Strengthening inclusive leadership: insights from a professional development programme for school and childcare leaders

Figures & data

Table 1. Design criteria from literature.

Design criteria	Description	Sources
1. Voluntary participation	Participation in this programme should be voluntary as this has positive results on i.e. learner engagement.	Lacerenza et al. (2017), Salamon et al. (2021)
2. Based on a needs analysis prior to the program	Identifying professional development needs and alignment of the PDP with these needs.	Daniels et al. (2019), Earley (2020), Fluckiger et al. (2014), Lacerenza et al. (2017), Salas et al. (2012)
3. Use of multiple methods: evidence-informed, theoretically-grounded and practice-oriented	Informed by the weight of research evidence and practice oriented.	Brown et al. (2016), Daniels et al. (2019), Fluckiger et al. (2014), Lacerenza et al. (2017)
4. Collective participation and collective learning	Learning in interaction with peers, allowing for ample opportunities for exchange.	Aas and Vennebo (2021), Daniels et al. (2019), Fluckiger et al. (2014), Huber (2011), Lazenby et al. (2022),
5. Spread over multiple sessions, time-rich	Sessions to be spaced over an extended period, acknowledging that learning occurs in practice and during meetings, with an emphasis on their mutual reinforcement.	Clarke and Wildy (2013), Daniels et al. (2019), Fluckiger et al. (2014), Lacerenza et al. (2017)
6. Promoting self-regulated learning, integrating the PDP sessions into participants’ own learning	Participants bringing their own practical learning experiences, reflecting on those experiences and engaging in guided reflection, thus making use of reflection tools as measurement and intervention instrument.	Daniels et al. (2019), Fluckiger et al. (2014), Lazenby et al. (2022), Lourenco and Ferreira (2019), Panadero et al. (2016), Salas et al. (2012)

Table 2. Framework for inclusive leadership to enhance IPC: aspects and definitions, building on the inclusive leadership framework by Randel et al. (2018).

Dimensions	Aspects and definition
1. Facilitating belongingness	A. Supports individuals as group members: strengthens team cohesion and creates a sense of community through which school and childcare staff feel connected and feel pride in being members of the child centre team.
	B. Ensures justice and equity: makes sure that all employees from both sectors, independent of their (professional) background, are treated with equal respect by distributing and recognising justice and equity.
	C. Organises participation and information sharing: organises joint responsibility and decision-making processes based on knowledge and information sharing.
	D. Is a role model for belongingness: is a true role model by setting high standards for themselves through the establishment of robust and stable relationships with both childcare and school staff.
2. Valuing uniqueness	A. Encourages diverse contributions in a safe environment: supports perspectives and orientations from staff from both sectors that may contribute to performance, even when those perspectives differ from mainstream views, by creating an environment that acknowledges, welcomes and accepts different approaches, styles, perspectives and experiences.
	B. Helps staff to fully contribute: makes sure that group members do not hold back or encounter obstacles in contributing to the group.
	C. Is a role model for valuing uniqueness: shows high standards for themselves in their own approach to employees from the other sector that shows appreciation for the professional uniqueness of these employees.

Source: Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. (2024b)

Table 3. Design criteria operationalisation for the PDP.

Criterion	Operationalisation
1. Voluntary participation	Participation in this programme was voluntary and there was no recruitment through board members. The sole requirement was that participants registered as a pair, comprising a school leader and a childcare leader working together in a child centre.
2. Based on a needs analysis prior to the program	Intake interviews were conducted with all potential participants.
3. Use of multiple methods: evidence-informed, theoretically-grounded and practice-oriented	Scientific insights on IPC within child centres and inclusive leadership were linked to the participants’ daily practice. Scientific models were incorporated into practical exercises, featuring realistic scenarios where a fictional character ‘Lisa’ was introduced and an IPC card game used to depict the current and desired situation collaboratively.
4. Collective participation and collective learning	Compulsory participation in pairs (see 1), thus gathering insights from both perspectives, fostering reciprocal learning during and between sessions within the participants’ own child centre. Furthermore, during the sessions ample time for exchange was scheduled.
5. Spread over multiple sessions, time-rich	The programme comprised four sessions over five months, emphasising that learning occurs in both the workplace and sessions, reinforcing each other. Participants were asked to document workplace learning experiences in logs and discuss them in reflective interviews (see 6).
6. Promoting self-regulated learning, integrating the PDP sessions into participants’ own learning	Participants were encouraged in self-regulated learning, taking ownership of their learning paths without mandatory assignments. Following Panadero et al. (2016), learning experiences were tracked through logs and interviews. Participants self-evaluated twice, using the results as input for their learning process.

