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

Abstract

This study aims to answer the following research question: What were the participants’ perceptions of how their engagement in a professional development programme contributed to their advancement in inclusive leadership behaviour? To this end, we followed 17 school and childcare leaders collaborating in Dutch child centres for education and childcare, who participated in a dedicated professional development programme on inclusive leadership. The programme which consisted of four sessions, spread over five months, was tailored to develop inclusive leadership, and built upon six design criteria derived from literature. Data analysis was conducted by triangulating qualitative and quantitative data from interviews and pre- and post-programme self-evaluations. The main finding suggests that participants’ involvement in the professional development programme resulted in an augmented awareness of their role in creating an organisational climate through inclusive leadership, which was manifested through an increased application of inclusive leadership behaviours. Organising collective learning was considered a crucial element, recognising that the role of a school leader is sometimes perceived as isolated. Self-regulated learning via learning logs and reflective interviews provided opportunities for learning through reflection and showed that participants follow their own unique learning paths, tailored to their individual needs and contextual factors that they deem important.

Keywords:

• Professional development
• inclusive leadership
• school leadership development
• ECEC
• design criteria
• professional learning

Introduction

With the increasing complexity of the school leader’s role (Beausaert et al. 2023, Brauckmann et al. 2023), leadership development as a research topic has become more urgent. Hence, investing in the professional development of principals is a crucial factor in elevating the quality of teaching and education (Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2020, Lynch et al. 2024). However, there is limited research on the professional learning of these leaders (Lovett et al. 2015). Moreover, the notion of effective professional development of school leaders lacks clarity (Daniels et al. 2019), comprehensive research addressing the reciprocity between professional development activities and school leaders’ daily activities in practice is lacking (Daniels et al. 2019, Brauckmann et al. 2023) and research focusing on how informal learning opportunities enhance formal professional learning opportunities in self-regulated learning for school leaders is desirable (Zepeda et al. 2014). This calls for research into shaping the professional development of school leaders, where formal and informal learning in daily practice mutually reinforce each other.

This research gap pertains to the professional development of school leaders in general but finds specific resonance within professional development oriented towards new roles and leadership approaches. One of these new applications concerns inclusive leadership, a recent approach both within and beyond the educational sector. Inclusive leadership behaviour (ILB) is defined as a ‘set of positive leader behaviours that collectively facilitate all group members perceiving belongingness in the work group while maintaining their uniqueness within the group as they fully contribute to group processes and outcomes’ (Randel et al. 2018, p. 190). This approach emerges as a strong strategy for schools aspiring to realise inclusion in education (Oskarsdottir et al. 2020), as it simultaneously demands a dedicated focus on fostering inclusivity among all staff (Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. 2024b). Based on their empirical findings, Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. (2024b) advocated for tailored professional development initiatives for school leaders in the area of ILB. This study focuses on leadership in child centres, where school leaders – responsible for primary education – and leaders who are responsible for full-day care, Early Childhood and Education (ECEC) and out-of-school (OSC) care (hereafter childcare leaders) are required to work together, while they are appointed from their own sector. Noteworthy in this collaboration, is the fact that childcare sector in the Netherlands has long been driven by market forces, with the aim of influencing the employment of mothers with young children by providing childcare as a commercial service (Portegijs et al. 2018). However, the reality is more complex as despite privatisation, the sector also holds public value, for instance, through providing Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Consequently, childcare is increasingly regarded as having a pedagogical purpose and aiming to promote the development of all children, rather than as a mere ‘convenience service for working parents’ (Dekker et al. 2016, Taskforce samenwerking onderwijs en kinderopvang 2017, Rijksoverheid 2021). There are many similarities with other European countries in terms of childcare provision, but there are also differences. For instance, in the Netherlands, ECEC for children from 2.5 years is only available for children with a (risk of) educational disadvantages, and also the Netherlands is the only country with an employment requirement for childcare reimbursement. While teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree, childcare workers are generally educated to EQF 3. Also their salaries are considerably lower than those of teachers (Das et al. 2023).

This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on designing and implementing professional development programmes for school leaders with a specific focus on ILB. Therefore, the following research question arises: What were the participants’ perceptions of how their engagement in a professional development programme contributed to their advancement in inclusive leadership behaviour (ILB)?

1. What outcomes did participants experience as a result of their engagement in the PDP concerning their ILB?

2. Which design criteria of the PDP were perceived by the participants as essential in shaping professional development in ILB?

