This article was downloaded by: [chris forlin]

On: 03 March 2015, At: 02:39

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Solomon Islands school leaders

Click for updates
readiness for inclusive education
a a a
James Porakari , Brenda Sevala , Patrick Miniti , George
b c d
Saemane , Umesh Sharma & Chris Forlin
a
School of Education & Humanities, Solomon Islands National
University, Honiara, Solomon Islands
b
Honiara School, Honiara, Solomon Islands
c
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
d
International Inclusive Education Consultant, Perth, Australia
Published online: 25 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: James Porakari, Brenda Sevala, Patrick Miniti, George Saemane, Umesh
Sharma & Chris Forlin (2015): Solomon Islands school leaders readiness for inclusive education,
International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1013999

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1013999

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015
 International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1013999

Solomon Islands school leaders readiness for inclusive education

James Porakaria, Brenda Sevalaa, Patrick Minitia, George Saemaneb,
∗
Umesh Sharmac and Chris Forlind
a
School of Education & Humanities, Solomon Islands National University, Honiara,
Solomon Islands; bHoniara School, Honiara, Solomon Islands; cFaculty of Education,
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; dInternational Inclusive Education Consultant,
Perth, Australia
(Received 24 July 2014; accepted 23 January 2015)
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

The inclusion of students with disabilities was initiated by the Ministry of

Education and Human Resource Development in the Solomon Islands in 2013.
This paper investigates the knowledge, skills, and values of school leaders in
public and private schools in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, in
regard to providing support for inclusive education in their respective schools.
Completed questionnaires were received from 85 leaders of secondary, primary,
and early childhood centres. Results indicate that while leaders are very positive
about their abilities to support their schools they still need professional learning
in specific areas related to inclusive education. The implication of this for
preparing school leaders for inclusive education in the Solomon Islands is
discussed.
Keywords: Solomon Islands; disability; school leaders; inclusive education

Introduction
A 2012 report by the United Nations indicated that 650 million children living with dis-
abilities live in Asia and the Pacific. With regard to this high population of children with
disabilities, many are excluded from schools in these countries. The Solomon Islands is
no exception as only 2% of children with disabilities have access to primary education
in the country (MEHRD 2012).
The Solomon Islands is rated among the poorest performing Pacific Island countries
in terms of providing equal access of education to children with disabilities (MEHRD
2012). The national government is aware of its poor performance in this sector and has,
therefore, instructed the Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development
(MEHRD) to develop a policy to promote inclusive education in its education
system (Sharma 2012a).
There is enormous diversity in the Solomon Islands that contributes to the chal-
lenges faced to introducing inclusive education across the region. The Solomon
Islands is an archipelago of 999 islands in the Southwest Pacific with a population
of 515,870 people in 2009. Over 80% of people live in rural areas and about 40%
are under 15 years of age (Census Report 2009). The nation operates five types of
schools in the formal education system: Early Childhood Education Centres (ECE),

∗
Corresponding author. Email: chrisforlin@outlook.com

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 J. Porakari et al.

Primary Schools (PS), Community High Schools (CHS), Provincial Secondary Schools
(PSS), and National Secondary Schools (NSS). In addition, there are two international
schools.
In 2013, the Solomon Islands had a total of 484 ECE centres, 526 PS, 199 CHS, 15
provincial, and 11 NSS (MEHRD 2013a). All citizens of the Solomon Islands are
entitled to legally attend formal education, regardless of social status, ethnicity, and
religious background from age 3 to –20 years. Honiara the capital of the Solomon
Islands had a population of 64,609 people in 2009 (Census Report 2009). In Honiara
there are 40 schools and ECE centres, of which 14 are public and 26 are private
schools. Private schools are run by Education Authorities and owned by churches, indi-
viduals, or organisations, whereas public schools are either owned by Provincial Edu-
cation Authorities (including Honiara City) or the MEHRD. Each Education Authority
is an employer which means that they engage their own teachers but the salaries are
paid by the Solomon Islands Government.
Of key importance to ensuring inclusive education is the need for effective leader-
ship. Without the support of the principal, inclusive educational practices will not be
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

sustainable (Ryan 2010). Leaders must be not only supportive of inclusion but also
knowledgeable about the practice and provide caring support for their staff (Hoppey
and McLeskey 2012). As the Solomon Islands begin to pursue an inclusive approach
to education, this research investigates the knowledge, skills, and values of school
leaders in public and private schools in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands,
in regard to their capacity to support inclusive education in their respective schools.