Table 4. Summary of pre-test and post-test scores, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and p-value per aspect of ILB.

Variable	Pretest (mean)	Posttest (mean)	Wilcoxon signed-rank test	p-value
Facilitating belongingness, A. Supports individuals as group members	3.80	4.16	1.30	.194
Facilitating belongingness, B. Ensures justice and equity	4.35	4.73	1.41	.157
Facilitating belongingness, C. Organises participation and information sharing	4.01	4.65	2.80**	.005
Valuing uniqueness, A. Encourages diverse contributions in a safe environment	4.45	4.87	2.01*	.044
Valuing uniqueness, B. Helps staff to fully contribute	4.33	4.88	2.62**	.009

*indicating significance at the p < .05 level, **indicating significance at the p < .01 level.

Table 5. Number of participants (N) who spontaneously mentioned a specific design criterion.

	3. theoretically grounded	3. practice oriented	4. collective learning	4. Participation in pairs	5 time rich	6. learning logs	6. reflective interview	6. self- regulated
N	8	5	14	8	2	4	6	8

Lacerenza, C.N., et al. 2017. Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 102 (12), 1686–1718. doi:10.1037/apl0000241.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salamon, J., et al. 2021. The interplay between the level of voluntary participation and supervisor support on trainee motivation and transfer. Human resource development quarterly, 32 (4), 459–481. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21428.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Daniels, E., Hondeghem, A., and Dochy, F., 2019. A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational research review, 27, 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Earley, P., 2020. Surviving, thriving and reviving in leadership: the personal and professional development needs of educational leaders. Management in education, 34 (3), 117–121. doi:10.1177/0892020620919763.

 Google Scholar

Fluckiger, B., Lovett, S., and Dempster, N., 2014. Judging the quality of school leadership learning programmes: An international search. Professional development in education, 40 (4), 561–575. doi:10.1080/19415257.2014.902861.

 Google Scholar

Salas, E., et al., 2012. The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychological science in the public interest, 13 (2), 74–101. doi:10.1177/1529100612436661.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown, C., Daly, A., and Liou, Y., 2016. Improving trust, improving schools. Journal of professional capital & community, 1 (1), 69–91. doi:10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aas, M. and Vennebo, K.F., 2021. Building leadership capacity in school leadership groups: An action research project. Educational action research, 31 (2), 348–365. doi:10.1080/09650792.2021.1934710.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huber, S.G., 2011. The impact of professional development: a theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting training and development programmes. Professional development in education, 37 (5), 837–853. doi:10.1080/19415257.2011.616102.

 Google Scholar

Lazenby, S., McCulla, N., and Marks, W., 2022. The further professional development of experienced principals. International journal of leadership in education, 25 (4), 533–547. doi:10.1080/13603124.2020.1716999.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clarke, S. and Wildy, H., 2013. Investigating preparation for the principalship: Deliberating on possibilities. In: C.W. Slater and S.W. Nelson, eds. Understanding the principalship: An international guide to principal preparation. Emerald Group, 25–44.

 Google Scholar

Lourenco, D. and Ferreira, A.I., 2019. Self-regulated learning and training effectiveness. International journal training development, 23 (2), 117–134. doi:10.1111/ijtd.12149.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Panadero, E., Klug, J., and Järvelä, S., 2016. Third wave of measurement in the self-regulated learning field: When measurement and intervention come hand in hand. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 60 (6), 723–735. doi:10.1080/00313831.2015.1066436.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Randel, A.E., et al. 2018. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human resource management review, 28 (2), 190–203. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verheijen-Tiemstra, R., et al. 2024b. Fostering collaboration through inclusive leadership: Exploring the behaviour of childcare and school leaders in Dutch child centres. Educational management administration & leadership, (ahead-of-print), 1–17. doi:10.1177/17411432241227686.

 Google Scholar