The role of school communities 127Discussion
Results found that the attitudes of the teacher played a significant role in the
quality of the interactions within the student’s environment. Within the microsys-
tem, teacher, student and peers were engaged in multiple interactions, both one-
way and bi-directional. Results confirm that students’ social developments were
impacted by these interactions. Positive, reciprocal interactions between the student
and members of their microsystem (e.g., CS4) saw the target student included in
class activities with numerous, positive illustrations of social inclusion. Less positive
interactions (e.g., CS2 and CS3), where the student was rejected by peers, com-
bined with no opportunity for social interaction as facilitated by the teacher, saw
these students experience little to no social inclusion.
The impact of the mesosystem on the student’s social inclusion was also noted. Each
Principal’s interactions with the microsystem of the target student either enhanced or
detracted from their social inclusion. The reported influence of Principals served to
undermine the confidence of the teacher who, in turn, provided limited opportunity
for social inclusion of the student. Both teachers and Principals reported attribution
to the holding of power and control regarding decision-making. For teachers, this was
reflected in the locus of control code, indicating they believed decisions were made for
them, rather than by them (e.g., “I don’t have anything to do with that. That decision is
made by the execs [executive]” – CS2-T). Principals, however, reported themselves to
be the sole decision-maker in their schools (e.g., “I assess, I look, I make the decision
as to the class they will go into” – CS4-P), perceiving him or herself to be the power
holder: “Most teachers here have given me their power because they don’t know what
they’re doing” (CS1/2-P).
Social inclusion was a selective code reported by both teachers and Principals.
Examination of the open codes and categories that conceptualised this code how-
ever, found greater focus on the barriers to social inclusion and less to the way this
construct was facilitated in the mainstream environment.
Bronfenbrenner (2005) postulated that an individual’s interactions with the
systems that surround them would change over time. Thus, the chronosystem
reflected the cumulative experiences a person has over their lifetime. This reflection
of the influence of time was illustrated in Case Study 4. Both Jacob* (student with
an Autism Spectrum Disorder) and his peers had been friends for many years: “We
started at pre-school together” (Jacob). As Jacob and his friends grew up together,
through their interactions with each other, greater understanding and acceptance
developed between them. This enduring friendship resulted in successful social
inclusion for Jacob a number of years later.
An integral member of the students’ microsystem is the family. Family was a
factor mentioned by all ‘key player’ groups except the peer group. Students reported
their place in the familial structure but did not elaborate in any detail as to the
quality of relationship they had with their family. Principals and teachers men-
tioned the role of families in the school community, but did not detail the nature of
the relationships between the target student and their family.