Introduction

Inclusive education (IE) as a human right (CRPD, 2006) has been ideologically accepted in most countries for now. Nevertheless, many countries are still making efforts restructuring their education systems to provide high-quality education for all learners in inclusive settings.

Teachers` knowledge and skills play an important role in implementing inclusive classroom practice. But, as the implementation of IE is a very complex and multifaceted process (Mitchell, 2015; Schuelka and Engsig, 2020) there are many factors at different levels of education systems that influence a meaningful implementation of IE. The OECD (2003) works on the principle that educating pupils with special educational needs (SEN) is a matter a whole school, not just individual teachers. Ainscow and Miles (2008) have also pointed out that, in addition to what is happening at the class level, a school culture and the commitment of all school staff members are equally important. Ainscow and Sandill (2010) emphasize that cultural changes in the workplace affect how teachers view their work and students. Additionally, school policy that support school-wide structural changes is equally important (Ainscow, 2020; Hadfield and Ainscow, 2018). Bjørnsrud and Nilsen (2019) have pointed out that collective learning in teams paves the way for joint planning with preparation, a common language, observation in the classroom, and new ideas with actions for pupils’ learning. Moreover, the need for research on how to support and advise schools in developing the organization, in collaboration with researchers and practitioners, has been highlighted (Grima-Farrel et al., 2011). Therefore, in addition to teachers` pre- and in-service training courses, in-service training for school teams could help to address these complex challenges.

We designed a long-term (60 ECTS) in-service training program on IE in the Estonian context, which included a separate course for teachers (24 ECTS), joint courses for teachers and support specialists (26 ECTS), and joint course for school teams, i.e., teachers, support specialists, and school leaders (10 ECTS) (Kivirand et al., 2021). In the current presentation we focus on the joint training course for school teams. The main goal of the school teams training course was to develop the 1) attitudes of all staff across the school and 2) skills and knowledge about the concept and meaning of IE and its effective implementation through inclusive school development strategies. The training course topics were based on the ecosystem model worked out by the European Agency (European Agency for …, 2017): vision and school culture, legislative framework and school policy, learning environment and resources, professionalism of staff, collaboration, and quality assurance (see Kivirand et al., 2021). The general principles of the training course were to link theory to practice and raise schools` capacities to implement IE during the training sessions and designing long-term development activities. We followed the principle that school teams themselves would analyze and plan development activities on IE taking into account the specifics of their school. The training was conducted over a period of 1.5 years. 

We explored how the long-term in-service training course for school teams (teachers, support specialists, and school leaders) influenced schools` development activities in the implementation of IE and what factors affected it from the perspective of the school teams.

We looked answers to the following research questions:

1. What development activities for the implementation of IE the schools carried out during the in-service training course?

2. What factors affected the development activities planned and carried out in the implementation of IE?

An exploratory case study approach was used as it enabled to answer the questions “what” development activities on IE schools carried out during the training course and explore “why” or “how” phenomena appeared in a context it was situated (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Sample Two participating schools (out of four) were selected as cases for the current study following these criteria: 1) clear initiative from the school to participate in the training course with the aim to carry out school development activities in the field of IE; 2) students with and without SEN in the area of their school residence study in school; 3) schools with similar numbers of students in the level of compulsory education managed by the same municipality; 4) participation of all school levels` key stakeholders in implementing inclusive education, i.e. school principal, support specialist in the role of the special needs education coordinator (SENCO) and teachers. Data collection Data were collected through different stages and formats. More precisely, school-based semi-structured group interviews were carried out in the middle of the training course and at the end of the training course; individual open-ended questionnaires were conducted after the training course. In addition, schools` policy documents, teams` homework assignments of the training course and researcher´s diary were analyzed. Data analysis The form of the embedded analysis of different units was used (Yin, 1994). The preliminary situation, process, and final outcomes of schools` developmental activities and factors affected these activities, were analyzed using multiple data collection instruments. The data analysis procedure consisted of three phases. Preparation phase. The aim of the preparation phase was to prepare data for thematic content analysis. Interviews with both school teams were recorded and transcribed in full. Schools` policy documents, the training course homework, open-ended questionnaires, and research diary notes were documented separately by the schools. Case by case analysis phase. In the second phase, a thematic content analysis was conducted separately by cases as it enabled to describe the meaning of qualitative data systematically and rule guided but also in a flexible way (Schreier, 2012). Multiple case analysis phase. In the final phase, a cross-case analysis was conducted using qualitative meta-analysis synthesis to compare and synthesize themes and subthemes, with triangulation of findings across cases to support validity of the study (Mays & Pope, 2000).

Activities carried out during the in-service training course During the training course, schools carried out several short-term development activities according to their school’s needs. The focus was on activities related to shaping school culture, as well as updating policy documents on IE in the school and thus enhancing support for students and teachers. Longer-term goals for further activities were also set. In one case, a school development plan was drawn up for the next three years, and in another case it was decided to start working with this document after the training. Thus, the training had a positive effect on the development activities of schools in the field of IE. Factors affecting school development activities on IE The results of the case study showed that the development activities planned and carried out during the training course depended to a large degree on how the school had understood the concept of IE. If the school understood IE to mean teaching all students together in an inclusive classroom, the mapping of development needs, and planned development activities, also focused on how to increase the capacity of the whole school to put IE into practice. Therefore, addressing the different characteristics of an inclusive school culture during the in-service training course is important to change what we mean by the concept of IE. The changes planned and carried out during the training in the policy and structure of the school were greatly influenced by leadership. As the school leader had chosen a specific leader to lead the whole process and herself participated with devotion, they were able to meet the short-term and long-term goals set. Factors like commitment and contribution of all parties, collaboration, system-wide approach, resources and external expertize appeared also important.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 6(1), 7 – 16. doi: 10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making Education for All Inclusive: where next? Prospects. 38, 15 – 34. doi: 10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0 Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education 14, 401 – 416. doi: 10.1080/13603110802504903 Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report 13, 544-559. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573 Bjørnsrud, H., & Nilsen, S. (2019). Joint Reflection on Action - A Prerequisite for Inclusive Education? A Qualitative Study in One Local Primary/Lower Secondary School in Norway. International Journal of Inclusive Education 23, 158-173. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1427153 European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017). Raising the Achievement of All Learners: A Resource to Support Self-Review. (V. J. Donnelly and A. Kefallinou, eds.). Odense, Denmark. Grima-Farrell, C., & Mcdonagh, S. (2011). Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap: A Review of the Literature Focusing on Inclusive Education. Australasian Journal of Special Education 35. doi: 10.1375/asje.35.2.117 Hadfield, M., & Ainscow, M. (2018). Inside a self-improving school system: Collaboration, competition and transition. Journal of Educational Change. 19. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10833-018-9330-7 Mitchell, D. (2015). Inclusive education is a multifaceted concept. CEPS Journal. 5, 9 – 30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1128952.pdf Kivirand, T., Leijen, Ä., Lepp, L., and Tammemäe, T. (2021). Designing and implementing an in-service training course for school teams on inclusive education: reflections from participants. Education Sciences, 11, 166. doi:10.3390/edusci11040166 OECD. (2003). Education Policy Analysis. Paris: OECD Publishing. Mays, N., & Pope C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ Clinical Research. 320:50 – 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50 Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. SAGE Schuelka, M. J., and Engsig, T. T. (2020). On the question of educational purpose: complex educational systems analysis for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1698062 Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage.