PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION The Instructional Leadership Role of Pennsylvania Public School Principals and Their Effect on Special Education Practices Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Slippery Rock University Author Note: Amanda J. Truitt-Smith M.S. CCC-SLP Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Amanda J. Truitt-Smith M.S. CCC-SLP, Slippery Rock University Special Education Doctoral Student 77 Truitt Lane, Fairmount City, Pennsylvania 16224. E-mail: amandajtruitt@gmail.com PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Slippery Rock University Department of Special Education A Dissertation written by Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Bachelor of Science in Communications Sciences and Disorders, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 2001 Master of Science in Communications Sciences and Disorders, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 2002 Doctor of Education, Slippery Rock University, 2019 Approved by Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson _____________, Title: _________________________________ Dissertation Chair Dr. Matthew Erickson ___________________, Title: _________________________________ Dissertation Committee Member Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey________________, Title: ________________________________ Dissertation Committee Member Accepted by _______________________________, Dean, College of Education, Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION I TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………………….1 AKNOLWEDGMENTS ……………………………………………………………………...2 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION. ………………………………………………………….......3 Rationale for the Study ………………………………………………………………………….. 3 Purpose of the Study ………………………………………………………………………….......4 Problem Statement …………………………………………………………………………..……6 Significance of the Study …………………………………………………………………………7 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………………….8 Theoretical Framework/Constructs ……………………………………………………………….9 Definitions ……………………………………………………………………………………….17 Assumptions …………………………………………………………………………………….22 Limitations …………………………………………………………………………………...…22 Organization of the Study ……………………………………………………………………….23 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………...………….25 A Brief History of Special Education …………………………………………………………...25 Parental Involvement ………………………………………………….………………………...30 Traditional Role of Principal in Schools ...……………………………………………………...33 Principal Preparation Programs ………………………………………………………………...36 Principals and Instructional Leadership for Special Education ………………………………...41 Inclusion and the Public-School Principal ……………………………………………………...45 Principals and Special Education Go Together ………………………………………………...59 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ………………………………………………….……...60 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION II Overview …………………………………………………………...............................................63 Participants …………………………………………………………...........................................63 Setting …………………………………………………………..................................................66 Population and Sample Selection ………………………………………………………….........66 Survey …………………………………………………………...................................................67 Ethical Principles/ Human Subject Compliance ………………………………………………..67 Instrumentation …………………………………………………………....................................72 Validity …………………………………………………………................................................73 Reliability ………………………………………………………….............................................74 Design of the Study …………………………………………………………..............................74 Research Questions and Hypotheses …………………………………………………………...76 Variables …………………………………………………………..............................................77 Data Sources …………………………………………………………........................................77 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ………………………………………………….…...78 Data Collection Methods ………………………………………………………….....................80 Biases/limitations …………………………………………………………………..…………...80 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ………………………………………………………..…………..81 Introduction ………………………………………………………..………………….………...81 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………...…………...81 Instrument ………………………………………………………..……………………………...83 Participants ………………………………………………………..……………………..……...83 Section I: Demographic Results …………………………………………………..…………...85 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION III Section II: Demographic Results …………………………………………………………….…94 Section III: Frequencies Results …………………………………………………..…………..102 Section IV: Open Ended Results …………………………………………………..…………..115 Biases/Limitations …………………………………………………..………………………....120 Summary …………………………………………………..…………………………………..121 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS …………..…...…………………………..122 Study Overview …………..…………………………………………………………………....122 Sample/Participant Discussion …………..……………………………………………………..122 Section I; Demographic Discussion …………..…………………………………………......…123 Section II; Knowledge Discussion …………..…………………………………………………128 Section III; Frequencies Discussion …………..………………………………………………137 Section IV; Open Ended Reponses Discussion …………..……………………………………151 Limitations …………..…………………………………………………………………………160 Recommendations for future research …………..……………………………………………..161 Closing Remarks …………..…………………………………………………………………...162 What can be done………………………..……………………………………………………...163 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: PSEL Standards ………………………………………………………………………..53 Table 2: School Districts Invited to Participate in the Survey …………………………………..84 Table 3: Participant’s Current Administrative Role …………………………………………….86 Table 4: Participant’s Length of Service in Current Position ………………………………..….86 Table 5: Participant’s Student Population Size …………………………………………………88 Table 6: Survey Participants’ Ages ……………………………………………………………...89 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION IV Table 7: Participants’ Previous Role in the Educational Setting ………………………………..89 Table 8: Higher Education Institution Where Participants Received Certification ……………..90 Table 9: Special Education Classes Taken by Participants During Certification …………….....91 Table 10: Current Participant Role and Length of Service Crosstabulation ……...