Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3

Leadership at the Boundaries of Inclusion: Special Education School Principals' Perspectives on Inclusive Education Policies and Ethical Dilemmas

Kapsayıcılığın Sınırında Liderlik: Özel Eğitim Okul Müdürlerinin Kapsayıcı Eğitim Politikalarına ve Etik İkilemlerine İlişkin Görüşleri

Pages
597–614
Publication Date
2026-03-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that despite being physically present in school, students experience "silent exclusion" and "epistemological access" problems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Inclusive education, which has become a paradigm at the global level, has experienced a numerical expansion in Türkiye; however, the gap between policy and practice confronts school administrators with the management of complex ethical dilemmas.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 special education school principals serving in the province of Ankara, representing diversity in terms of seniority and school type.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that despite being physically present in school, students experience "silent exclusion" and "epistemological access" problems.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kapsayıcı eğitim · okul müdürleri · etik ikilemler

Abstract

Introduction: Inclusive education, which has become a paradigm at the global level, has experienced a numerical expansion in Türkiye; however, the gap between policy and practice confronts school administrators with the management of complex ethical dilemmas. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the policy–practice tension and to provide empirical data on managerial experiences that have been addressed in a limited manner in the literature, by examining the leadership, ethics, and organizational meaning dimensions of inclusive education from a holistic perspective. The primary purpose of the study is to reveal special education school principals' perceptions of inclusive education policies, how they make sense of these policies within their own contexts, and through which values and experiences they interpret the ethical dilemmas they encounter during the implementation process. Method: A phenomenological design, one of the qualitative research approaches, was adopted in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 special education school principals serving in the province of Ankara, representing diversity in terms of seniority and school type. The data were analyzed using phenomenological and thematic analysis techniques through the MAXQDA software. Findings: Three main themes emerged as a result of the analyses: (1) Bureaucratic and pedagogical dilemmas arising from the structural disconnect between policy and practice, (2) the transformative power of inclusive leadership along with the accompanying feelings of isolation and burnout, and (3) the reproduction of exclusion in spatial, symbolic, and legitimized forms. The findings indicate that despite being physically present in school, students experience "silent exclusion" and "epistemological access" problems. Discussion: The research findings demonstrate that the functioning of inclusive education in the field is shaped by ethical reasoning, contextual decision-making, and leadership interpretation beyond legislation. The tension between policy and practice positions school principals as moral agents striving to establish a balance between what is right and what is possible. Physical placement and enrollment rates are not sufficient indicators of inclusion; the actual determinant is students' meaningful access to knowledge, pedagogical processes, and social interaction. The findings reveal that exclusion is reproduced in more refined and multi-layered forms, and that inclusive leadership, when deprived of institutional support, transforms into a debilitating domain of responsibility despite its transformative nature. In conclusion, the sustainability of inclusive education depends on structural arrangements that strengthen organizational capacity, support ethical dilemma management, and institutionalize collective responsibility, rather than on individual sacrifices.