Theoretical background

In this section, we discuss professional development and explore current insights on school leaders’ learning to establish criteria for the PDP, focusing on enhancing inclusive leadership. For practical reasons, no distinction is made between the learning of school leaders and that of childcare leaders, as we consider both types of leaders professional learners in a pedagogical-educational context. Additionally, we will briefly examine inclusive leadership within the context of our PDP.

School leaders’ professional development

In line with Asterhan and Lefstein (2024), we consider the design of the PDP to be a prerequisite for studying professional growth in ILB. Therefore our research does not focus on the effectiveness of such design criteria, as they are likely to depend on a variety of environmental factors, including participants’ working conditions, curricular materials, and other resources. Instead, we study the valuation of these criteria by programme participants, echoing Daniels et al. (2019) suggestion to identify school leaders’ professional development needs and preferences.

In spite of the limited research on design criteria for professional development programmes for school leaders, compared with the extensive studies on teachers’ professional development, for instance, see Cirkony et al. (2024) for a recent overview, several studies provide direction to make informed choices regarding supportive design criteria. These will be presented in Table 1 and further elaborated upon in this section. The criteria were derived from three comprehensive studies on leadership development (Fluckiger et al. 2014, Lacerenza et al. 2017, Daniels et al. 2019) serving as primary foundations, supplemented by insights from other relevant studies. Through the synthesis of criteria, six distinct criteria were identified, encompassing aspects related to preparation (1. and 2.) and execution (3. through 6.) of the PDP.

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)

Firstly, Fluckiger et al. (2014) investigated how to best meet the professional learning needs of school leaders. Distilled from the literature and applied to five leadership learning programmes around the world, they propose a set of criteria for such programmes. Learning programmes should be informed by the weight of research evidence, time-rich, practice-centred, purpose-designed, peer-supported, context sensitive, partnership-powered and committed to evaluating the effects on leaders as well as school practices to which their learning applies.

Secondly, Lacerenza et al. (2017) identified, in their meta-analysis on the design and effectiveness of leadership programmes, elements that promote the effectiveness of a PDP, such as conducting a needs analysis, using multiple methods, providing feedback, using a face-to-face setting, voluntary participation and holding multiple sessions.

Thirdly, according to Daniels et al. (2019), PDPs should be spread over time, carefully designed and sequenced taking into account a priori learning and considering the individual needs of the principal. Furthermore, PDPs should reflect the context and participants’ own practice to facilitate the transfer of knowledge, skills and attitudes and offer networking and collegial consulting opportunities.

Supplementary insights from Salamon et al. (2021) underscored the motivational benefits of voluntary participation in PDPs, advocating for conditions that foster the highest autonomy level. Clarke and Dempster (2020) proposed flexible leadership learning approaches that emphasise the influence of local contexts and advocate personal ownership and commitment to collaborative learning. Zepeda et al. (2014) asserted that professional development for principals must consistently align with the principles of adult learning theory, particularly highlighting the importance of integrating self-regulated learning. This requires developing reflective skills to foster awareness of their actions and facilitate a deeper understanding of what school leaders are doing and learning from it, as suggested by Clarke and Dempster (2020). Also, Aas and Blom (2018) stressed the benefits of collaborative learning and knowledge sharing among school leaders. They highly value networking and interaction with their colleagues, which is seen as the most effective, beneficial and relevant form of professional learning (Lazenby et al. 2022). In the same vein, Boylan et al. (2023) state that collaborative learning and agency through active engagement and self-direction may be a necessary condition but they also advocate fore more focus on the knowledge component, that results from collaboration.

As learners autonomously determine how they shape their use of learning resources (Poell et al. 2018), the study of Jerdborg (2023) demonstrated that actively engaged principals in a PDP were prompted to reflect on their educational and practical experiences, whereas passive participants struggled to immerse themselves in the content.

Inclusive leadership behaviour

Interprofessional teams, comprising individuals with diverse educational backgrounds and expertise, collaborating towards specific goals, embody a dynamic that can enhance outcomes through the integration of varied perspectives goals (Bryson et al. 2015). However, this diversity also introduces the potential for conflict (Mitchell et al. 2015, Dwertmann et al. 2016). In response to this pressure, the promotion of an inclusive organisational climate has been advocated (Ashikali et al. 2021). This climate is characterised by policies, practices and procedures that convey a sense of value to individuals within the workplace, fostering their needs for belongingness and uniqueness without imposing pressure to assimilate (Shore and Chung 2021). Employing both direct and indirect mechanisms, leaders influence inclusivity by either encouraging or discouraging specific actions (Perry et al. 2021) and shaping team members’ perceptions through their own day-to-day behaviours (Boekhorst 2015).