…………......92 Table 11: Chi-Square for Current Participant Role and Length of Service Crosstabulation ……93 Table 12: Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 ………………………………….......94 Table 13: Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 …………………………………........95 Table 14: Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 and 6 ……...…………………………….....95 Table 15: Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 ……………………………....96 Table 16: Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 ………………………………97 Table 17: Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 & 6 ………………………………...97 Table 18: Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 ………………………………...98 Table 19: Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 …………...……………………99 Table 20: Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 and 6 ……………………...…………99 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION V Table 21: Comparison of Length of Service and Special Education Training …...………..…101 Table 22: Comparison of Mean and Standard Deviations between All Participants for Legal Frequencies …...………………………………………..…104 Table 23: Independent Samples T-Test Section II, Legal Frequencies, Survey Questions 28-32; comparing participant role …...……………………………105 Table 24: ANOVA Section II, Legal Frequencies, Survey Questions 28-32; comparing years of service…...……………………………...…………………………105 Table 25: Descriptive Statistics for Foundational Frequencies, Survey Questions 33-37 …...………………………………...…………….……..……107 Table 26: Section III; Foundational Frequencies: Independent Sample Test for Equality of Variances Based on Participant Role ……....108 Table 27: Section III; ANOVA for Foundational Frequencies, Questions 33-36 ………..……108 Table 28: Descriptive Statistics for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 …...…110 Table 29: Independent Samples T-test based on Participant Role for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 …………..…...111 Table 30: ANOVA based on Length of Service for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 …...……………………………...……………………....……111 Table 31: Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Competencies, Survey Questions 43-49 …...……………………………...……………………..…..…113 Table 32: Section III; Perceived Competencies: Independent Sample Test for Equality of Variances Based on Participant Role, Survey Questions 43-49 …………………..…114 Table 33: Section III; Perceived Competencies: ANOVA Based on Participant Length of Service, Survey Questions 43-49 …...……………………………...……………………..……114 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION VI Table 34: Sample Analysis: A detailed display of Question Three’s Key Words in Context ………………..……119 Table 35: Sample Phrase Analysis of Open-Ended Question 3 …………………..……..……120 Table 36: Codes, Categories, and Emerging Themes in Principals’ Open-Ended Responses ……………………………………..……………..134 Table 37: Hypothesis Matrix ……………………………………………………………..……138 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Participant role and length of service displayed ……………………………………..87 Figure 2: Cross Tabulations for Participants Comparing Length of Service by the number of special education classes taken in certification program …………………………..87 Figure 3: Comparison of Length of Service and Number of Special Education Classes Taken ………………………………….………..………….102 Figure 4: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 1 …..…………..121 Figure 5: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 2 …..…………..122 Figure 6: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 3…..…………..124 Figure 7: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 4…..…………..125 Figure 8: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 5…..…………..126 Figure 9: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 6 …..…………..127 Figure 10: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 7…..……...…..128 Figure 11: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 8…..……...…..129 Figure 12: Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 9…..………….130 Figure 13: Qualitative Data Themes…..………………………………………………………..131 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION VII REFERENCES …………..…………………………………………………………………..164 APPENDICES Appendix A: List of PDE Approved Colleges/Universities …………………………………..194 Appendix B: Consent to use Frost & Kersten Survey ………………………………………...196 Appendix C: Permission to use Frost & Kersten Survey ……………….……………………..197 Appendix D: Consent to use Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer Survey ………………….…..198 Appendix E: Permission to use Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer Survey ……………….…..199 Appendix F: Public-School Principals Survey …………………………………………….…..200 Appendix G: Online Survey Consent Form ………………….………………………………...210 Appendix H: Acronyms ……………………………………………………..…………….…..212 Appendix I: Definitions ………………………………………………………………………..213 Appendix J: List of PA Intermediate Units ………………………………………………..…..218 Appendix K: List of PA Districts Selected for Survey …………………………………..…....220 Appendix L: Superintendent Approval Letter ……………………………………………..…..224 Appendix M: Superintendent Consents ……………………………………..……………..…..225 Appendix N: Reminder E-mail ……………………………………………………...……..…..228 Appendix O: College/University Curriculum Data ………………………………………..…..229 Appendix P: IRB Approval Letter ………………………….……………………………..…..252 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 1 Abstract Pennsylvania public-school principals are expected to be instructional leaders for all students within their district. When it comes to leadership for students with disabilities, this role can be problematic due to a lack of experience in the field of special education and pre-service special education training. Special education leadership should be a significant concern for school administrators as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved. The research has demonstrated that overall, public-school principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in pre-service or on-going professional development. The purpose of this research study was twofold. The research is helpful to colleges and universities when developing plans of study and programming for future public-school principal and leadership training degrees and certificates. This research also provides a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals can identify where