Role of the school leaders in the Solomon Islands

Each school has a school board that provides a governing body for the school. It
includes parents, prominent community leaders, and students. The board is involved
in overseeing policy development, budgeting, and managing school funds (MEHRD
2012). School leaders are the decision-makers for their schools, even though they are
overseen by school boards.
The perception of the public about the role of school leaders in the Solomon Islands
is that a principal (in charge of a national, provincial or CHS), head teacher (in charge of
a PS), and deputy or senior teacher (in both schools) is a multi-skilled person. It is per-
ceived that the school leader should be a good administrator, manager, leader, accoun-
tant, security guard, lawyer, auditor, pastor, banker, an architect, and even a surveyor.
The official role of a school leader is articulated in the Teaching Service Handbook
(MEHRD 2012). This document identifies six key leadership responsibilities of: prep-
aration and teaching, supervision of staff and students, organisation/administration, stu-
dents’ welfare, reporting to Education Authorities, and internal and external
(community) work relationships. Each school has from one to two deputies or senior
teachers whose role is to support the principal or head teacher with the daily operations,
administration, and school discipline.
Most school leaders in the Solomon Islands are qualified with a degree, diploma, or
certificate in teaching. School leaders have not undertaken any formal leadership train-
ing but have been promoted due to the number of years’ service in the teaching pro-
fession. There is no training currently available for school leaders in inclusive
education or working with students with disabilities. Most schools are under-resourced.
According to the MEHRD, the majority of teachers (approximately 8000) are trained as
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 3

teachers, with a further 827 untrained; although like the school leaders they have not
received any specific training in inclusive education.

What is inclusive education in the Solomon Islands?

Inclusive education is internationally accepted as ensuring that the rights and needs of
all students are being met within the regular schooling system (Ainscow 2005; Slee
2011). Inclusive schools are seen as the most effective way to counter discriminatory
approaches and attitudes towards students with a disability (UNESCO 2008) and recog-
nised as the foundation for a more just and equal society (European Agency for Devel-
opment in Special Needs Education 2012). Understandings of inclusive education,
though, vary across the Pacific Islands (Puamau 2007), with it being defined in
many different ways (Forlin et al. 2015). One of the difficulties most stakeholders
grapple with is the difference between integration and inclusive education. These
terms were traditionally used interchangeably; however, Loreman, Deppler, and
Harvey (2011) argue that although the word integration preceded inclusion they are
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

not synonymous and must be understood and applied differently. Loreman (1999)
further argues that the focus of integration is the normalisation of the child, while inclu-
siveness goes beyond the disability to include all forms of diversity and assumes that all
students are part of the regular school. Dixon and Verenikina (2007) point out that ‘the
enrolment of young children and students with disabilities in regular classes has been
one of the most significant pedagogical challenges for education systems over the last
decade’ (192). This is, similarly, the case for teacher educators, school leaders, and tea-
chers in the Solomon Islands.
Inclusive education in the Solomon Islands is recently enshrined in the National
Education Action Plan (NEAP, 2013–2015), indicating inclusive education to be
one of the key outputs for change (Section 3.1.7, 17) (MEHRD 2013b). It is anticipated
that by 2015 a policy on inclusive education should be in place and used within the edu-
cation system. The NEAP obligates the MEHRD to work collaboratively with the
Solomon Islands National University (SINU) through the School of Education and
Humanities (SOEH) on the training of teachers for inclusive education.
The objectives of the NEAP are to be implemented through the SOEH at SINU. The
School is tasked with the training of teachers both at pre-service and in-service stages to
address inclusive education in the current teacher education programmes. In 2013 there
were 471 pre-service teachers in Year 1 and 341 in Year 2 of the existing course. In
2014 there were 484 in Year 1 with 456 in Year 2. This represents an increase of
approximately one third in the number of teachers graduating. The key aims of the
teacher education programmes are to train teachers with the skills and knowledge of
inclusive education, develop positive attitudes and attributes towards inclusion, assist
teachers to adapt and use a curriculum that is inclusive and encourage teachers to
use inclusive teaching strategies, and be inclusive in their schools and communities.

