The challenges associated with special education intensified for school leaders with the passage of the historical landmark legislation 1975 Public Law 94-192 followed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The magnitude of the number of children receiving special services is one reason for the increased intensity. An estimated six million of the nation’s school age children between the ages of 6-21 receive special services. Sixty-seven percent of the children are identified as having specific learning disabilities or speech and language impairments (Edwards & Chronister, 2004). Special education, more than any other educational area, is entangled with complex issues. These complex issues have driven public education into a dual system, one for regular education and one for special education (Davidson & Gooden, 2001).

The five most commonly reported challenges noted by state directors of special education are “general education teachers’ lack of knowledge about appropriate accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities; the need for professional development for general education and special education teachers to learn strategies for meeting the needs of all students, including students with disabilities, in their classrooms; low expectations for students with disabilities; special education teachers lack of knowledge about general education curriculum; and the time needed for co-planning and meaningful collaboration between general and special education personnel across levels (i.e. school, district, state)” (The Access Center, 2008).

Given the complexities of special education it is essential that preparation programs for principals include content on special education (Lasky & Karge, 2006). Salisbury (2006) contends general education administrators need formal, decision-making professional development specific to special education and that such development leads to greater school-wide inclusion. Lasky and Karge (2006) argue that if schools are to be successful in educating students with disabilities attitudinal, organizational and instructional changes need to occur. Success or failure of these changes rests with the leadership of the principal.

Principals also face challenges with adhering to federal, state, and local special education mandates. The role of the building principal has drastically altered as a result of special education rules and regulations (Davidson & Gooden, 2001). Principals are required to manage special education under a massive set of rules and regulations while maintaining a leadership role for regular education programs. Davidson and Gooden conclude administrators are frustrated with the IDEA provisions because of a lack of sufficient knowledge to assure compliance with the regulations.

Principals must understand the core special education legal foundation and understand that effective special education matches instruction to the learning characteristics of students with disabilities. Principals must also understand that special education is a set of services, not a place nor a program. Finally, principals must know how to meaningfully include students with disabilities in assessments and new accountability systems, and they must know how to create school wide conditions that support effective special education (McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004). Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) note that to be considered competent, principals should have fundamental knowledge of special education and special education issues—fundamental knowledge for which aspiring and current principals receive minimal pre-service or in-service preparation.

The purpose of this paper is to share an overview of an analysis of data collected in the Midwest region of the United States. Data were collected through focus groups consisting of general education and special education teachers, principals, superintendents, directors of special education, and paraprofessionals; phone interviews with principals; and an analysis of course content in administrative preparation programs. The data was examined to determine the challenges principals were facing in special education and the extent to which principal preparation programs were focusing on preparing principals for leadership in special education.

Focus groups ranged in size from five to twelve individuals. Fifteen focus groups were conducted with a total of 100 individuals participating. Participants were grouped with focus groups based on their position (i.e. superintendents, directors of special education, teachers, and principals). Questions used for the focus groups were developed to solicit responses from stakeholders about how to effectively deliver special education services. For purposes of this paper we examined the responses to the following questions: (a) how can general education administrators become more engaged and empowered in special education decision-making processes, (b) how can regular and special education be more collaborative in the implementation of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model, (c) what are some of the managerial components that need to be maintained or changed, and (d) what are some of the other issues regarding delivery of special education. “Response to Intervention (RTI) is a systematic way of determining individual student needs and engaging necessary supports to meet those needs. RTI is both an early intervention strategy within the general education and one part in the process by which students may be identified to receive special education and related services” (Steedly, 2008).

Phone interviews were conducted with ten principals serving in suburban or rural school districts. The principals were asked how important it was for principals to have knowledge in the area of special education, and how much preparation in special education they received while completing their preparation program.

An analysis of course content and course descriptions of eight universities in the upper Midwest was conducted to determine if the programs required any special education programming in their principal preparation program. Course content and descriptions were located and analyzed via program websites.

The findings from the data collected as well as from issues identified in the research demonstrate a need for preparation programs to address the leadership demands associated with principal leadership and special education.

Phone interviews

The principals interviewed view special education as a critical issue. One principal stated, “On a scale of 1-10 special education is an 11.” Another asserted it was critical for principals to be knowledgeable “about legal issues and the different research-based instructional methods that work for well for special education students.” An elementary principal declared that it is a “fundamental part of the work we do; with 15% or more of the student population in special education, the principal is an integral part of the decisions affecting their education.” Another principal observed “there is a lot of time spent on designing behavioral interventions.” A high school principal stated “there is a need to have an understanding of the categories and know how students learn.”

