to realise the achievement of goals of inclusivity which require adequate progress to be evident across all subgroups (Chireshe 2013; Hornby 2010; Pantic and Wubbels 2010).

Accountability assessments often motivate the reluctance of mainstream teachers and administrators to embrace the inclusion of learners with disabilities for fear that the scores of these learners will depress school or class scores (Boscardin 2005; Crockett et al. 2009; Kisanji and Saanane 2009). Standard test-driven accountability systems are also associated with increased referral rates to special education (Edgemon et al. 2006; McTighe and Brown 2005). Special education administrators need knowledge to work with mainstream education administrators, teachers and specialist teachers as they grapple with these issues of individualisation and inclusion (Crockett et al. 2009; Passman 2008). Special education administrators also need preparation in the implementation of professional development models that support teachers in these areas (Diem and Carpenter 2012). These include Voltz’s (2006) model which provides a framework that scaffolds the thinking of teachers with respect to the elements of instruction that must be examined for successful inclusion in mainstream education (Gordon 2012). These elements include variables related to content, assessment, collaboration, methods, materials and environment involved in instruction (Hawley and James 2010).

2.4 Collaboration

To promote successful inclusion in mainstream education, special education administrators need skills in collaboration (Boscardin 2005; Kauffman and Landrum 2009; Wagner and Katsiyannis 2010). Special education administrators need to work effectively with professionals within schools including mainstream education administrators, counsellors, teachers in mainstream, bilingual, special and remedial education and para-professionals as well as those external to schools including families and parents, community groups, social service agencies, universities and businesses (Bays and Crockett 2007; Theoharis 2009; Wagner and Katsiyannis 2010). Special education administrators who embrace international, state and local mandates for education reform as opportunity to work collaboratively for the good of all learners nurture environments of possibilities (Green 2008).

Special education administrators need to work in collaboration with mainstream education administrators to establish contextual factors that are conducive to the success of learners with disabilities who are included in mainstream classrooms (Crockett et al. 2009; Harris-Murri et al. 2006). This involves collaborative roles such as working with: mainstream education administrators and teachers to raise their awareness about the needs of learners with disabilities; mainstream and special education teachers in developing school climates that facilitates inclusion; mainstream education administrators in provision of supports for inclusive teaching such as joint planning time; and mainstream education administrators and teachers to enhance access to the mainstream curriculum for learners with disabilities (Boscardin 2005; De Valenzuela et al. 2006; Hawley and James 2010). These roles require special education administrators to have solid foundation in the structure and function of mainstream education including the mainstream education course of study (Diem and Carpenter 2013; Harris-Murri et al. 2006; Shani and Ram 2015).

Special education administrators need preparation in working with mainstream education administrators on disciplining learners with disabilities to assume to promote successful inclusion (Diem and Carpenter 2013; McTighe and Brown 2005; Shepherd and Hasazi 2008). Schools confront the challenge of how to best balance increased expectations and demands for educational outcomes in compliance with policies and legislation on inclusion, while maintaining a safe environment and observing the rights of learners with disabilities (Flecha and Soler 2013; Florian 2012; Kim and Rouse 2011). Special education administrators require knowledge and skills in incorporating into their discipline policy several promising alternatives to suspension for all learners (Bays and Crockett 2007). These include strategies that provide mini-courses or skill modules focusing on the domain of misbehaviour, problem-solving in conjunction with behavioural contracting, community service requirements, coordinated behaviour plans, enhanced parental involvement and counselling (Capper et al. 2010; Hawley and James 2010). Special education administrators require preparation to support building administrators to implement such strategies.

Special education administrators require knowledge and skills to work with diverse families (Bogatch 2011; Friend and Bursuck 2012). Parental involvement is often negligible, sporadic or altogether non-existent within the context of high-poverty schools (Crockett 2011; Deisinger 2007; Pazey and Cole 2012). As levels of poverty increase, participation of parents decreases in such activities as sports events, parent-teacher conferences, open houses, arts events and academic demonstration (Cartledge and Kourea 2008; Garcia and Ortiz 2006). Similarly, families whose language and cultural backgrounds differ from those of the dominant society report diminished home-school relationship (Friend and Bursuck 2012; U.S. Department of Education 2007). Special education administrators require knowledge and skills in models of family involvement that embrace diversity (Garcia and Ortiz 2006; Gately 2005). These include Kroth and Edge (2007) mirror model of family involvement which encourages teachers’ examination of individual family strengths and needs in planning for family involvement that respects diversity. This model respects diversity and acknowledges the necessity for mainstream and special teachers in inclusive schools to work collaboratively in planning and implementation of family involvement strategies (Voltz and Collins 2010).