Leadership for inclusive schools

According to Gramsci (2000), leadership for inclusive education involves four domains
of socio-cultural, contextual, pedagogical, and leadership. He proposes that the key to
leadership development work is the need to cultivate leaders as organic intellectuals
whose purpose is not only to understand but also to transform schools and education
systems. Ryan (2010) suggests that while the best person to influence inclusive
 4 J. Porakari et al.

decisions at a school is the principal, this cannot be done without the principal being
supportive and engaging in shared leadership practice. According to Ryan, ‘Leadership
is seen as a collective process rather than a hierarchical practice that revolves around
one person. Individualist and hierarchical practices, by default, exclude many’ (Ryan
2010, 9). Inclusive leadership must ensure that programming, curriculum, pedagogy,
and other school initiatives are all addressed (Ryan 2010). Good inclusive school lea-
dership further involves support for teachers as they work on establishing indicators for
measuring their inclusivity(Waldron, McLeskey, and Redd 2011).
Puamau (2007) reasons that for any Pacific Island country to embrace inclusive edu-
cation everything and everyone must be transformed and this transformation must
begin with the minds, hearts, and skills. The school leader must be welcoming, provid-
ing quality teaching and learning, and providing moral, resource, and financial support
for effective teaching and learning. Sanga and Maneipuri (2002) propose conversely
that ‘The negative constraints of limited resources, the lack of specialist trained tea-
chers, and the lack of clear role guidelines [in the Solomon Islands] are likely to test
the principal’s competence in providing leadership’ (54).
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

Purpose of the study

The initiative for schools to participate in the proposed inclusive education system of
the Solomon Islands occurred in 2013, when three school leaders were invited along
with six teacher educators to participate in a month-long fellowship at an Australian
University focusing on including the excluded in education in the Solomon Islands.
This paper reports subsequent research undertaken by four of the Solomon Island par-
ticipants to investigate current perspectives of school leaders in the Solomon Islands
regarding being prepared for inclusive education. The objectives are to explore two
questions. How ready are school leaders in terms of their knowledge, skills, and atti-
tudes for inclusive education? And are there any significant differences in school
leaders’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes based on a number of variables? These
include gender, type of school (public, private), years of teaching experience, and
type of school leaders (principal, deputy principal secondary, head teacher primary,
ECE supervisor). As there is currently a dearth of information to support leaders to
develop inclusive schools, it is envisaged that such information will help to construct
positive recommendations for inclusive leadership development in the Solomon
Islands.

Method
To investigate the readiness of school leaders in the Solomon Islands for inclusion, two
important decisions were made by the research team. First, in order to minimise the
costs involved, given that schools are geographically sparsely distributed along and
across the archipelago, the participants were purposely selected from Honiara
schools which are accessible by road transport. Second, most school leaders were per-
sonally known to the research team members and, therefore, access to and communi-
cation with them would be easier. School leaders from 40 schools in Honiara were,
thus, invited to participate. In a secondary school there are two leaders; the principal
and his or her deputy. Similarly, in each PS there are two school leaders. In a CHS,
there could be four leaders: principal, deputy principal, head teacher, and ECE super-
visor. Permission was sought from the Ethics Committee of the SINU and from the
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 5

respective private and public education authorities. Participation was voluntary with
completion and return of the questionnaire being acceptance of their willingness to
participate.

The measuring instrument

A two-part questionnaire was developed by the research team. The first part gathered
demographic data of the participants, including gender, home province, school level
(ECE, primary or secondary), number of years’ experience, and school type (public
or private). Part two of the questionnaire was constructed under three key constructs
about inclusive education. These were: (1) knowledge and understanding (2) skills,
abilities, and experiences, and (3) attitudes and feelings. The questions formulated
from a literature review (e.g. Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman 2013; Loreman, Deppeler,
and Harvey 2011; Puamau 2007; Sharma 2010) and based on local knowledge, sought
to identify the school leaders’ understanding of the concept of inclusive education (e.g.
Sanga and Maneipuri 2002), their vision for inclusiveness, and their confidence in mod-
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

ifying school policies to support inclusive education. A six-point Likert scale was
employed ranging from totally disagree (1), to totally agree (6). Each of the 3 constructs
consisted of 6 items giving a total of 18 items. The data collected were analysed quan-
titatively by using SPSS software. A higher score indicated more positive responses.