Proposing a theoretical model for inclusive leadership, Randel et al. (2018) introduced two dimensions: facilitating belongingness and valuing uniqueness. Building upon the earlier work of Shore et al. (2011), who argued for the complementary nature of uniqueness and belongingness in creating inclusion, Randel et al. (2018) asserted that both dimensions must be addressed to achieve true inclusion, although leaders might inadvertently prioritise belongingness, accustomed to emphasising collective goals over valuing uniqueness. Recent research by Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. (2024b) substantiated this observation, revealing that behaviours related to uniqueness were particularly infrequent and that leaders did not consistently apply inclusive leadership in practice. In addition, leaders showed non-positive behaviours, such as failing to intervene when an employee behaved disrespectfully towards a colleague from the other sector, or failing to acknowledge one’s own implicit assumptions.

Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. (2024b) operationalised the ILB framework in the context of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between school leaders and childcare leaders in child centres (comprehensive facilities integrating early childhood education, primary education childcare and OSC). This framework is detailed in Table 2, which provides an overview of the two dimensions of ILB, their main aspects and their definitions.

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)

Methodology

The research context pertains to a PDP developed by the authors with the aim of enhancing ILB of school and childcare leaders. In this context, the study employed qualitative data from individual interviews and quantitative data in the form of a self-evaluation conducted before and after the implementation of the PDP. The objective of the PDP was for participants to gain insight into the key aspects of ILB and apply them in their own context.

Content of the PDP

The content of the PDP was based on earlier research (Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. 2024a, 2024b) on fostering IPC between childcare and education staff within the context of child centres and aligned with the participants’ needs as identified during the intake interviews. The programme consisted of four sessions, spread over five months. Each session lasted three hours. These sessions were led by the primary author, who, as recommended by Aas and Vennebo (2021), assumed the roles of researcher/supervisor and leadership coach throughout critical questioning and providing reflection (Fluckiger et al. 2014). In this capacity, the first author possessed specific contextual knowledge, expertise in group dynamics and proficiency in reflective dialogue. Following Panadero et al. (2016), participants’ learning experiences were monitored via learning logs and reflective interviews between the four sessions, thus combining intervention and measurement.

Based on the literature on designing PDPs for leaders and content on ILB and IPC, the design criteria were operationalised for this specific PDP, as described in Table 3.

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.

Implementation of the design criteria

Coenen and Schelfhout (2023) proposed supplementing perception data on professional development with third-party observations. This approach allows for an evaluation of whether the design criteria have been implemented as intended. In this study, criteria 1 and 2 were prerequisites, that were met in advance. To determine whether criteria 3 to 6 were applied as intended, throughout each session, a fellow researcher not involved in the project, observed the extent to which the design criteria were applied. A pre-developed observation form was used in this regard, which consisted of a binary yes/no scoring system, accompanied by a column in which the observer provided an open commentary on their observations. The completed observation forms clearly indicated that design criteria 3 to 6 were implemented in all four sessions, except criterion 5 during the first session. The observers’ explanations (see online supplementary material) provide further insight into how the criteria were addressed during the sessions.

Sampling

The participants involved in the PDP and the subsequent data collection comprised school leaders and childcare leaders engaged in collaboration across eight child centres, which are facilities designed to provide comprehensive primary education, combined with OSC, pre-school (ages 2–4) and day care (ages 0–4) in the Netherlands (Fukkink and Lalihatu 2020). Given that voluntary participation is considered effective for achieving learning outcomes (Salamon et al. 2021), and that participation from a range of organisations was intended, recruitment was organised using convenience sampling through a call in a newsletter. Pairs of leaders were invited to participate in a study on leadership in child centres, and were provided with the inclusion criteria for participation. Leaders from a total of eight child centres expressed their interest and were subsequently provided with additional details regarding the study’s objectives, approach and participation prerequisites. In total, 17 participants participated in the PDP: seven child centres with a dual leadership structure and one child centre where the leadership responsibilities were distributed among three leaders. Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Ethical Board on NaN Invalid Date NaN and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants were briefed on the study’s objectives and data collection procedures. Participants ranged in age between 25 and 62 years (M = 43.6; SD = 9.3) and had between 0 and 25 years of leadership experience (M = 10.6: SD = 9.4); there were two novice leaders among them, both in the education sector. All participants had at least a bachelor’s degree and three of them held a master’s degree.