2.5 Assessment

The inclusion of learners with disabilities in accountability assessments is a key challenge of administrators (Deisinger 2007; Green 2008; McTighe and Brown 2005; Passman 2008). This is a result of the importance of demonstrating growth among learners with disabilities in the efforts of schools to realise adequate yearly progress goals (Deluca et al. 2013; Florian and Linklater 2010). The effective implementation of an appropriate assessment and accountability system, inclusive of its application to learners with exceptional needs, requires the cooperation of all parents, learners, teachers, administrators, para-professionals and related personnel in its planning, application and evaluation (Chhabra et al. 2010; Diem and Carpenter 2013; McTighe and Brown 2005). Special education administrators need preparation in leadership roles to advance the agenda of the inclusion of learners with disabilities in accountability systems (Browder et al. 2007; Friend and Bursuck 2012; McTighe and Brown 2005). Special education administrators require knowledge and skills to provide guidance on issues such as the utilisation of appropriate accommodations on large-scale assessments (Edgemon et al. 2006; Voltz 2006). This involves issues related to the identification of who receives accommodations and the nature of such accommodations (Amatea and West-Olatunji 2008; Browder et al. 2007; Harpell and Andrews 2010). Special education administrators also need preparation in providing guidance on the use of alternate assessments with learners with significant cognitive disabilities (Edgemon et al. 2006). Special education administrators require knowledge and skills to work with teachers to ensure that alternate assessments are embedded in academic content, referenced to the learner’s grade level, vary from grade-level content breadth or depth and differentiated in achievement across the grade level among other assessment criteria (Browder et al. 2007; Friend and Bursuck 2012).

Special education administrators need knowledge and skills in assisting teachers to use assessment to inform instruction in order to promote inclusion (Bays and Crockett 2007; Harris-Murri et al. 2006; Polat 2011). This includes using assessments to determine what to teach and how learners learn best (Deisinger 2007; Jenlink 2009). These determinations usually involve the use of informal teacher-made assessments that provide the information needed to meet individual learning needs (Passman 2008; Shepherd and Hasazi 2008). Informal teacher-made assessments are the tests teachers prepare and administer to evaluate classroom achievement of children, method of teaching used, and other school curricular programmes. Special education administrators require knowledge and skills in programme evaluation and data-based decision-making which are also key in inclusive settings (Harpell and Andrews 2010). These focus on multiple data levels including state-level data, district-level data, school-level data, teacher-level data and learner-level data (U.S. Department of Education 2007; Voltz 2006). Special education administrators need knowledge and skills to promote knowledge-based decisions and evidence-based instructions to solve educational problems to evoke better educational outcomes for learners and improved instructional practices for teachers (Boscardin 2005; Cartledge and Kourea 2008). Special education administrators also need knowledge and skills in strategies for examination and evaluation of teacher practices in inclusive settings (Theoharis 2009). These include Gately’s (2005) Core-Teaching Rating Scale for Supervisors that special education administrators need to design or identify for facilitation of teacher evaluation in co-taught settings (Amatea and West-Olatunji 2008).

3 Rationale for the study

In spite of the adoption of inclusion in both developed and developing countries, variations characterise its practice (Ainscow 2005; Agbenyega 2007; Pantic and Florian 2015). This is not only true between continents and between countries, but also within continents, countries, states, provinces, districts, clusters and circuits (Chireshe 2013; Majoko 2017). This is particularly evident in the Midlands province of Zimbabwe in which there are pronounced differences between resettlements, ghost towns, farms, mines, rural growth points and urban areas and districts with significantly higher per capita incomes than those where the majority of people live far below the poverty datum line (Education for All 2015; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). Special education administrators nurture the tone for inclusion in their educational institutions through provision of a shared visionary leadership and administrative authority (Majoko 2013); hence, their preparation for it warrants research. Since inclusion is a relatively recent phenomenon globally, it is fundamental for stakeholder individuals, organisations and institutions, including the Government of Zimbabwe, to glean lessons from other nations while establishing and reinforcing the foundation for its institutionalisation (Mpofu et al. 2007; Musengi and Chireshe 2012).

Studies reveal that research on the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion is foundational in strategising and the institutionalisation of needs-responsive interventions for fostering positive attitudes, values, knowledge, skills, competencies and understandings in their pre-service and in-service training (Majoko 2013). The pursuit of inclusion and the significantly increasing number of learners with disabilities educated in mainstream school classrooms makes it imperative to examine the state of preparation of special education administrators for inclusion in Zimbabwe as a springboard for strategising on the enhancement of their preparation for service delivery. Since preparation of special education administrators for inclusion is a relatively recent fundamental pedagogical innovation in Zimbabwe, it is important to tap into their experiences, practices and perspectives regarding the adequacy of their preparation for informed individual and institutional capacity building (Mandina 2012; Musengi and Chireshe 2012). Because inclusion is a landmark educational reform in Zimbabwe as elsewhere, this study is timely. Despite the significantly increasing number of learners with disabilities who are educated in mainstream classrooms and the pursuit of inclusion in Zimbabwe, there is a dearth of research on special education administrators’ preparation for it. The researcher’s literature search found limited quantitative studies (for example, Chireshe 2011; Mandina 2012) on teacher preparation for inclusion. This study is perhaps the first of its kind in the country that was entrenched in qualitative methodology in order to understand the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion. This study specifically addressed the subsequent research question:

How do special education administrators in the Midlands province of Zimbabwe perceive their preparation for inclusion?