Procedure
A letter was sent to both private and public education authorities with schools in
Honiara for permission to administer a questionnaire on ‘Solomon Islands School
Leader’s Readiness for Inclusive Education: A Case Study of Honiara School Princi-
pals and Deputy Principals, Head Teachers, Early Childhood Supervisors’ in targeted
schools within their jurisdiction. A second letter was sent to the principals of the tar-
geted schools to again seek permission to administer the project questionnaire to
their respective leaders.
Each member of the research team was allocated five schools to visit and administer
the research questionnaire. Each participant was given a week to complete the question-
naire. In the process of delivering and collecting questionnaires the team was open to
using the snowballing technique; a procedure for increasing the number of participants
by recommendation. As schools were visited, leaders identified other schools in their
area, thus increasing the total number of schools from that envisaged in the original
plan.
Completed questionnaires were received from 85 leaders from 36 schools in the
Honiara region. The high number of schools participating, thus, provides an effective
review of leaders within the Honiara city. Of these 85 leaders, 32 were males and 53
females, with 34 working in public and 51 in private schools. The majority of 57
leaders had more than 10 years of teaching experiencing, whereas the remaining 28
had less than that. The secondary schools submitted 30 responses and the primary
and ECE centres submitted 55 questionnaires.

Results
Means and standard deviations were recorded for each item and they are presented in
rank order according to the strength of the leaders’ values in each construct. Table 1
 6 J. Porakari et al.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation for each item in the knowledge and understanding scale
(a ¼ 0.909).
Std.
Items N Mean deviation
I have knowledge to supervise teaching and learning in my school 85 4.79 1.216
I have knowledge of identifying students with learning difficulties 85 4.54 1.305
I have knowledge of assessing students with learning difficulties 85 4.26 1.329
I understand the meaning and processes involved in inclusive 85 4.22 1.467
education
I have knowledge to create and sustain an inclusive learning 85 4.01 1.277
environment
I have the leadership knowledge to change a regular school to an 85 3.78 1.400
inclusive school
Total Means 4.27 1.100
Note: Mean response range from 1 (strongly disagree), to 2 (disagree), to 3 (slightly disagree), 4 (slightly
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

agree), to 5 (agree), 6 (strongly agree).

∗
p ¼ , .05.

reports the data for leaders’ perceptions about their knowledge and understanding of
inclusive education. As school leaders it was evident that they considered that they
had the knowledge and understanding to be able to supervise their school and identify
and assess students. Regarding inclusive education, while they were still fairly positive
about their understanding of the meaning and processes involved, they were less
knowledgeable about how to create and sustain an inclusive learning environment or
how to change a regular school into an inclusive school.
In regard to leaders’ perceptions of their skills, abilities, and experience (Table 2),
they agreed that they have the ability to discuss with parents regarding their children’s
daily social and emotional needs. They also slightly agreed that they are able to make
recommendations regarding children’s rights, provide support programmes, and
manage students with learning and behavioural difficulties. They expressed their
lowest skills and experience regarding fostering collegial relationships between staff,
parents, and students to accommodate inclusive education, or in being able to generate
possible solutions in time or resource management.
Leaders’ attitudes and feelings about inclusive education were very positive. They
cared for the well-being of their students, valued all school members, and believed in
all students achieving their best. They expressed support for their teachers to under-
take professional development about inclusive education. The lowest results were
related to their ability to ensure that teaching and learning is conducted in an inclus-
ive manner and in the value they placed on creative and innovative approaches in
inclusive teaching and learning; nonetheless, their attitudes were still positive
(Table 3).
In order to consider any differences for the independent variables of gender,
school type (public or private schools), teaching experience (less than 10 years or
10 or more years), or leader type (secondary or primary/ECE), for the three scales
of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, a series of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
were conducted. The reliability of the items in each scale was determined, with
results indicating good reliabilities for knowledge (a ¼ 0.909); skills (a ¼ 0.929),
and attitude (a ¼ 0.947).
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 7