Data collection

Semi-structured reflective interview

Reflective interviews were conducted between sessions. During the last interview, six weeks post-PDP, a semi-structured interview was conducted. These interviews lasted about 45–60 minutes. Participants were asked about their perceived professional development in ILB, followed by a subsequent question addressing elements of the PDP that had contributed to it. As the term ‘design criteria’ can be considered technical jargon, the wording ‘elements of the PDP’ was used. Also, participants were asked to identify elements of the PDP that should be retained for future instances, aiming to identify essential design criteria spontaneously mentioned by participants. Finally, we prompted the participants to respond to any unaddressed criteria, focusing on design criteria 3 to 6.

Self-evaluation

As part of criterion 6, participants completed a self-evaluation questionnaire for ILB. Following Yan and Carless (2022), the questionnaire held triple functionality as a measurement instrument, awareness tool and change instrument, making it crucial for self-regulated learning. Participants conducted a self-evaluation of their ILB before and after the PDP. The questionnaire was anchored in the ILB framework developed by Randel et al. (2018), and adapted to the specific context by Verheijen-Tiemstra et al. (2024b). The questionnaire was previously tested among 87 part-time students engaged in a child centre, yielding Cronbach's α values between .84 and .91 for all scales. The questionnaire measured the use of both dimensions of ILB. An example item from the questionnaire measuring facilitating belongingness, is as follows: ‘I provide opportunities for childcare and education staff to meet informally’ and for valuing uniqueness ‘I highlight the talents of employees from the other sector’.

Data analysis

Qualitative analysis

Atlas.ti 23 software was used to code and analyse the data. To answer research question 1, the reflective interviews were coded in multiple coding cycles. During the initial coding cycle, the code ‘potential benefits’ was used to capture participants’ mentions of perceived positive outcomes of engaging in the PDP, employing structural coding, based on the research question (Saldana 2021). The next step was content analysis, guided by the ILB framework, as mentioned in Table 2.

To answer research question 2, we also used multiple coding cycles, starting from the interview question of what elements participants perceived to be helpful in shaping professional development in ILB and guided by the six design criteria. The process involved a two-step coding approach, differentiating between the design criteria that were spontaneously stated and those that were prompted. These coded fragments were studied in depth, which in several situations resulted in a division into sub-criteria. Criterion 6, for instance, was subdivided into the following sub-criteria: ‘learning logs’, ‘reflective interviews’ and ‘self-regulated learning’. Finally, spontaneously mentioned elements that were not included in the codebook as design criteria were open-coded. These concern the codes ‘safe learning environment’ and ‘on-site visits’.

Quantitative analysis

To answer research question 1, quantitative analysis was performed using SPSS, version 29. Analysis was conducted only for participants who completed both the self-evaluation before and after the PDP, 14 participants in total. Three participants were unable to complete the concluding questionnaire due to illness, maternity leave and accepting a new job. Changes in responses to the subscales of ILB were measured using the non-parametric Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-ranks test for two related variables.

Results

RQ1:

What outcomes do participants experience as a result of their participation in the PDP?

This research question was addressed using both quantitative and qualitative data. The non-parametrical Wilcoxon signed-rank test was employed for quantitative data analysis to investigate significant pre- and post-test differences. As shown in Table 4, the findings indicated notable post-test improvements in three of the five measured aspects of ILB compared with the pre-test rankings. In the belongingness dimension, specifically ‘C. organises participation and information sharing,’ participants demonstrated a significant increase after the PDP (z = 2.80), rejecting the null hypothesis (p = .005). In the valuing uniqueness dimension, both A, Encourages diverse contributions in a safe environment (Z = 2.62) and B. Helps staff to fully contribute showed a significant increase after the PDP), rejecting the null hypothesis (p = .044 respectively p = .009).

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.

The qualitative analysis revealed an increased awareness of ILB as an approach to achieving enhanced IPC, reflected in new behaviour or increased application in ILB. As demonstrated in Table 2, two dimensions of ILB are distinguished: facilitating belongingness and valuing uniqueness. In addition to role modelling, facilitating belongingness involves three aspects: supporting individuals as group members, ensuring justice and equity, and organising participation and information sharing. Within the dimension of valuing uniqueness, beyond role modelling, it is important to encourage diverse contributions in a safe environment and to support staff in fully contributing. These aspects are discussed successively.