their special education knowledge is lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their own district’s special education population. This study provided insight into understanding the factors that contribute to the lack of special education training in special education programs by higher education entities. Keywords: Special Education, Leadership, Instructional Leadership, Principal PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, thank you to my extremely supportive and patient husband, Brock, for the encouragement and inspiration during my entire doctoral program, but especially during the dissertation process in which I spent many nights buried in writing. I wish to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, Dr. Matthew Erickson, and Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, who invested much of their time and effort while providing guidance and encouragement throughout this experience. A special thanks to Dr. Padma Anand for her guidance throughout the research proposal phase. Thank you to my family for a lifetime of love and support on the journey from kindergarten through becoming Dr. Smith. This dissertation would not have been possible without the unwavering support of my family who instilled the work ethic and drive that was necessary to succeed. I am grateful to my many friends and colleagues who provided words of advice and encouragement along the way. You must do the thing you think you cannot do. ~Eleanor Roosevelt PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 3 CHAPTER I: Introduction Rationale for the Study For more than thirty-five years, special education has been a much-discussed topic in the education world. “Resulting from landmark social and legislative events, special education in the United States has undergone drastic changes over the past 30 years” (Lynch, 2012, p. 44). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law (P.L.) 94-142, passed by congress in 1975 (IDEA, 2004), set the wheels in motion for decades-long debates and reviews of practices relating to special education. After multiple amendments, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446), was established to protect the rights of students with disabilities and guarantee them the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE; Bateman & Bateman, 200; IDEA, 2004 Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). The impact of special education reform has been felt from administration all the way to the classroom. The connection of “special education administration with the educational leadership curriculum is at once a current problem and a perennial concern” (Crockett, 2002, p. 158) for public-school principals throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania public-school principals have a critical role in the development of special education programming, curriculum planning, professional development for teachers under their supervision, and evaluating the fidelity of current programs in place (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012). Researchers must take an in-depth look at the role the Pennsylvania publicschool principal has in special education programming to determine if Pennsylvania publicschool principal degrees and certification training programs may be improved. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 4 Several studies have been conducted across the country researching public-school principals and their knowledge of special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2013; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006); however, limited research has been conducted to evaluate the knowledge and perceptions of the Pennsylvania public-school principal. More data in this critical area was needed to identify the knowledge, skill set, and beliefs held by Pennsylvania publicschool principals. This information was vital, to certify Pennsylvania public-school principals are provided the appropriate pre-certification coursework and learning experiences. Research was needed to ensure the Pennsylvania public-school principal has knowledge of special education law, policies, and procedures to diminish litigation opportunities. Research was warranted from the perspective of the Pennsylvania public-school principal to confirm Pennsylvania publicschool districts are providing high-quality education to students who receive special education supports and services allowing them to reach their full potential. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the current research study was twofold. It was the researcher’s intention this research would be helpful to colleges and universities when developing plans of study and programming for future Pennsylvania public-school principal training degrees and certification programs. This research also provided a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals could identify where their special education knowledge was lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their own district’s special education population. This study addressed Pennsylvania public-school principals’ lack of special education knowledge and PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 5 how it affects their views of instructional leadership as it pertains to special education programming and topics. In this study, The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey (Section I: Demographics, Section II: Knowledge, and Section III: Frequencies) gathered quantitative data to test the theory Pennsylvania publicschool principals are not given adequate special education training in their certification and/or degree programs to fully prepare them for the rigors surrounding special education implementation and regulations. The researcher wanted to determine if there was a lack of training and knowledge of special education topics, laws, and procedures which negatively influences Pennsylvania public-school principals’ instructional leadership practices when it comes to implementing special education programs, inclusive practices, and supervising personnel. Concurrently, qualitative data was collected from Pennsylvania public-school principals’ personal views using Section IV: Leadership Beliefs of the survey instrument (The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey). Personal opinions were obtained to explore personal views regarding special education held by public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The reasons for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were to bring together the strengths of both forms of research and to compare and corroborate results. The researcher intended to determine if there were any patterns in the data based on the principals’ years of service within their district that may have an impact on principal views and knowledge. The researcher also sought to determine whether a difference in level of knowledge and beliefs existed between elementary and secondary public-school principals. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 6 Problem Statement The research has demonstrated that overall, Pennsylvania public-school principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in their degree and/or certification programs (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton et al., 2013; Wakeman, et al., 2006). This inadequacy of leadership is due, mostly in part, to a lack of the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s unfamiliarity with the unique aspects and key features of special education, a lack of technical competence for special education terminology, eligibility requirements, and student learning outcomes, and their knowledge regarding their specific leadership role as it pertains to special education laws, policies, and procedures (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton et al., 2013; Wakeman, et al., 2006). These factors contribute to the diminished public-school principal leadership role in the day to day operations that surround special education programming. Special education leadership should be a significant concern for Pennsylvania public-school principals as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education programs, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 7 Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton et al., 2013; Wakeman, et al., 2006). Significance of the Study This study added to the understanding of the factors that contribute to the lack of special education training provided in degree and certification programs offered by higher education entities throughout Pennsylvania. Research design was both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Elliot, Fisher, and Rennie (1999) reported the “aim of qualitative research is to understand and represent the experiences and actions of people as they encounter, engage, and live through situations” (p. 216). This study, sought to understand the current knowledge base of practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals, evaluate their degree certification program, and explore personal beliefs by utilizing a mixed-methods research design (Graziano & Raulin, 2013; Tracy, 2013) to identify elements and describe relationships that contribute to, or act as barriers, to the lack of courses offered for Pennsylvania public-school principals during their certification programs. The quantitative component used data collected through a survey instrument to gather demographic background information, knowledge of special education topics of participants, frequencies of practices engaged in, and beliefs regarding special education. Through the survey, this study attempted to determine the level of special education knowledge among Pennsylvania public-school principals to determine if there was a relationship between demographic factors, years of experience as principal, and the current role (elementary versus secondary) the publicschool principal is engaged in. Possible benefits of this research included contributing to an improved understanding of statewide Pennsylvania public-school principal preparation programs. A better understanding of educational training programs across Pennsylvania could help higher education institutions to PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 8 identify, plan for, and provide support and services to increase special education programming as a graduation requirement to ensure newly certified Pennsylvania public-school principals are fully prepared to understand the dynamic workings of the special education population within the public-school setting. Additionally, this knowledge could help higher education institutions, which are delivering or considering developing public-school principal certification programs, to attract motivated, qualified, and talented future students. This research also helped current Pennsylvania public-school principals identify their areas of strength and knowledge when it comes to special education and compare it to other public-school principals across the state. Conversely, results of this research could help the Pennsylvania public-school principal identify areas of special education where knowledge and engagement practices are lacking. After gaps in knowledge and practices were identified, professional development programs may be organized and suggested to help current Pennsylvania public-school principals improve their practices. Additionally, information obtained from this study added to the knowledge base related to current research in this specific area. Research Questions Three major research questions guided this study: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program, instructional leadership skills, and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and II.) 2. To what extent are there differences in the knowledge, frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and secondary school principals? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 3. 