4 Recruitment

The Midlands province, where this study was carried out, constitutes 14 districts with a population of 766 public primary schools. Two special education administrators were purposively recruited from each of the 14 districts in the province (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013). The recruitment of special education administrators was done through contacts with Midlands provincial education offices. The researcher distributed information letters to contacts in the designated district education offices. Following the district education offices’ approval of the execution of the study, information letters were distributed to special education district administrators who met the inclusion criteria for participation. These criteria included at least: a teachers’ diploma in education; three years of experience as a special education administrator; and currently a special education administrator in one of the educational districts in Midlands province. A total of 28 purposively sampled, nineteen males and nine females, two per district, participated in this study. With 28 participants, data saturation was realised as revealed by redundancy of themes (Cohen et al. 2007; Creswell 2009; Silverman 2009). In addition to the primary school teachers’ diploma, eight participants had Bachelor of Education in Primary Education, 17 had Bachelor of Education in Educational Management, and three had Bachelor of Education in Special Needs Education degrees. Participants’ experience as special education administrators ranged from 11 to 29 years, and they were aged between 42 and 59 years. Biographical information is provided in Table 1. The process of gaining entry to the districts, selecting participants, developing and maintaining rapport, and ethical protocols was carefully considered by the researcher.

Table 1 Biographical details of participants

4.1 Procedures

In order to explore the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion, a qualitative phenomenological approach, particularly individual interviews (Denzin and Lincoln 2005; McMillan and Schumacher 2006), was utilised. Data were solicited from the participants using an information sheet and semi-structured interview protocol. The information sheet focused on demographics including questions on age, gender, educational/professional background and experience as a special education administrator. These variables were assumed to influence responses to the interviews. For instance, if the participant was trained in special education (versus did not train in special education), then the participant might be competent in administration of the field. An extensive literature search related to preparation of special education administrators for inclusion was executed. An initial interview protocol was developed based on the literature review and reviewed by experts in special education administrator preparation for inclusion. In a revised version of the protocol which was subsequently piloted by a special education administrator, all expert feedback was addressed. The protocol was administered following further revision.

Individual participants chose the date, time and venue of the interview. With the exception of three interviews, all interviews were executed face-to-face with the participants. Research reveals that in-person and telephone interviews may accumulate similar results (Sturges and Hanrahan 2004). Obtaining the consent of the participants and building trust procedures, including reminding them that their interviews did not impact their service delivery as special education district administrators, was adhered to (Creswell 2009). In addition, measures to safeguard the anonymity of all the participants, including exclusion of identifying information in field notes or transcriptions, were observed to ensure that participants felt comfortable sharing their experiences and perspectives (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). Prior to the onset of the interview, the researcher introduced himself, the study purpose and his personal and professional qualifications in relation to special education and the inclusive school movement. The researcher described his experience as a special education and inclusive education teacher, and his experience of the special education administrators while serving in those capacities, as well as his current role as a teacher educator for special and inclusive education. Because of the close association between the researcher and the special education administrator preparation for inclusion, participants may have felt uncomfortable engaging in open discussion about their preparation, especially if they perceived that their process and content of preparation was inconsistent with his. Aware of this potential issue, the researcher reflected upon the potential power differential between him and the participants and his own biases and experiences throughout data collection and analysis. The two critical readers who were trained in the operational definitions also considered this throughout data analysis. On average, each interview lasted one hour and all questions that constituted the interview protocol were asked of each individual participant. Seidman (2006) modified version of the three-part interview through which the interviewer builds trust and double-checks inconsistent statements was utilised, as the interview and member-checking saturation was realised without the necessity for follow-up interviews. The researcher collated reflective and descriptive notes during each interview (David and Sutton 2004). Whereas descriptive field notes captured the tone of the interviewee, reflective field notes captured the insights of the interviewer. An administrative professional audio recorded and transcribed verbatim all interviews. In order to correct errors, the researcher and two critical readers who were trained in the operational definitions, listened to the recordings together with each transcription. The following questions were designed to collect data from individual special education administrators on their preparation for inclusion:

• How long have you been a special education administrator (probe for demographics, administration experience, professional training etc.)?

• Describe your working day.

• How do you understand inclusion?

• How do you view inclusion?

• How were you prepared for inclusion?

• How do you view the adequacy of your preparation for inclusion?

• How do you experience supporting inclusion?

• How can the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion be enhanced?

• What else would you like to add that we did not talk about regarding your preparation for inclusion?

4.2 Data analysis

The researcher and two critical readers who were trained in the operational definitions utilised a constant comparative analysis to code themes in the interview transcripts and field notes and the triangulation of additional data sources including information sheets. In order to familiarise themselves with the data, the researcher and the critical readers read each transcript several times (Wiersma and Jurs 2009). They coded all text related to the preparation process utilising a line-by-line approach. There was comparison of each piece of data with all other data (Bryman 2004) which was highlighted and notated using a phrase. Comparison of each new piece of data to discern if new data was a representation of a new idea, or should be a component of existing data, was made by the researcher and the critical readers. Examination of the codes and creation of a codebook was done after coding all the data. The researcher and the critical readers examined all the data again in order to ensure appropriate coding of all data and to discern whether any additional codes should be added utilising the code book. Upon checking and confirmation of the codes, the researcher and the critical readers then grouped the codes into categories and organised the categories into themes entrenched in the data. Following the development of themes, an outside observer, a professor of research, was informed of the research question and independently identified themes. The themes developed by the researcher and the critical readers were compared with those of the research professor to serve as an inter-rater reliability index. Inter-rater reliability was established by dividing the number of agreements by the total of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Inter-rater was computed to be 88% for the themes. According to Law and MacDermid (2008), reliability of at least 80% is considered as reliable and unlikely to occur by chance. Cohen’s kappa, which is considered as a more robust method of establishing agreement as the calculation corrects for chance, was further utilised to assess agreement between the researcher and critical readers and the research professor. Cohen’s kappa was computed to be 0.85 for the themes.