Özet

Giriş: Küresel düzeyde bir paradigma haline gelen kapsayıcı eğitim, Türkiye’de sayısal bir genişleme yaşasa da politika ile uygulama arasındaki boşluk, okul yöneticilerini karmaşık bir etik ikilem yönetimiyle karşı karşıya bırakmaktadır. Bu araştırma, kapsayıcı eğitimin liderlik, etik ve örgütsel anlam boyutlarını bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla ele alarak söz konusu politika–uygulama geriliminin anlaşılmasına ve literatürde sınırlı biçimde ele alınan yönetsel deneyimlere ilişkin ampirik veri sunmaya katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı; özel eğitim okul müdürlerinin kapsayıcı eğitim politikalarına ilişkin algılarını, bu politikaları kendi bağlamlarında nasıl anlamlandırdıklarını ve uygulama sürecinde karşılaştıkları etik ikilemleri hangi değerler ve deneyimler üzerinden yorumladıklarını ortaya koymaktır. Yöntem: Araştırmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımlarından fenomenoloji deseni benimsenmiştir. Ankara ilinde görev yapan, kıdem ve okul türü açısından çeşitlilik gösteren 14 özel eğitim okul müdürü ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler, fenomenolojik ve tematik analiz teknikleri kullanılarak MAXQDA programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Analizler sonucunda üç ana tema ortaya çıkmıştır: (1) Politika ve uygulama arasındaki yapısal kopukluğun yarattığı bürokratik ve pedagojik ikilemler, (2) kapsayıcı liderliğin dönüştürücü gücü ile beraberinde getirdiği yalnızlık ve tükenmişlik hissi ve (3) dışlanmanın mekânsal, sembolik ve gerekçelendirilmiş biçimlerde yeniden üretilmesi. Bulgular, öğrencilerin fiziksel olarak okulda bulunmalarına rağmen "sessiz dışlanma" ve "epistemolojik erişim" sorunları yaşadıklarını göstermektedir. Tartışma: Araştırma bulguları, kapsayıcı eğitimin sahadaki işleyişinin mevzuatın ötesinde etik muhakeme, bağlamsal karar alma ve liderlik yorumu tarafından şekillendiğini göstermektedir. Politika ile uygulama arasındaki gerilim, okul müdürlerini doğru olan ile mümkün olan arasında denge kurmaya çalışan ahlaki failler olarak konumlandırmaktadır. Fiziksel yerleştirme ve kayıt oranları kapsayıcılığın yeterli göstergeleri değildir; asıl belirleyici olan öğrencilerin bilgiye, pedagojik sürece ve sosyal etkileşime anlamlı erişimidir. Bulgular, dışlanmanın daha incelmiş ve çok katmanlı biçimlerde yeniden üretildiğini; kapsayıcı liderliğin ise dönüştürücü ancak kurumsal destekten yoksun kaldığında yıpratıcı bir sorumluluk alanına dönüştüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak kapsayıcı eğitimin sürdürülebilirliği, bireysel fedakârlıklardan ziyade örgütsel kapasiteyi güçlendiren, etik ikilem yönetimini destekleyen ve kolektif sorumluluğu kurumsallaştıran yapısal düzenlemelere bağlıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ernas, S. (2026). Leadership at the Boundaries of Inclusion: Special Education School Principals' Perspectives on Inclusive Education Policies and Ethical Dilemmas. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3, 597–614. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1879314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Ahmetoğlu, E., Burak, Y., & Acar, İ. H. (2019). Otizmli kaynaştırma/bütünleştirme öğrencisine yönelik his, tutum ve görüşler ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.26468/trakyasobed.551104
  2. Ainscow, M. (2013). From special education to effective schools for all: Widening the agenda. In L. Florian (Ed.), Handbook of special education (pp. 171–186). SAGE.
  3. Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903
  4. Akkuş, M. (2022). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin otizm spektrum bozukluğu tanılı kaynaştırma/bütünleştirme öğrencilerine yönelik uyarlamaları (Tez numarası: 721339) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Amasya Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurulu Başkanlığı Tez Merkezi.
  5. Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (Notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 127–186). Monthly Review Press.
  6. Arar, K., & Saiti, A. (2022). Ethical leadership and decision-making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Routledge.
  7. Azorín, C., & Ainscow, M. (2020). Guiding schools on their journey towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900
  8. Bai, H., & Martin, S. M. (2015). Assessing the needs of training on inclusive education for public school administrators. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(12), 1229–1243.
  9. Bakkaloğlu, H., Altındağ-Kumaş, Ö., & Aykaç, P. N. (2017). Okul öncesi kaynaştırma sınıflarının niteliğini öğretmenler ve bağımsız gözlemciler nasıl değerlendiriyorlar? İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.303060
  10. Bakkaloğlu, H., Özbek, A. B., & Sucuoğlu, N. B. (2020). Okul öncesi bütünleştirme uygulamalarında özel gereksinimli ve tipik gelişen çocukların sosyal kabulleri: Boylamsal bir çalışma. Erken Çocukluk Çalışmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 363–385.
  11. Bakkaloğlu, H., Sucuoğlu, B., & Yılmaz, B. (2019). Quality of inclusive preschool classrooms: Predictive variables. Eğitim ve Bilim, 44(199), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8055
  12. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
  13. Barton, L. (1988). The politics of special educational needs. Falmer Press.
  14. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Rowman & Littlefield.
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19(5), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.827361
  17. Burak, Y., & Ahmetoğlu, E. (2022). Öğretmen, rehber öğretmeni ve okul yöneticilerinin kaynaştırma/bütünleştirme uygulamalarının başarısını etkileyen etmenleri değerlendirmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.33418/ataunikkefd.848582
  18. Catacutan, M. R., & de Guzman, A. B. (2015). Ethical decision-making in inclusive education: The case of school leaders. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i1.588
  19. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  20. Clark, H. (1993). Arenas of language use. University of Chicago Press.
  21. Conrad, D., & Brown, L. I. (2011). Fostering inclusive education: Principals’ perspectives in Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(8), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903131747
  22. Cranston, N., Ehrich, L. C., & Kimber, M. (2006). Ethical dilemmas: The “bread and butter” of educational leaders’ lives. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610652019
  23. Creswell, J. W. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma deseni (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev.). Siyasal Kitabevi. (Orijinal kitabın yayın tarihi 2013)
  24. DeMatthews, D. E., Serafini, A., & Watson, T. N. (2021). Leading inclusive schools: Principal perceptions, practices, and challenges to meaningful change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(1), 3–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20913897
  25. DeMatthews, D., Casas, E., & Reyes, P. (2025). Principal leadership for students with disabilities: A case study of an urban elementary school becoming inclusive and instructionally effective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2025.2554639
  26. Eyal, O., Berkovich, I., & Schwartz, T. (2011). Making the right choices: Ethical judgments among educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(4), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111146494
  27. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209–230.
  28. Fitzgerald, J., & Radford, J. (2022). Leadership for inclusive special education: A qualitative exploration of SENCOs and principals’ experiences in secondary schools in Ireland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2022.2036304