The principals indicated limited to no preparation in special education as a part of their preparation programs. One principal said he “can’t recall receiving any training.” Another indicted his opportunity to study special education would have occurred “only if he had elected to take a special education law class.” Another principal commented, “It would have been beneficial but my training has been on the job. We need a lot of direction for our new leaders.” A recent graduate stated special education preparation occurred “only through what was covered in a general education law class.”

Focus Group Interviews

Data collected from focus groups clarify educators’ concerns about meeting the needs of students with disabilities. For instance, special education directors indicated that teachers need more tools to assist them in working with interventions. One director stated, “There are concerns about the limited training of regular education teachers.” The special education directors also viewed RTI as an opportunity for improving instruction in a manner that would increase effective teaching, and they viewed RTI as an opportunity to create a systematic process for data collection.

Another issue identified was the need for collaborative planning. Special educational teachers expressed “the need for time to meet to work on interventions” and “the need for superintendent and principal support and buy-in.”

A third issue focused on the need for effective, on-going professional development. Principals contended, “We need to get teachers to workshops,” and “We need staff development to do this (i.e. improve collaboration and the implementation of interventions).” One principal commented, “General education needs to be responsible.”

A fourth issue was the need to assure early interventions for all students thus minimizing inappropriate referrals to special education and assuring student needs were met in a timely manner. One regular classroom teacher stated, “If a student is referred in 1st grade and not accepted and then referred in 2nd grade, the delay is too long and we have to start all over again. We need an effective process that provides us time to sit down and problem solve together.”

A fifth issue encapsulated the need to eradicate the dual system of regular education and special education. Directors of special education saw the need to involve regular education teachers more in working with special education students, where as special education teachers reported the need to provide more interventions in the regular classroom. Principals and superintendents focused on the need to minimize the fragmentation between special education and general education. One superintendent noted, “We need to reexamine our policies and procedures to determine how our system can more effectively mesh to meet the needs of all students.”

The analysis of eight administrative preparation programs showed a lack of emphasis on special education in principal preparation. The analysis was intended to determine what courses had a reference to special education and were listed as a requirement. Of the eight programs reviewed only one required a course in special education and that was a one credit special education law class. There were, however, classes in the elective categories. Courses listed as options or electives included Special Education Program Development for Administrators, Special Education Law for Leaders, Legal/Social Foundations of Special Education, and Program Design for Special Education.

The issues surrounding special education are complex. In order to effectively address the issues and meet the needs of students with disabilities, principals need initial preparation and ongoing professional development in special education (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Salibury, 2006; Wakeman et al. 2006). Principal preparation programs should be equipping aspiring principals with the knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to provide strong leadership in special education.

As noted in the research (McLaughlin & Nolet, 2004; Salibury, 2006; Wakeman et al. 2006) and supported by the findings of this study (Robicheau, Haar, & Palladino, 2008) aspiring principals should finish preparation programs with the following foundation: (a) a sense of responsibility for ensuring all students’ educational needs are met, (b) knowledge of effective, research-based instructional interventions, (c) knowledge of special education processes, (d) an understanding of how to allocate resources to assure recommended instruction, interventions and assessments are implemented, and (e) skills in data-driven decision making that will guide the implementation of a system that supports the collaborative work of general education and special education. If as Wakeman et al. (2006) propose “competent principals should have a fundamental knowledge of special education as well as knowledge of current issues in special education” (p. 153) then principal preparation programs must reexamine the leadership preparation in the area of special education provided to aspiring principals.

Davison, D., & Gooden, J. (2001). Are we preparing beginning principals for the special education challenges they will encounter? ERS Spectrum, 4(19), 42-49.

Edwards, V., & Chronister, G. (2004). Special needs, common goals. Education Week, XXIII (17), 7. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC04ful.pdf

Lasky, B., & Karge, B. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: Experience and confidence of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 19-36.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Nolet, V. (2004). What every principal needs to know about special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Salisbury, C. (2006). Principals’ perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 70-82.

Steedly, K. M. (2008). Response to intervention. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from http://www.nichcy.org/Pages/RTI.aspx

The Access Center. (2008). States' top five most commonly reported challenges. Retrieved July 23, 2008 from http://www.k8accesscenter.org/accessinaction/TopFiveChallenges.asp

Wakeman, S., Browder, D., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 153-174.

Footer

This work is licensed by Jerry Robicheau, Jean Haar, and John Palladino under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Oct 28, 2008 6:44 am GMT-5.