4.3 Trustworthiness

The qualitative design components were selected in this study in order to optimise the trustworthiness of the findings in representation of the perspectives of the participants (Silverman 2009). Through triangulation of sources, execution of a negative case analysis and member-checking, credibility and confirmation were realised (Cohen et al. 2007). Inclusion of different data sources and multiple methods of data collection including transcripts, field notes, external evaluation and information sheets, facilitated triangulation. In order to ensure that any and all representations of professional preparation were included, a negative case analysis was utilised (Silverman 2009). A list of themes was given to each interviewee for member-checking. All participants responded that the themes accurately captured their expressions. Documentation of a natural history of the methodology ascertained the transferability and dependability of the findings of the study. All participants were qualified teachers although they had different sociocultural background levels of education and personal connections to the inclusive school movement. In order to allow for a full range of findings (Creswell 2009), a full range of data, inclusive of deviant cases, was included in this study. The responses of the participants from the initial interviews were utilised to inform later interviews. The researcher probed themes stated in earlier interviews in the later interviews. Two critical readers were used in order to ensure that perspectives of individual participants were not outweighing those of their fellow participants.

5 Findings

Through analysis of data, four themes emerged, namely conception of inclusion; attitudes towards inclusion; concerns about preparation for inclusion; and strategies to enhance preparation for inclusion, which are presented in the subsequent section.

5.1 Conception of inclusion

Embedded in human rights and social justice, most participants (21) narrowly conceptualised inclusion as teaching and learning in mainstream classrooms that is tailored to the individual needs of all the learners, as confirmed in the following selected statements (pseudonyms used in order to ensure privacy and confidentiality of the participants). For instance, Musara argued:

Inclusion entails context-specific adaptations and modifications in mainstream classroom, teaching and learning content, strategies, provisions, assessment and settings to ensure access, participation and achievement of all children, including those with disabilities in their neighborhood educational institutions in the community of their age-appropriate peers. African and western human rights and social justice principles of provision of accessible, equitable and quality education for all informs inclusion.

Mbudzi added:

[Inclusion] is education that is responsive to the full range of needs of both educands with and without developmental delays, and those who are vulnerable to underachievement, marginalisation or exclusion in mainstream neighborhood schools. It is in keeping with national and international human rights and social justice agenda.

Huku further elaborated:

Inclusion is learner-centred pedagogy which meets the individual needs, characteristics and interests of learners, with and without exceptionalities, in their local regular education schools through identification and removal of barriers to learning.

Inversely, entrenched in human rights and social justice, some participants (7) broadly conceptualised inclusion as teaching and learning in mainstream classrooms that is adapted to the unique needs of all learners. This is coupled with the engagement and success of all stakeholders in and out of mainstream schools.

Dzoka, for instance, expressed:

Inclusion is a continuous process of problem-solving by all stakeholders including government, teachers, parents and their children with and without developmental delays and school communities, so as to respond to the individual needs of all children without their exclusion in their local community mainstream school classrooms.

Ngoda added:

Inclusion entails access, participation, acceptance and achievement of all stakeholders in and out of mainstream schools. International human rights and social justice legal framework informs inclusion.

Godo further elaborated:

Inclusion is access, acceptance, participation and success of all stakeholder individuals, organisations and institutions in mainstream education regardless of their individuality.

5.2 Attitudes towards inclusion

All participants displayed positive attitudes towards inclusion. Whereas most (25) participants directly referred to inclusion as the best practice in education which guarantees the ‘fundamental right’ of all learners to education in their neighbourhood mainstream classrooms with their age-appropriate peers, some participants (3) referred to it as a conduit for realisation of the global commitment to ensure education for all learners including those with unique needs in mainstream classrooms within their communities. The accrued social and educational benefits of inclusion to both learners with and without disabilities, including the perceived entrenchment of the philosophy in their home and community experiences and lives, informed participants’ positive attitudes towards it. For instance, Gara viewed inclusion as:

A model service delivery option in education that affords both children and adults with and without disabilities their fundamental right to be served and serve in their neighbourhood pedagogical settings.

Chako elaborated:

Inclusive schools comprise diverse children whom we naturally mingle with, deliver and receive services from in community functions and services such as weddings and religious gatherings.

Tsoko added:

Inclusion facilitates enrolment of both children with and without developmental challenges in their neighborhood schools in their natural proportions. It therefore mirrors home and community life of these children.