Firstly, participants emphasised supporting individuals as group members and the importance of cultivating cross-sector relationships, asserting that strong relationships contribute to enhanced collaboration, understanding and equality. Participants recognised the importance of justice and equality among staff from diverse backgrounds, promoting collaboration equality and respecting differing perspectives. Participants demonstrated quicker responses to IPC issues, by addressing them earlier. For example, Cecilia acknowledged the importance of incorporating various viewpoints, moving beyond an exclusive educational perspective. ‘I used to speak from an educational perspective. For example, I consistently used the term “pupils” instead of “children”’ (Cecilia, school leader). Awareness regarding equality, however, may also pertain to matters beyond language or behaviour. Hilda, for instance, stated:

What I’m really aware of, is that inequality often begins in the building itself. Nine out of ten times, there’s a huge contrast between the size and the location of the offices of the school leader and the childcare leader. And you know, it should not make any difference, but it does affect how others perceive the situation. Like, where are parents received, in a nice office or in a broom closet?

(Hilda, childcare leader)

In terms of role modelling, participants reported an increased emphasis on behaviour that involved making deliberate choices concerning their own interactions with various staff members. This could lead to an increased interest in delving into the other sector through formal occasions, as Andrew explained after the first session.

In your daily routine, you are mainly focused on your own business, which is school. But the programme also makes you look at the IPC part [with childcare]. That’s why I, for the first time, attended a transition meeting last week, in which the transition from toddler to pre-schooler is discussed.

(Andrew, school leader)

During formal and informal moments, participants increasingly engaged with employees from the other sector, showing heightened interest. In addition, exemplary behaviour was evident from setting high standards for themselves through the establishment of robust and stable relationships.

Over the course of the PDP, we [Daphne and I] noticed that we knew how to find each other more on an individual level. Even during that very busy stretch of time, we would sit together every Friday for a while and just say, ‘Wow, it’s tough, right?’ and ‘Yeah, it sure is.’ It was just more personal, you know? I noticed that if you connect with someone on a personal level, it becomes easier to work together on a professional level, too. That was something we really took away from the PDP.

(Deborah, childcare leader)

As to valuing uniqueness, participants did not describe examples in which they were encouraging diverse contributions in a safe environment. When it came to helping staff to fully contribute, participants provided examples of brief conversations they had with individual employees to support them in what employees consider challenging discussions with staff from the other sector. In other instances, it involved empowering their employees, especially when those employees have a low self-perception of their professional identity.

At times, employees may find it daunting to engage in a conversation with someone from the other sector. I support them in this regard, by explaining to them how to ask a question without passing judgement by always thinking from the child’s perspective. Additionally, I schedule a follow-up in my agenda for the following week to check in with the employee and inquire whether they managed to initiate the conversation.

(Beatrice, childcare leader)

Role model for valuing uniqueness was not mentioned by many participants. Even when valuing uniqueness was involved, the focus of enactment was often on drawing attention to the professional uniqueness of one’s own sector rather than showing appreciation for the professional uniqueness of employees from the other sector. Charlotte however, perceived an increased awareness regarding this matter.

I’ve particularly taken away the aspect of diversity within the team and the appreciation for individual uniqueness from the meetings. I’m increasingly applying this in practice. We used to greet each other, but now I also engage in meaningful conversations and show an interest in their profession. It’s about appreciating the uniqueness of their profession or of that particular team member.

(Charlotte, childcare leader)

R2:

Which design criteria of the PDP were essential in shaping professional development in ILB, as indicated by the participants?

In this section, we address the design criteria spontaneously identified by the participants as essential for supporting their professional development in ILB, supplemented by some prompted responses. Table 5 illustrates how many participants spontaneously mentioned specific criteria.