9 How does the relationship between the amounts of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program affect the instructional leadership in special education? (Addressed by survey section IV.) Based on this research, the researcher attempted to complete the following: (a) the researcher made recommendations from common themes that emerged from the study, (b) identified where the gaps in knowledge appear to be and what can be done and (c) identify promising practices, if any that emerged from this review and evaluation. Theoretical Framework/Constructs Research Paradigms and Rationale Tracy (2013) defined research paradigms as “preferred ways of understanding reality, building knowledge, and gathering information about the world” (p. 38). Research paradigms and philosophy are key parts of research methodology for any researcher; it is important to identify a research paradigm to collect data appropriately when conducting research. A research paradigm includes the research methods and research philosophies; it is based on ontology (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge), axiology (values), and methodology (Tracy, 2013). This combination of ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology helped this researcher develop the understanding and knowledge about the current topic of research and the hypothesized lack of special education coursework offered throughout Pennsylvania by colleges and universities offering public-school principal degrees and certification programs. Research paradigm can be considered a way of thinking about or conducting a research study. Paradigm is not strictly a methodology, but more of a philosophy that guides how the research will be conducted. Research paradigm can be sub-divided into the four distinct categories of positivist, interpretive, critical, and postmodern/post structural (Tracy, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 10 For the current study, Pennsylvania public-school principals were asked to indicate their personal beliefs regarding special education and diversity issues of students within their district. This study attempted to create an understanding of the beliefs surrounding special education practices held by current Pennsylvania public-school principals. When it comes to methodology, Tracy (2013) reported “paradigms are toolboxes full of theories, practices, and ways of thinking and that all tools can be useful” (p. 38). The current research study employed aspects from both the positivist and critical paradigms. Aligning primarily with the positivist paradigm, the current study utilized measurement and research devices to ensure that biases did not interfere with research results (Tracy, 2013). This researcher was aware of backgrounds and biases (Tracy, 2013) which may have impacted study results; all efforts have been made to ensure personal biases were not a factor in study creation. The researcher attempted to be free from bias (as much as possible) and used anonymous online data collection, storage tools, scoring and transcription as the tools to “observe, measure, and predict empirical phenomena and build tangible, material knowledge” (Tracy, 2013, p. 39) and to ensure results remained anonymous. Participants were asked to indicate their beliefs with respect to special education issues given their current role as the Pennsylvania public-school principal within their current school district. Participants were asked to report demographic background information, indicate yes/no knowledge questions, complete rating scales, and answer open-ended questions (Graziano & Raulin, 2013; Tracy, 2013) to gain insight on what professional skills Pennsylvania publicschool principals felt they have and may need to effectively lead special education departments within the public-school setting. It was this researcher’s hope the knowledge gained from this study will be made available to practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals to help improve special education programs within their school districts. This research can be considered a PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 11 starting point for further research areas to improve special education practices within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As stated earlier, this research aligned with the positivist paradigm. Tracy (2013) reported the positivist paradigm, also known as the realist or functional paradigm, assumes a “single true reality” (p. 39). The concept of positivism is directly associated with the idea of objectivism. By using the positivist approach, this researcher used her viewpoint to evaluate the social world with the help of objectivity in place of subjectivity. According to this paradigm, the researcher was interested in collecting general information and data from a large social sample instead of focusing details of research. The researcher’s own beliefs had no value to influence the research study (Tracy, 2013); this author believed being an unbiased objective observer to be critical when conducting research. The positivist philosophical approach is mainly related with the observations and experiments to collect numeric data. The focus of research using a positivist paradigm is to build “knowledge through analysis of objective behavior (behavior that can be measured, counted, or coded)” (Tracy, 2013, p. 48). It was this researcher’s hope the current study can make suggestion to colleges and universities to improve their pre-certification programs to enable new leaders to have the proper skill set to lead special education programs and personnel. It was this researcher’s intention both the positivist and critical paradigms were employed when it came to methodology for the current research study; this study employed a mixed methods design, using both qualitative and quantitative data collected concurrently in one phase. The collected data was analyzed continually throughout the research process, which is typical of qualitative research studies, the coding process was also used to identify themes which resonate with current special education familiarity and content knowledge of practicing professionals. By PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 12 using a mixed methods design, the researcher gained insight into the content knowledge of study participants while also gaining valuable insight from the opinions received. The positivist paradigm focused on the quantitative aspect of data while the critical paradigm reflected the qualitative methods. The reason for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, and mixing methodology paradigms in the dissertation process, were to bring together the strengths of both forms of research to compare and corroborate results. “By moving among different paradigms, researchers may better appreciate a new topic, have a renewed sense of humility, dialogue with a variety of people, and continually remind themselves of multiple ways a problem or issue may be fruitfully addressed” (Tracy, 2013, p. 47). Aligning with the positivist paradigm, this author agreed a good researcher should use measurement and research devices and ensure biases do not interfere with research results (Graziano & Raulin, 