Most participants (24) felt that inclusion fostered social cohesion and social acceptance of learners with disabilities and their parents in mainstream school and community life. While parents of learners with disabilities in mainstream schools were perceived to assume duties and responsibilities including leadership roles in these institutions and communities as a result of inclusion, learners with and without disabilities were viewed to be equally valued to succeed in educational, economic and social spheres of mainstream schools as a result of inclusion. For instance, Hanga expressed:

Across the country, families participate in meetings, conferences and workshops conducted in schools in which their children with disabilities are included. Consequently, these families are socially accepted in their communities. In some schools, parents of children with disabilities are chairpersons of School Development Committees, community spokespersons and leaders of communities, political parties and churches.

Similarly, Pfumvu added:

Inclusion facilitates and safeguards equal, access, participation and achievement of typically developing children and their atypically developing counterparts in the social, education and economic domains of their neighborhood mainstream communities, through individual and institutional adaptations in response to their uniqueness.

All participants (28) noted that inclusion socialised learners with and without disabilities to co-exist through their perceived interaction in mainstream school core and extra-curricular activities. Such socialisation was felt to result in the accommodation and celebration of human diversity among both learners with and without disabilities, the enhancement of their academic performance and ultimately the creation of inclusive communities. Nyati, for example, expressed that:

Social acceptance permeates inclusive schools as children with disabilities and their typically developing peers are acculturated to accept, tolerate and accommodate each other because of their interaction in curricular and extra-curricular activities, including class work, homework, sports, drama and playhouses.

Ngana added:

Schools that are inclusive of both learners with and without developmental challenges generate inclusive families, villages, communities, countries, continents and world as they inculcate in these learners acceptance and tolerance of human diversity including political affiliation, religious, social and economic status. Learners with and without disabilities are socialised to co-exist as they engage with each other in academic and sport and recreation activities.

Toenda further argued:

Responsible citizenship is fostered in educands without developmental delays as they work with, assist and support their counterparts with diverse needs, abilities, disabilities, talents and gifts, in school and out of school activities. As educands without developmental delays support their atypically developing peers in academic and social domains, their performance in these domains is enhanced because of the law of practice.

Most participants (24) perceived that inclusion fostered in typically developing learners positive attitudes towards their peers with disabilities including socialising with them. Inclusion was seen to inculcate social acceptance of learners with disabilities in schools and communities. It was believed that inclusion eliminated stigmatic cultural teachings in schools and communities, including the contractibility of disabilities, and developed in school heads and teachers positive attitudes towards disabilities because of its perceived benefits, including cost-effectiveness and improved academic performance of schools. Svika, for instance, reported that

Inclusion was foundational in elimination of culturally entrenched negative attitudes of typically developing children towards exceptionality, as it is on record that nationally these children were scared and avoided their peers with disabilities when schools initially adopted the philosophy.

Gamba elaborated:

On the initial paradigm shift from exclusion to inclusion, parents of learners without disabilities were against it as they feared that their children would contract disabilities based on cultural teachings. Social acceptance of learners with disabilities in our schools and communities has since replaced negative dispositions towards these children.

Ndaenda added:

Most school heads and teachers had negative attitudes towards inclusion during its adoption phase. With the realisation of the academic, social and career benefits of the philosophy, including improvement of the academic performance of schools and its cost-effectiveness, they are all supportive of it.

5.3 Concerns about preparation for inclusion

All participants (28) felt that they lacked the knowledge and skills to administer inclusion in mainstream schools. While 25 participants believed that they lacked theory and practice on the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools since they were trained as mainstream teachers, three participants perceived that they lacked theory and practice of the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools since they only received training on the basics of inclusion pertaining to teaching and learning in classrooms. Nguruve, for instance, expressed:

Since I trained as a teacher and promoted to a special education administrator before the worldwide adoption of inclusion, I lack training in its theory and practice.

Bimha added:

I am a mainstream teacher who was appointed as a special education administrator because of my teaching experience. I am therefore unable to effectively support teachers in practising inclusion because I did not train in it.

Komba further argued:

I only trained as a teacher and not as a school administrator. I was trained in basics of inclusion as they relate to teaching and learning rather than inclusive school administration.

All participants (28) selected children with specific disabilities for inclusion in schools under their administration. Most participants (25) felt that they lacked exposure to several disability categories in their teacher training. Some participants (3) believed that they were trained in inclusion with respect to classroom teaching and learning only and also lacked exposure to several disability categories in such training. Tsaona, for example, articulated:

I did not train in several disability categories including hearing and visual impairments, autism, and behavioural and emotional disorders. I therefore lack the competence to support schools in cultivation of cultures and ethos that can facilitate effective pedagogy of these children, as well as support teachers and parents in the teaching and learning of these children.

Takura added:

Our initial teacher education was narrow in scope as we learnt only limited aspects on inclusion. We were not educated on administration of inclusive schools as well as other disability categories, including behavioural disorders and intellectual disabilities.

Nhoro further elaborated:

My in-service teacher training focused on inclusive classroom practices. I am therefore incompetent in administration of inclusive schools.