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation for each item in the skills and ability scale (a ¼ 0.929).
Std.
Items N Mean deviation
I have the ability to discuss with parents regarding their children’s 85 4.59 1.330
daily social and emotional needs
I have the ability to provide advice and recommendations regarding 85 4.36 1.174
children’s rights related to inclusive education
I have the ability to provide wide support programmes for both 85 4.34 1.240
teachers and students
I have the ability to manage students with learning and behaviour 85 4.27 1.295
difficulties
I have the ability to foster collegial relationships between staff, 85 4.24 1.192
parents, and students to accommodate inclusive education
I have the ability to generate possible solutions in resource 85 4.19 1.258
management (time management, administration, and alternative
scheduling)
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

Total means 4.33 1.073

Note: Mean response range from 1 (strongly disagree), to 2 (disagree), to 3 (slightly disagree), 4 (slightly
agree), to 5 (agree), 6 (strongly agree).
∗
p ¼ , .05.

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation for each item in the attitude and feeling scale (a ¼
0.947).
Std.
Items N Mean deviation
I care for the well-being of my students and their progressive 85 5.54 1.007
learning
I value every member of my school (parents, teachers, and students) 85 5.46 0.983
I have the heart for all my teaching staff to do professional 85 5.46 1.108
development in inclusive education
I believe in my students achieving their best 85 5.27 1.189
I am always careful to ensure teaching and learning is conducted in 85 5.05 1.034
an inclusive manner in my school
I value creative and innovative approaches in inclusive teaching and 85 5.01 1.149
learning
Total means 5.30 0.957
Note: Mean response range from 1 (strongly disagree), to 2 (disagree), to 3 (slightly disagree), 4 (slightly
agree), to 5 (agree), 6 (strongly agree).
∗
p ¼ , .05.

No significant differences were found for gender, school type, or teaching experi-
ence. There was, however, a significant difference noted for leader type in the
domain of knowledge and understanding of inclusive education (Table 4). The head
teachers of PS and centre leaders of ECEs perceived themselves to be significantly
t(83) ¼ 22.24, p ¼ .029 more knowledgeable (M ¼ 4.46, SD ¼ 1.09) about inclusive
education than did the principals from the secondary schools (M ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 1.05).
 8 J. Porakari et al.

Table 4. t-Test for independent samples of knowledge, skills, and attitudes for secondary,
versus primary/ECE school leaders.
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances t-Test for equality of means
Sig. (two- Mean
F Sig. t df tailed) difference
Mean Equal variances .005 .947 22.219 83.000 .029∗ 2.54091
knowledge assumed
Equal variances 22.240 61.370 .029∗ 2.54091
not assumed
Mean skills Equal variances .028 .867 21.588 83.000 .116 2.38333
assumed
Equal variances 21.602 61.277 .114 2.38333
not assumed
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

Mean Equal variances .251 .618 20.537 83.000 .593 2.11717

attitudes assumed
Equal variances 20.538 59.992 .593 2.11717
not assumed
∗
p ¼ , .05.

Discussion
Of key importance for developing countries that are aiming to adopt an inclusive edu-
cation approach is how they can respond positively and timely to the challenges they
face and ensure that better equity and opportunity are provided for all learners
(Forlin 2013a). There is no doubt that inclusive education has enormous impact on
leaders and teachers and challenges them to re-evaluate their pedagogy and modify cur-
ricula if they are to be able to include all learners (Forlin 2013b; Ryan 2010). It is
acknowledged that for a new initiative to be effective leaders need to have significant
professional development in the area of pedagogy and instruction (Ruairc, Ottesen, and
Precey 2013). Further, they also need to have a clear understanding of what inclusive
education entails and the capacity to overcome any entrenched misgivings about the
inclusion of learners with disabilities in regular schools.
With the current absence of a clear definition of inclusive education, school leaders
have taken it upon themselves to make decisions as to who they enrol in their regular
schools. The decision to accept students with physical and intellectual special needs is
left at the discretion of the school leaders. In the absence of a robust education policy,
inclusive education in the Solomon Islands may not be realised. In order to address this,
the MEHRD is currently working on seeking stakeholder’s views from the provinces
regarding the content of such a policy.
For inclusive education to be fully realised and implemented, two distinct defi-
nitions must be understood: there must be both a layperson and a professional definition
(Sharma 2010). A layperson’s definition should state that inclusive education is the
inclusion of students with special needs in a regular classroom. A more professional
definition for policy-makers, teacher educators, school leaders, and teachers would
entail more detail. This should include reference to the inclusion of a variety of students
with different needs; how the principal and his staff welcome and include them; how the
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 9

