The principal aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives stakeholders in Western Australian State primary schools had of the Students at Educational Risk (SAER) policy and inclusive education practices in schools. The study includes an analysis of the SAER Policy process in Western Australia between 1998 and 2003 at school and District Office level, with a particular focus on inclusivity, as enacted at the grassroots, micro, primary school level. The case studies enabled examination of social processes through which macro changes in structure and funding related to this policy have been experienced and reconstructed at the micro level and how the requirement for inclusive education practices were accommodated in schools. Micro-political power, a significant dimension of organisations, compels consideration of the wider forces at work in the school. Three levels of policy context were relevant to this study: micro or school level; meso or District Office level; and macro, incorporating the Central Office of the Western Australian Department of Education and Training and the Curriculum Council. Ball's policy cycle was used to connect the different contexts of the policy process at the micro, meso and macro levels. Little research or data is yet available on implementation of the Making the Difference: Students at Educational Risk Policy. This study was significantly different from existing research or data in two ways. First, the selection of the three case study schools was designed to focus on degrees of inclusivity. Second, whereas the Making the Difference: Students at Educational Risk Policy was a top-down initiative, the data gathering in this study was in a bottom-up direction beginning at the micro level, a direction change that was significant. Findings from the micro level were discussed at the meso, District Office level, in an attempt to empower those least 'heard' in top-down policy processes. The research found one superordinate category, School Policy and Strategic Plans. Within the superordinate category were Conceptualisation and Implementation of SAER Policy and Conceptualising Inclusivity. Emergent from the superordinate category were four categories: School Leadership, Teambuilding, Communication with Stakeholders, and Operationalising or Managing. The category of School Leadership was the foremost and most crucial of the four categories because the form and the degree of success in the School Leadership category determined both the form and the state of the other three categories. The top-down, hierarchical trajectory of the policy process and strategic planning process appeared to hinder the ability of schools to operationalise or manage, and impaired willingness of teachers to 'buy-in' to SAER policy and to inclusive education. Factors, which in combination, can mediate the top-down, hierarchical policy and strategic planning trajectory include, effective school leadership, teambuilding and communication with stakeholders in the school community. Without commitment to the policy and strategic plan from all staff, synergy to maximise school operationalisation is unlikely to be attained. Therefore the success of SAER policy and inclusivity is about the intersection of continuity, quality, teambuilding, communication and operationalising and managing.