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

Below, the key insights resulting from the interviews are described for the criteria 3–6. Criterion 3 is divided into two sub-criteria: theory-grounded and practice-oriented. Regarding the theoretical approach, participants spontaneously expressed appreciation for ‘theoretical insights as a framework to apply in practice’ (Charlotte, childcare leader) or because they ‘consider it important to speak from a theoretical framework’ (Barbara, school leader). Adeline (childcare leader) indicated she can ‘indulge in interesting literature’, several participants mention that it is important for literature to contain an aha experience, for practical application. According to their opinions, this was successfully achieved in this PDP. Participants highly valued the models that were introduced during the sessions, such as the ILB framework and the Child Centre Integration Model (CCIM), which they used to assess IPC in their own child centre. Also a case-description, which introduced a fictional character ‘Lisa’ along with the challenges she faced as a child in a child centre, was recognised and appreciated by the participants. Some participants introduced ‘Lisa’ into their own child centre to address the problems she experienced.

That slide from the first meeting we had, featuring the discussion about Lisa and all the speech bubbles around her. It made me very aware of the fact that oh, that shouldn’t really happen, should it? Ideally, in a child centre, a child should not receive two different responses to the same need throughout the day. So, we’ve been very consciously addressing that issue.

(Ellen, school leader, spontaneous)

In the analysis of criterion 4, it was deemed relevant to distinguish between collective learning within the participant group and collective learning resulting from the participation in pairs from the same child centre. School leader Daphne spontaneously recognised the benefit of exchanging ideas with like-minded individuals, fostering peer consultation. Childcare leader Charlotte spontaneously emphasised the value of linking theory to discussions with fellow participants for effective content retention. School leader Felicia appreciated gaining insights into how participants from other child centres approached certain aspects (spontaneous). School leader Emily found discussions valuable because of the infrequent engagement with peers from other child centres in practice. School leader Hanna (spontaneous) highly valued discussions with peers as they facilitated the connection from literature to practical application.

Enrolling in pairs yielded significant benefits for participants. School leaders Andrew and Barbara spontaneously noted increased communication and more substantive discussions focused on ILB rather than practical matters. Childcare leader Charlotte mentioned that participating in pairs had the advantage of attending sessions together and being engaged with the content together in between (prompted). Childcare leader Deborah spontaneously considered participation in pairs to be the most important criterion, fostering increased knowledge and understanding of each other’s contexts, thereby enhancing mutual respect and interest. Childcare leader Francine was convinced of the added value of participation in pairs but also acknowledged spontaneously that effectiveness is influenced by active engagement at the individual level as well. ‘If your duo partner does not actively participate, it also hinders your process’, she explained.

Criterion 5 - time-rich - was spontaneously mentioned by two participants as something that should be retained. Childcare leader Deborah indicated that having only four sessions was somewhat limited; a fifth session would have been welcome to provide more attention to the topic Childcare leader Esther suggested that an additional session might allow for a more in-depth exploration of the specific context of each child centre.

Criterion 6 was divided into three sub-criteria based on the data: learning logs, reflective interviews and self-regulated learning. Participants who spontaneously mentioned the learning logs, found the learning logs beneficial in the learning process ‘because it required a conscious effort to sit down and fill them in’ (Hilda, childcare leader) or found it valuable to ‘occasionally look back at previously filled-in learning logs, making me more aware’ (Andrew, school leader). However, opinions on the learning logs were divided. Among participants who did not spontaneously mention the learning logs, it was particularly noticeable that although in general they found it helpful to reflect on matters, they also perceived they had less time than planned for this due to the demands of daily life (Barbara, school leader; Daphne, school leader), or they faced issues uploading them in the secure environment for research purposes. School leader Cecilia said ‘I wrote everything in a notebook for myself but often didn’t find the time for the additional step of uploading’ School leader Felicia found written reflection ‘not her thing’, as she described she ‘had to do this too often during her undergraduate studies’. Some participants also expressed the belief that the learning logs were primarily aimed at research instead of capturing their own learning experiences, as evidenced from the following quotes. ‘If I’d known I was doing this to create awareness within myself, then I think it would have gone differently, but now it felt as an assignment, so I felt less ownership’ (Barbara, school leader, prompted) or ‘it felt like something I just had to give back to you, because I was allowed to participate in this PDP’ (Emily, school leader, prompted).

Regarding the reflective interviews, all participants, whether they spontaneously mentioned them or not, found them helpful. School leader Felicia found these interviews ‘valuable for expressing thoughts and zooming in on specific situations’ (prompted). Childcare leader Francine appreciated that the interviews helped her ‘stay sharp and step out of the daily routine’ (spontaneous). School leader Gaby considered the interviews a ‘valuable deepening of the learning logs, as the conversations encouraged extra effort and progress’ (spontaneous). For childcare leader Deborah, the discussions brought ‘many eye-openers about how I feel experiences but hadn’t yet been able to articulate’ (spontaneous).