school provides high-quality education; and how the school responds to individual
differences in learning, school activities, and curricular needs. To ensure that inclusive
education is sustainable and manageable (Ryan 2010), the key role of the principal
should also be carefully articulated.
Traditionally, teachers are often pulled out from their classrooms to take up school
leadership responsibilities in Solomon Islands schools. Sometimes they are given in-
service training but often times they are left to use their tertiary education training
knowledge or experiences they had under their previous school leaders. Yet having
the right knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards inclusive education is deemed essen-
tial to promote this approach in schools (Gramsci 2000). Inclusive leaders have to not
only understand inclusive education but also need the capacity to transform their
schools to become inclusive.
The data from this research found that while the leaders tended to be very positive
they still expressed their lowest skills and experience regarding developing collegial
relationships between staff, parents, and students to accommodate inclusive education
and in time management to enable inclusion to occur. Further, it was found that prin-
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

cipals of secondary schools expressed significantly less knowledge and understanding

of inclusive education than did their counterparts in primary and ECE schools. The
ability to create and sustain an inclusive learning environment, and more specifically
how to change a regular school into an inclusive school were also seen as skills that
needed developing. While the leaders expressed positive beliefs about their ability to
cater for regular school children, they expressed more challenges related to their apti-
tude to ensure that teaching and learning are inclusive and in the use of creative and
innovative approaches.
Moving towards inclusive education may require a different form of leadership,
rather than the existing autocratic approach evident in the Solomon Islands. While it
has been highlighted that it is important for the principal to take a proactive role in
leading inclusion (Hoppey and McLeskey 2012; Ryan 2010), according to Loreman,
Forlin, and Sharma (2014), nonetheless, effective leadership at all levels is essential
for appropriate operation of an inclusive school system.
Previous research has identified three different modules of training that need to
be addressed (Sharma 2012b). These include (1) conceptualising inclusive education,
(2) the reasons for becoming inclusive, and (3) how can all children be included. It
is evident from this research that training for school leaders needs to go beyond
these. Completing a course that incorporates these three areas may lead to more
positive attitudes and increased confidence about inclusive education (Forlin,
Sharma, and Loreman 2013), but it will not address the difficulties faced by
leaders who find developing collegial relationships challenging and who have tra-
ditionally led by using an autocratic approach. It would seem very important that
future inclusive leaders in the Solomon Islands are able to access training specifi-
cally designed to address their role of leadership with implementing and sustaining
inclusive education, if they are to be expected to enable effective inclusive practices
within their schools.
Democratic methods that support collaborative modes such as facilitated leadership
are increasingly being seen as the best practice for enacting inclusive education (Jones,
Forlin, and Gillies 2013). To create a culture within a school that will support an inclus-
ive approach to education, leaders must be prepared to engage all stakeholders in the
process and expect them to share the responsibility for enabling this. This may be
quite challenging for leaders in the Solomon Islands, as this has not been the custom
 10 J. Porakari et al.

and is compounded by limited resources and a lack of specialist trained teachers (Sanga
and Maneipuri 2002).

Conclusion
Inclusive education is generally conceptualised as supporting the inclusion of all chil-
dren regardless of various learning styles, disability, or special educational need
(Ainscow 2005). It is assumed that there will be a whole school approach that gives
free access to all children who want to enrol in school (Grima-Farrell, Bain, and McDo-
nagh 2011). Effective inclusive practices, nonetheless, require strong leadership and
commitment by all staff (Ryan 2010). This research has found that the leaders in
Honiara in the Solomon Islands schools believe themselves to be very positive in
their knowledge, skills, and attitudes about inclusive education as being promoted by
the MEHRD. On the face of it, this seems somewhat unexpected considering that
none have received any development in this area and as yet inclusive education has
not been clearly defined, widely discussed, or implemented in the region. It is proposed
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