  29. Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.175
  30. Fraser, R. T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Diehl, S., & Johnson, A. C. (2010). Understanding employer engagement in the hiring of people with disabilities: A business needs approach. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9088-2
  31. Garner, P., & Forbes, F. (2013). School leadership and special education: Challenges, dilemmas and opportunities from an Australian context. Support for Learning, 28(4), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12033
  32. Glanz, J. (2010). Justice and caring: Power, politics, and ethics in strategic leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration, 38(1), 66–86.
  33. Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
  34. Gün, N., & Zorluoğlu, S. L. (2024). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma eğitimi ile ilgili bazı kavramlara yönelik algıları: Metafor çalışması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 25(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1142885
  35. Güner-Yıldız, N., Köse, H., & Akın, E. (2022). Sınıf yönetimi: Kapsayıcı eğitim çerçevesinde önemi, güncel sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 699–720. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.856085
  36. Hamre, B., Morin, A., & Ydesen, C. (2018). Optimizing the educational subject between testing and inclusion in an era of neoliberalism. In B. Hamre, A. Morin, & C. Ydesen (Eds.), Testing and inclusive schooling: International challenges and opportunities (pp. 231–253). Routledge.
  37. Hoadley, U. (2008). Social class and pedagogy: A model for the study of pedagogy in South Africa. In M. Olssen (Ed.), Education, globalization and the state (pp. 140–158). Routledge.
  38. Kartal, E., Onbaşı, S. İ., & İlhan, E. L. (2024). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmenlerinin kapsayıcı eğitime yönelik öz yeterlikleri ile bilişsel esneklikleri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 25(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1150882
  39. Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., Pullen, P. C., & Badar, J. (2019). Special education: What it is and why we need it (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  40. Lewin, K. M. (2009). Access to education in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns, problems and possibilities. Comparative Education, 45(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060902920518
  41. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
  42. Liu, S. (2024). Navigating equality in schools: The sociological impact of leadership on student success. Education and Urban Society, 57(3), 245–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245241304404
  43. Luhmann, N., & Schorr, K.-E. (2000). Problems of reflection in the system of education. Waxmann.
  44. Marques, J., & Azevedo-Pereira, M. (2009). Teachers and school principals’ attitudes toward inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 165–171.
  45. Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions: Wielding a double-edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 1–17.
  46. Merrigan, C., & Senior, J. (2023). Special schools at the crossroads of inclusion: Do they have a value, purpose, and educational responsibility in an inclusive education system? Irish Educational Studies, 42(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1964563
  47. Michailakis, D., & Reich, W. (2009). Dilemmas of inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250802596794
  48. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2022). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2021/’22. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_09/15142558_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2021_2022.pdf
  49. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2022/’23. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/milli-egitim-istatistikleri-orgun-egitim-20222023/icerik/508
  50. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2024). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2023/’24. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_10/16093144_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2023_20241.pdf
  51. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2025). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2024/’25. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/milli-egitim-istatistikleri-orgun-egitim-2024-2025/icerik/768
  52. Morrow, W. (2007). Learning to teach in South Africa. HSRC Press.
  53. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. SAGE Publications.
  54. Neuman, W. L. (2021). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (S. Özge, Çev.). Yayınodası Yayıncılık. (Orijinal kitabın yayın tarihi 2014)
  55. Ogharen, B. B. (2022). The imperative of education law in secondary school administrative practices in Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 12(2), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2022-0055
  56. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  57. Qomariyah, U., Neina, O. A., Baehaqie, I., & Sumartini. (2025). To what extent does inclusive education in Indonesia achieve equality for dyslexic and dysgraphia students? Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1579551
  58. Schwab, S. (2022). Inclusive education: Promoting inclusion for all. Springer Nature. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2016). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (4th ed.). Routledge.
  59. Sider, S., Maich, K., Morvan, J., Villella, M., Ling, P., & Repp, C. (2021). Inclusive school leadership: Examining the experiences of Canadian school principals in supporting students with special education needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 21(3), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12515
  60. Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge.
  61. Sokolowski, R. (2012). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge University Press.
  62. Stone, A. D. (1985). The disabled state. Macmillan.
  63. Suliman, A. M., & Iles, P. A. (2000). The multi-dimensional nature of organisational commitment in a non-Western context. Journal of Management Development, 19(1), 71–82.
  64. Thomson, P. (2020). School leadership: A philosophy of practice. Routledge.
  65. Tjernberg, C., & Heimdahl-Mattson, E. (2014). Inclusion in practice: A matter of school culture. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(2), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.891336
  66. Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.
  67. Tsirantonaki, S., & Vlachou, A. (2025). School principals’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2025.2541276
  68. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96.
  69. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2018). Education and disability: Analysis of data from 49 countries. https://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/disability-and-education
  70. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427
  71. UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024: Inclusion and education. UNESCO Publishing. https://www.unesco.org/gem-report
  72. UNICEF. (2021). Seen, counted, included: Using data to shed light on the well-being of children with disabilities. UNICEF. https://data.unicef.org/resources/children-with-disabilities-report-2021
  73. Vorlíček, R., & Kollerová, L. (2024). Non-inclusive teaching of students with special educational needs in a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhood. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 30(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2024.2398635