Opinions were divided on self-regulated learning in which participants were encouraged to take ownership of their learning paths without mandatory assignments. Some participants found it effective because ‘the approach of attending sessions, writing some notes and having discussions suited their learning style’ (Andrew, school leader, spontaneous). School leader Cecilia spontaneously compared this PDP with previous PDPs and explained that ‘other programmes often got stuck in similar types of assignments, where you find yourself writing a mandatory report on a Sunday afternoon behind your computer again’. She perceived the ownership aspect as particularly strong: ‘I feel like I’ve had a real say in the whole thing, making me feel the owner of a part of the PDP and my own development. I think that’s important’ (spontaneous). However, some other participants found it challenging that there were no mandatory assignments. Childcare leader Adeline, for example, expressed, ‘if you’re following a PDP alongside a hectic job, then I think more guidance is needed to keep the focus on learning, for instance by setting a mandatory goal’ (prompted). In the same vein, school leader Gaby suggested that ‘although mandating might be a strong term, encouraging participants to take action by, for example, developing a homework assignment would have been a good option’ (spontaneous).

In addition to the theory-driven criteria, participants also mentioned the importance of creating a safe learning environment during the PDP, as stated spontaneously by school leader Felicia: ‘You provided enough space for everyone to contribute to the group. You did that very well, allowing everyone to express themselves and share their own experiences without attaching any judgement. I really experienced a sense of safety’. Furthermore, several participants spontaneously mentioned the importance of context, which sparked suggestions for on-site visits to child centres.

What I would like or would find inspiring is if you didn’t just organise the sessions at [name of college]‘s location, but at one of the participants’ child centres. To really delve into that practice a little bit with all of us and then have the discussions from there

(Charlotte, childcare leader)

Discussion

This study aimed to explore how engagement in a dedicated PDP according to the participating school and childcare leaders contributed to their advancement in ILB. Our findings suggest that participants’ involvement in the PDP resulted in an increased awareness of ILB as an approach for achieving enhanced IPC. This was manifested through an increased application of inclusive leadership behaviours in both dimensions of ILB. Essential design criteria for this purpose, according to participants, included collective learning, participation in pairs and self-regulated learning through the use of learning logs and reflective interviews, particularly when learning logs and reflective interviews were combined. Also, the combination of being theoretically grounded and practice oriented was highly appreciated by the participants. Brennan and Gorman (2023) asserted that learning for inclusion can be achieved over relatively short time frames when the conditions of agency and opportunity for collaborative enquiry in a safe environment are met. Our study supports this assertion for both aspects.

Quantitative findings from our study indicate that perceived professional development indeed occurred in both dimensions of ILB. Participants perceived to show more ILB aimed at facilitating belongingness by organising participation and information sharing after the PDP than before the start of the PDP. In addition, participants perceived to show more ILB valuing uniqueness by encouraging diverse contributions in a safe environment and by helping staff to fully contribute after the PDP than before the start of the PDP. Although the quantitative findings did not show significant professional growth in in supporting individuals as group members and ensuring justice and equity, the qualitative data revealed that participants did experience professional growth in these areas. The study found that the participants experienced growth in their interactions with staff and other leaders in the child centre, as well as an increased awareness of the impact of language and organising participation. However, when it came to valuing uniqueness, the participants provided fewer examples of growth, despite significant professional growth shown in the quantitative data. A possible explanation is that leaders prioritise collective goals, as suggested by Randel et al. (2018), which makes them more likely to think of examples related to facilitating belongingness.

Although this study has contributed original insights into augmenting ILB through a dedicated PDP, the findings are constrained by some limitations. Firstly, this study was conducted within child centres in the Dutch context, where IPC between primary education and childcare providers may exhibit distinctive characteristics guided by national policies. Consequently, the generalisation of our findings to other contexts where e.g. ECEC or OSC providers collaborate with primary schools should be approached with caution. Secondly, a limitation of this study is the small number of participants with whom the research was conducted. In addition, although the implementation of the criteria was measured by third-party observations, research data came from participants’ perceptions, either from interviews or self-assessments. And lastly, it cannot be ruled out that a certain degree of bias may have occurred as a result of prioritising voluntary participation, with a higher response rate from participants with a positive attitude towards the development of child centres.

Implications for research and practice

On a theoretical level, our study provided empirical data on how participants perceived their professional growth in ILB while engaging in a tailor-made PDP. In doing so, we have contributed to narrowing the knowledge gap on professional learning of school leaders and how reciprocity occurs between PDP activities and workplace learning, when informal learning opportunities strengthen the organised activities of the PDP (Zepeda et al. 2014, Daniels et al. 2019, Brauckmann et al. 2023). Hence, our study showed that organising collective learning was considered a crucial design criterion for PDPs tailored to school leaders, recognising that the role of a school leader is sometimes perceived as isolated (Service et al. 2018). The integration of learning logs and reflective interviews provided opportunities for learning through reflection, with a focus on learning from one’s own context and individual learning path.

Yet some caution is appropriate. While this paper describes the professional growth perceived by participants, it is important to recognise that the relationship between a PDP and professional growth is complex. Using the perspective of rhizomatics, Strom and Viesca (2021) elaborate on this complexity, noting that learning occurs within a system where activities are influenced by a network structure characterised by decentralisation, multiplicity, and interconnectedness, rather than a linear process, which they refer to as a ‘tree’ process.

The practical recommendations following from our study focus on applying design criteria that were highly valued by the participants, specifically emphasising the acquisition of knowledge from peer learning and the inclusion of more than one participant per organisation. The latter, notably, generated avenues for learning between sessions, which manifested itself through collaborative retrospective or prospective reflections on sessions, or learning through feedback-seeking behaviour. These propositions align with the research of Crans et al. (2021), who found that workplace learning predominantly transpires through immediate peer engagements and Strom and Viesca (2021) who state that learning and practice are not two separate processes but are entangled and inform each other. Secondly, we recommend practical solutions to ease the creation of learning logs, such as through a mobile application. In line with Salamon et al. (2021), we discourage mandatory logs as well as integrating them into compulsory assignments. Instead, we suggest a low-barrier approach, coupled with clear explanations, to promote self-regulated learning. Thirdly, our study shows that self-regulated learning may also imply seeking guidance. For practitioners, when designing a PDP, consideration should be given to those participants who would like more guidance in order to plan learning activities within their busy work schedules. This would imply organising an environment in which a school leader considers seeking assistance a form of self-regulated learning.

Reflecting on our findings and discussion, an additional focus of our research design would be to incorporate independent ILB observations to gain insights into whether perceptions of increased ILB are also recognised in daily practice. Consistent with Daniels et al. (2019), future research should involve the perception of multiple stakeholders. Furthermore, based on our findings that some participants expressed a specific need for guidance and assignments as part of the PDP, future research might consider focusing on self-directed learning and how motivation for participation could influence, mediate or moderate the need for guidance among leaders engaged in a PDP. Lastly, we would advocate for more extensive research on ILB, examining and correlating the significance that educational leaders attach to fostering belongingness and valuing uniqueness with the activities they deploy across the various facets of ILB. It may be possible that the concept of ‘inclusion’ introduces an additional layer of complexity to the already complex endeavour of teaching and learning in an environment that is becoming increasingly diverse (Brennan and Gorman 2023). Elaborating on this, and based on our findings, we concur with Clarke and Dempster (2020) who asserted that the agency of school leaders is likely to be enhanced by enriching their experience through the promotion of awareness of their actions and the insights gained from them.

In conclusion, while studying outcomes of participating in a PDP, our research suggests that designing and implementing a PDP cannot be reduced to a simple calculation. While there is some current consensus on what design criteria may or may not be considered effective (Cirkony et al. 2024), they do not necessarily lead to the same learning outcomes for all participants, because professional development is highly contextual, depending on a variety of environmental and personal factors. As demonstrated by our study, participants follow their own unique learning pathways, tailored to their individual needs and contextual factors that they deem important. Therefore, further research, aimed at understanding participants’ individual learning pathways as they develop over the course of a PDP, in which enactment and reflection take place, as proposed by Cirkony et al. (2024), would be relevant. Consequently, following Boylan et al. (2023), more attention could be paid to knowledge developed through collaboration and self-regulated learning as this could give more insight into the development of criticality among participants. In particular, with regard to the concept of inclusive leadership, which encompasses both belongingness and valuing uniqueness, the perspective of rhizomatics could be relevant to consider as this structure allows for the integration of diverse perspectives in a manner that may be more extensive than that afforded by traditional, dyadic models.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) Doctoral Grant for Teachers Program, project no. [023.013.021].