5.4 Strategies to enhance preparation for inclusion

Most participants (25) noted that the exposition of special education administrators to pre-service and in-service training constituting comprehensive theory and practice of the administration of inclusive schools can enhance their preparation to serve in these institutions. Seventeen participants believed that special education administrators’ exposition to training that strikes a ‘deft balance between theory and practice’ of administration of inclusive schools could enhance these administrators’ preparation for service delivery while eight participants felt that pre-service and in-service training that exposes special education administrators to the content and strategies of the administration of inclusive schools could enhance these administrators’ preparation for service delivery. For instance, Tsamvi expressed:

Colleges and universities in the country need to provide us [special education administrators] with adequate training in theory and practice of inclusive school administration. We need administration practice in inclusive institutions with qualified and experienced mentors during training.

Tsvana added:

Mainstream pre-service and in-service training should expose special education administrators to fundamentals of inclusion including disability categories, curriculum issues, management of child and parent diversity, legal framework and administration of inclusive schools, to equip them with the competence to support and assist teachers and school heads in management of inclusive pedagogical content, environments and processes.

Hweru further elaborated:

Content on inclusive school administration needs to be infused in pre-service and in-service school leadership and management courses so as to prepare trainees for service delivery in inclusive schools. Such training needs to constitute content and strategies of inclusion to prepare special education administrators to support teachers in its practice.

From a divergent perspective, some participants (3) felt that limiting the appointment of special education administrators to individuals with training on administration of inclusive schools could enhance effective and successful service delivery in these institutions. These participants viewed such administrators as having expertise in administration of inclusive schools. Such included perceived competence in individual and institutional capacity building to facilitate effective inclusion in mainstream schools. Shinda, for instance, argued:

Appointment of special education administrators should be limited to only those with training in inclusion with expertise in staffing, addressing equity and equality issues and staff developing teachers. Such expertise is a hub in realisation effective inclusion in mainstream schools.

Gonye elaborated:

Knowledge is power. The government needs to pass and enforce policy on promotion of teachers as special education administrators. Such policy should mandate that only teachers with training in inclusive education can be promoted to be special education administrators. Such teachers are equipped with the strategies and content for effective administration of inclusion in mainstream schools.

6 Discussion

This study examined the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion in mainstream primary schools in Midlands province of Zimbabwe. Participants perceived that they lacked knowledge and skills in administration of inclusion in mainstream primary schools. Similarly, previous studies reveal that special education administrators lack knowledge and skills to provide the vision and leadership that is needed to guide teachers in both special and mainstream education as they deliver instructional programmes to meet the needs of diverse learners with disabilities (Bays and Crockett 2007; Diem and Carpenter 2013). Overall, participants conceptualised inclusion as teaching and learning in mainstream classrooms that meet the unique needs of all learners. Participants’ conceptualisation of inclusion was informed by two considerations, namely human rights and social justice on the one hand, and responding to learner diversity in mainstream education on the other hand. Past studies, however, reveal that inclusion also entails consideration of equal access, participation, acceptance and achievement of all stakeholders including communities, parents and learners in lifelong learning in several forms in and out of mainstream school and college education (Berry 2010; Kim and Rouse 2011; Pantic and Florian 2015). Although all the participants perceived that they had inadequate knowledge and skills for administration of inclusion in mainstream schools, some of them exhibited a comprehensive understanding of it. Positive attitudes of these participants towards inclusion and its institutionalisation in schools under their administration may have informed their comprehensive understanding of the philosophy.

Participants displayed positive attitudes towards inclusion despite their perceived inadequate knowledge and skills for its administration in mainstream schools. This finding contradicts previous studies which demonstrate that there is a positive correlation between the preparation of special education administrators for inclusion and their positive attitudes towards it (Amrein-Beardsley 2007; Bays and Crockett 2007; Shani and Ram 2015). The perception that inclusion was a best practice in education that guaranteed the realisation of the fundamental right of all learners to mainstream education in compliance with the global commitment underpinned the positive attitudes of the participants towards it. Similarly, previous studies show that inclusive schools celebrate differences, support learning and respond to individual needs resulting in education for all (Deluca et al. 2013; Donnelly and Watkins 2011; Florian 2012). Participants’ positive attitudes towards inclusion were also entrenched in its perceived alignment with their experiences and lives and those of learners with and without disabilities in their homes and communities. This included the perception that it facilitated the interaction of individuals with and without disabilities and the enrolment of both learners with and without disabilities in their community schools in their natural proportions, that is, in proportion to their presence in the general population in their school community neighbourhood. Thus, the perceived ecological relevance of inclusion to special education administrators and other stakeholders, including learners with and without disabilities, can positively influence their attitudes towards it. In the same vein, past studies indicate that inclusion entails equitable access and participation of all learners in their neighbourhood mainstream schools and in the community of their age-appropriate peers regardless of their individual difficulties and differences (Black-Hawkins and Florian 2012; Forbes 2007; Forlin 2010).

Participants felt that inclusion facilitated social cohesion and social acceptance of learners with disabilities and their parents in their schools and communities. Previous studies also indicated that inclusion creates inclusive communities and societies (Hornby 2010; Mandina 2012; Rouse 2008). Inclusion was perceived to facilitate the involvement of parents of learners with disabilities in mainstream schools and communities and their assumption of roles and responsibilities in these institutions. It was felt that these parents served in social, political, religious and educational domains as chairpersons of School Development Committees and political, community and church leaders as a result of inclusion. Nevertheless, previous studies established the benefits of inclusion for only learners with and without disabilities (Forlin 2010; Naicker 2007; Ncube 2006; Pantic and Wubbels 2010). Participants felt that inclusion facilitated equal valuation and achievement of all learners in academic, economic and social domains through the use of teaching and learning that was tailored to their individuality. Inclusion was perceived to socialise both learners with and without disabilities to accept and tolerate human diversity including socio-economic status and political and religious conviction. It was also viewed to improve their academic performance through engagement with each other in core-curriculum and extra-curriculum activities. Inclusion was thus regarded as an instrument for the realisation of communities of practice in mainstream schools and communities for the advancement of humanity through synergy and syllogism. This finding aligns with previous studies which show that, in learners without disabilities, inclusion develops tolerance, compassion, empathy and awareness of their own abilities to assist others (Artiles and Kozleski 2007; Berry 2010; Flecha and Soler 2013), while enhancing well-being, social skills and cognitive and language skills of learners with disabilities (Ballard 2005; Deluca et al. 2013; Musengi and Chireshe 2012).

Participants perceived that inclusion developed positive attitudes towards learners with disabilities among stakeholder individuals, organisations and institutions including typically developing learners, teachers, school heads, communities and schools. Inclusion was believed to dispel culturally entrenched negative attitudes and teachings towards exceptionalities including fear and avoidance of learners with disabilities and the misconception that disabilities were contractible. Similarly, studies frequently demonstrate that mainstream schools with an inclusive orientation are most successful and effective in combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities and building inclusive societies (Hornby 2010; Naicker 2007; Ncube 2006; Pantic and Wubbels 2010; UNESCO 1994). Participants felt that school heads and teachers supported inclusion as a result of its accrued academic, social and career benefits including improved academic performance of schools and its cost-effectiveness. Similarly, previous research reveals that inclusive schools deliver effective education to all learners and enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of the education system in its entirety (Ballard 2012; Chhabra et al. 2010; Pantic and Florian 2015).

Participants felt that they lacked the knowledge and skills for the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools for learners with specific disabilities, including hearing impairments, autism, visual impairments and behavioural and emotional disorders, since they were only trained as mainstream teachers. They felt incompetent to cultivate mainstream school culture and ethos to support the inclusion of these learners as well as to support teachers and parents to serve them as they had limited training on disability categories. Inconsistent evidence reveals that inclusion affords effective intervention programmes and services to all learners regardless of their individuality (Flecha and Soler 2013; Florian and Linklater 2010; Pantic and Wubbels 2010). Participants believed that they lacked knowledge and skills for administration of inclusion in mainstream schools as they felt that they only trained in the fundamentals of inclusive teaching and learning. This finding resonates with past studies which indicate that pre-service and in-service teacher training inadequately prepares teachers to serve as administrators of inclusion in mainstream schools (Bogatch 2011; Diem and Carpenter 2013; Shani and Ram 2015).

Participants believed that colleges and universities needed to prepare special education administrators adequately in theory and practice of inclusive school administration. It was perceived that such preparation could include exposure of special education administrators to administration practice in inclusive institutions under the mentorship of qualified and experienced school administrators during their training. Nevertheless, previous studies do not reveal the necessity for exposition of special education administrators to administration practice in inclusive schools during their training. Participants believed that pre-service and in-service special education administrators needed exposure to fundamentals of inclusion including its legal framework, disability categories, curriculum issues, management of parent and learner diversity and administration of inclusive schools. It was felt that these could equip pre-service and in-service special education administrators with the knowledge and skills to support and assist teachers and school heads in the management of inclusive pedagogy. Similarly, previous studies demonstrate that special education administrators need preparation in instructional leadership for effective administration of inclusion in mainstream schools (Crockett 2011; Harpell and Andrews 2010; Kauffman and Landrum 2009; Pazey and Cole 2012). Participants perceived that the infusion of content on administration of inclusive schools including strategies in pre-service and in-service school leadership and management courses could prepare trainees for administration of these institutions. Previous studies have actually demonstrated that the content of pre-service and in-service training of special education administrators needs to be embedded in their roles and responsibilities in administration of inclusion in mainstream schools (Artiles and Kozleski 2007; Cartledge and Kourea 2008; Hawley and James 2010).

Participants felt that the appointment of special education administrators should be limited to only teachers with training in inclusion. This challenges the present trend in Zimbabwe and other countries of the appointment of experienced teachers with just degrees in education as special education administrators without consideration of their training in inclusion. Past studies emphasise in-service training of special education administrators in inclusion instead of the restrictive practice of limiting appointments to only those with training on the subject (Green 2008; Kroth and Edge 2007; Passman 2008). Teachers with training in inclusion were perceived as knowledgeable and skilled in addressing staffing equity, equality and staff development issues in the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools. Consistent evidence shows that special education administrators require knowledge and skills in the implementation of recruitment strategies (Passman 2008; Pazey et al. 2012; Theoharis 2009); retention of teachers (Harpell and Andrews 2010; Shani and Ram 2015); and development of equitable strategies related to the assignment of highly qualified teachers in hard-to-staff schools (Amrein-Beardsley 2007; Berry 2004; Gehrke and McCoy 2007). Participants felt that there should be the passage and enforcement of policy limiting the promotion of teachers to special education administrators to only those with training in inclusion. This challenges the status-quo in Zimbabwe and other countries where there are no specific policies on the appointment of special education administrators. Participants regarded teachers with training in inclusion as equipped with strategies and content for its effective administration in mainstream schools. This finding resonates with previous studies which have found that special education administrators need knowledge and skills in inclusion in mainstream education to facilitate equal educational opportunities for all and to respond to individual learner and family needs for learner success (Berry 2010; Kauffman and Landrum 2009). Similarly, previous studies show that special education administrators require knowledge and skills in instructional leadership to promote successful inclusion in mainstream schools (Crockett et al. 2009; Donnelly and Watkins 2011).