that the potential simplistic opinions and understandings about inclusive education held
by these leaders may well explain the high means in their perceived knowledge, skills,
and beliefs highlighted in this research. Without a detailed understanding of what
inclusive education involves it may be difficult for school leaders to fully appreciate
what knowledge and skills they and their staff require to enact the philosophy.
Clearly this will need to be addressed when the new government policy is developed
and when school leaders are expected to implement it. Professional development for
school leaders will need to be receptive to any perceived threat to a leader’s existing
traditional autocratic management skills and delicately address the actual concept of
inclusive education to ensure that it is plainly understood and embraced in an effective
way. Ongoing research is needed to generate more knowledge about implementing
and sustaining inclusive practice in Solomon Islands’ schools and how leaders
manage potential resistance to this change in educational approach for learners with
disabilities.

Acknowledgement
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Common-
wealth of Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia accepts no responsibility for any loss,
damage, or injury resulting from reliance on any of the information or views contained in this
publication.

Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Government through the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade’s Australian Leadership Award (ALA) Scheme for the project titled Including
the excluded through teacher education reform in the Solomon Islands [grant number 65119]

Notes on contributors
James Porakari has completed a Bachelor of Science, Post Graduate Diploma in physics and
Postgraduate Diploma in Education at The University of the South Pacific, Fiji. He taught
senior physics at King George VI National Secondary School before joining the staff of the
School of Education and Humanities in the Solomon Islands. He has been the head of the
science department and is currently the Assistant Head of School, Administration.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 11

Brenda Sevala has completed a Certificate in Counselling and Psychology, a Bachelor of Edu-
cation and Postgraduate Diploma in Education at the University of South Pacific, Fiji. Before
joining the staff of school of Education and Humanities, she was teaching social studies at
various secondary schools in the Solomon Islands. Currently, she is a Social Science lecturer
the Head of Department of Arts and Culture.
Patrick Miniti has completed a Diploma of Teaching at North River College and Bachelor of
Education at the University of New England, Australia. He also got a Bachelor of Education
at the University of Waikato, New Zealand and a Postgraduate Diploma in Education at the Uni-
versity of South Pacific, Fiji. Before joining the staff of school of Education and Humanities, he
taught at various country primary schools in the Solomon Islands. He is currently the lecturer for
Physical Education in the Science Department.
George Saemane has completed a Bachelor of Arts and Postgraduate Diploma in Geography at
the University of South Pacific, Fiji. He served as Principal of King George VI National Second-
ary School, Vanga Teachers College and Betivatu Community High School. Currently, he is the
Principal of Florence Young Christian School in Honiara, Solomon Islands.
Umesh Sharma is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Monash University in
Melbourne, Australia. His research interests are inclusive teacher education and attitude and
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

efficacy measurement. Dr Sharma works closely with professionals in special and inclusive edu-
cation from developed (Canada, USA, UK, Singapore, Hong Kong) and developing countries
(India, China, South Africa, Fiji, the Solomon Islands Brunei, Brazil).
Chris Forlin is an international inclusive education consultant, having worked in education for
over 40 years. Dr Forlin spent the past 10 years at the Hong Kong Institute of Education and has
provided leadership throughout Asia and the Pacific in inclusive education. She is a highly pub-
lished author and international keynote speaker.