7 Conclusion

Special education administrators exhibited positive attitudes towards inclusion based on its entrenchment in human rights and social justice. They embraced the concept of accommodation and celebration of the diversity of learners in mainstream classrooms through the use of teaching and learning that is tailored to their individuality. It seems evident, then, that teacher education institutions can exploit special education administrators’ positive attitudes towards inclusion, to execute a needs assessment in order to design and institutionalise needs-responsive professional development for effective administration of inclusion in mainstream schools. On the other hand, the failure of teacher education institutions to intervene may interfere with the positive attitudes of special education administrators, which can perpetuate the delivery of impoverished administrative services in mainstream schools. Despite special education administrators’ positive attitudes towards inclusion, they had a narrow conception of this education option. Teacher education institutions can expose pre-service and in-service special education administrators to adequate theory on inclusion in order to bring about a comprehensive understanding of delivery of services in mainstream schools. Since special education administrators lacked both theory and practice in the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools, teacher education institutions can introduce the theory as well as practice of the administration of inclusive schools in their pre-service and in-service special education administrator training for inclusion programmes.

In order to bridge the theory–practice gap, and based on special education administrators’ lack of practice in administration of inclusive schools and their request for such practice, their professional training for inclusion can expose them to field experiences/practice of administration of these institutions under the tutelage of qualified and experienced mentors. Since special education administrators attributed their inadequate knowledge and skills in administration of inclusion to a lack of depth and breadth in their training, pre-service and in-service teacher training could advantageously include comprehensive courses on the theory of inclusion. This would include exposure to the strategies and content relating to inclusion and administration practice in inclusive schools during their pre-service and in-service training. Since special education administrators, who lacked training in inclusion but were promoted in their capacity on the basis of experience, were shown to lack knowledge and skills for administration of inclusion in mainstream schools, the government could possibly limit the appointment of school administrators to only teachers with comprehensive experience and training in the philosophy.

Inclusion has been shown to benefit learners both with and without disabilities, as well as schools and communities, facilitating social cohesion, tolerance, celebration and the accommodation of diversity, and eliminating culturally entrenched negative attitudes towards disabilities. For this reason, stakeholders including parents, teachers, heads of schools, teacher education institutions and the government need to work in consultation and partnership in pooling resources for successful and effective practice. These include human resources such as specialist teachers, therapists and inclusive teachers; material and technological resources like information and computer technology; and time and financial resources, in advancement of the cause for inclusion and to the benefit of humanity.

Since special education administrators who trained prior to the adoption of inclusion were perceived to lack the essential theory and practice, it is suggested that teacher education institutions provide in-service development for staff on the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools. Similarly, teacher education institutions could expose teachers to comprehensive theory on the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools in their pre-service and in-service training. This is because they were viewed as lacking knowledge and skills in the administration of inclusion in mainstream schools due to their perceived exposure to fundamental aspects only. Based on the perceived lack of knowledge and skills of special education administrators regarding specific disability categories, including hearing impairments, autism, visual impairments, and behavioural and emotional disorders, their pre-service and in-service training could include all disability categories as well as the strategies, content and process of inclusion in mainstream schools. Since special education administrators understood that the process of consultation and partnership with teachers propels successful practice of inclusion, pre-service and in-service training for special education administrators could include content on strategies, challenges and opportunities in collaborative structures and cultures in inclusion in mainstream schools.

This study could serve as a baseline for future research on pre-service and in-service training of special education administrators for inclusion. Studies yet to come could examine various models and ascertain the optimal practices for adoption in such training. Models of pre-service and in-service training of special education administrators for inclusion could be monitored and evaluated for improved delivery of services in mainstream schools. Future research could focus on needs assessment to establish the requirements of special education administrators as a baseline for the provision of continuous professional development. Further studies could use different data collection instruments such as questionnaires, focus group interviews, observations and document analysis.

The participants for this study were purposively drawn from one educational province, whereas inclusion in mainstream education is practised in all the educational provinces of Zimbabwe. A nationally representative sample of special education administrators from different educational provinces could be investigated to enhance the transferability of findings. Future research could examine the experiences and perspectives of other role players, including heads of schools, teachers, policy makers and learners with and without disabilities since this study focused on special education administrators only. These role players could be probed to solicit their experiences and perspectives on the focus of this study. Since participants have revealed the importance of adequate preparation and development of special education administrators to ensure successful inclusion, it would also be relevant to examine best practices in their pre-service and in-service training.