References
Ainscow, M. 2005. “Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What are The Levers for
Change?” Journal of Educational Change 6: 109 –124.
Census Report. 2009. 2009 Population and Housing Census. Solomon Islands National
Statistical Office. Honiara: Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
Dixon, R. M., and I. Verenikina. 2007. “Towards Inclusive Schools: Examination of Socio-cul-
tural Theory and Inclusive Practices and Policy in New South Wales DET Schools.”
Learning and Sociocultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives
International Workshop 2007. http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg/vol1/iss1/13
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. 2012. “The Inclusive
Education in Action Project.” Accessed May 23, 2013. https://www.european-agency.org/
agency-projects/iea
Forlin, C. 2013a. “Changing Paradigms and Future Directions for Implementing Inclusive
Education in Developing Countries.” Asian Journal of Inclusive Education 1 (2): 19– 32.
Forlin, C. 2013b. “Issues of Inclusive Education in the 21st Century.” Journal of Learning
science 6: 67 – 81.
Forlin, C., U. Sharma, and T. Loreman. 2013. “Predictors of Improved Teaching Efficacy
Following Basic Training for Inclusion in Hong Kong.” International Journal of
Inclusive Education. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2013.819941
Forlin, C., U. Sharma, T. Loreman, and B. Sprunt. 2015. “Developing Indicators for Inclusive
Education in the Pacific Islands.” Prospects. doi:10.1007/s11125-015-9345-2
Gramsci, A. F. D. 2000. A Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings-1916 – 1935. London: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Grima-Farrell, C. R., A. Bain, and S. H. McDonagh. 2011. “Bridging the Research-to-practice
Gap: A Review of The Literature Focusing on Inclusive Education.” Australasian Journal of
Special Education 35 (2): 117 –136. doi:10.1375/ajse.35.2.117
Hoppey, D., and J. McLeskey. 2012. “A Case Study of Principal Leadership in an Effective
Inclusive School.” Journal of Special Education 46 (4): 245– 256.
 12 J. Porakari et al.

Jones, P., C. Forlin, and A. Gillies. 2013. “The Contribution of Facilitated Leadership to Systems
Development for Greater Inclusive Practices.” International Journal of Whole Schooling
9 (1). http://www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Schooling/IJWSindex.html
Loreman, T. 1999. “Integration: Coming from the Outside.” Integration 13 (1): 21 – 23.
Loreman, T., J. Deppeler, and D. Harvey. 2011. Inclusive Education: Supporting Diversity in
the Classroom. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Loreman, T., C. Forlin, and U. Sharma. 2014. “Measuring Indicators of Inclusive Education: A
Systematic Review of the Literature.” In Measuring Inclusive Education, edited by C. Forlin
and T. Loreman, 165– 188. London: Emerald.
MEHRD (Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development) 2012. Solomon Islands
Teaching Service Handbook. Honiara: MEHRD.
MEHRD (Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development) 2013a. MEHRD
Performance Assessment Report 2006-2013. Solomon Islands Education Management
Information System. Honiara: MEHRD.
MEHRD (Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development) 2013b. National
Education Action Plan 2013-2015. Honiara: MEHRD.
Puamau, P. 2007. “Inclusive Education in the Pacific: Chapter 2: Advancing Inclusive Education
in the Pacific.” Directions, Journal of Educational Studies 29 (1– 2): 17 –31.
Ruairc, G. M., E. Ottesen, and R. Precey. 2013. “Setting the Context.” In Leadership for
Downloaded by [chris forlin] at 02:39 03 March 2015

Inclusive Education: Values, Vision and Voices, edited by G. Mac Ruairc, E. Ottesen and
R. Precey, 1 –8. Rotterdam: Sense.
Ryan, J. 2010. “Establishing Inclusion in a New School: The Role of Principal Leadership.”
Exceptionality Education International 20 (2): 6– 24.
Sanga, K., and J. Maneipuri. 2002. “School Challenges and The Solomon Islands Secondary
Principal.” Directions, Journal of Educational Studies 24 (2): 40– 59.
Sharma, U. 2010. “Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms: Changing Heart, Head and Hands.”
Bangladesh Education Journal 10 (2): 7– 18.
Sharma, U. 2012a. Inclusive and Special Education: A Way Forward in the Solomon Islands. A
report Commissioned by Education Resource Facility (DFAT) and The Ministry of
Education and Human Resource Development, Solomon Islands Government.
Sharma, U. 2012b. “Changing Pre-service Teachers’ Beliefs to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms in
Victoria, Australia.” Australian Journal of teacher Education 7 (10): 52– 66.
Slee, R. 2011. The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
UNESCO. 2008. “Inclusive Education: The Way of The Future.” Conclusions and
Recommendations of the 48th Session of The International Conference on Education
(ICE), 25 –28 November. Geneva. www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/
brazil_NR08.pdf
Waldron, N. L., J. McLeskey, and L. Redd. 2011. “Setting the Direction: The Role of The
Principal in Developing an Effective, Inclusive School.” Journal of Special Education
Leadership 24 (2): 51 –60.