2013; Tracy, 2013). Again, this author believed research should be free from bias (as much as possible) and used data collection tools that would “observe, measure, and predict empirical phenomena and build tangible, material knowledge” (Tracy, 2013, p. 39); thus, the rational for creating a survey that collected both qualitative and quantitative data for analysis. In summary, while finding many areas under each paradigm important, the positivist paradigm was the one this researcher aligned with the most. Positivists “aim toward garnering representative samples that provide a clear answer to the question” (Tracy, 2013, p. 40). Positivist believe research biases are liabilities to studies and should be minimized (Tracy, 2013); “talk about self is viewed as unnecessary, indulgent, and a mark of low credibility” (Tracy, 2013, p. 40). Positivism emphasizes objectivity to research which gives importance to research methods focusing on quantitative analysis, surveys, experiments and the like. Paradigm Shift to the Research PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 13 Pennsylvania public-school principals are expected to be instructional leaders for all students within their district. When it comes to leadership for students with disabilities, this role can be problematic due to some principals having a lack of experience in the field of special education and limited pre-certification training in special education related issues (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Since 1975, IDEA, (originally referred to as the Education of All Handicapped Children Act) has provided the framework that governs special education services to eligible students throughout the United States (Bateman & Bateman, 200; IDEA, 2004 Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Several major features of the federal law have changed as IDEA has been reauthorized, but the framework remains the same. Under IDEA all students are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) within the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Bateman & Bateman, 200; IDEA, 2004 Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). In other words, FAPE is an individualized educational program (hence the name IEP) that is designed to meet a special education student’s unique learning needs and from which they receive educational benefit, to prepare students for further education, employment, and independent living. Definitions of identification categories have changed over the years, and some states have adopted alternative frameworks, yet the notion of identifying and categorizing primary disabilities remains an element of the law (Bateman & Bateman, 200; IDEA, 2004 Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Under IDEA in 2019, twelve disability categories exist; Pennsylvania public-school principals should have a working knowledge of the disability labels, entry criteria, and supports available to ensure their students are working to reach their full potential. A fundamental goal of education is to equip all students with the knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to think critically, solve problems, and succeed when they exit formalized PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 14 schooling. Pennsylvania public-school principals are tasked with ensuring all students are held to the same standard of learning and must be knowledgeable in special education to provide success (Bays & Crockett, 2007; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). Special education leadership should be a significant concern for public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as their roles have increased to certifying successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Ethical dilemmas arise frequently in the field of special education; in the public-school system, special education students are considered the minority, they make up a small percentage of the collective (Billingsley, 2007; Bon & Bigbee, 2011). As a minority, their best interests and rights must be protected, and are under IDEA; this protection should be supported by each Pennsylvania public-school district’s principal. Often when Pennsylvania public-school principals make decisions that affect students with disabilities, there is a distinction made between the best interests of the individual student versus the student population (Billingsley, 2007; Bon & Bigbee, 2011; Frick & Faircloth, 2007). Frick and Faircloth (2007) reported most principals in their daily duties “thought about the best interests of students in general, as a corporate body, and when specific student-related issues came to their attention they would alter their perspectives on students’ best interest and focus on unique, individual student needs” (p. 30). IDEA and NCLB dictate what Pennsylvania public-school principals can and cannot do when it comes to special education students. Pennsylvania public-school principals PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 15 and policy makers must pay attention to how current and future school policies and initiatives may affect the public-school principals’ abilities to respond to individual needs while creating a learning environment for all. What will the current study do? The research suggested that overall, Pennsylvania public-school principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in the public-school setting (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). As reported earlier, the researcher made recommendations from common themes that emerged following study completion, attempted to identify where the gaps in knowledge appeared to be and what could be done and identified promising practices, if any that emerged from this review and evaluation. The sample for the research consisted of diverse demographics including age, race, pre-service teaching role, district population, college/university where certification was received, and the amount of special education classes taken during certification. Data collection consisted of an anonymous web-based survey with online scoring to ensure timely data collection. Computerized random sampling was used to select Pennsylvania public-school principals to reduce the potential for human bias in the selection of participants to be included in the sample. Thus, the researcher assumed the sample provided a representative view of the target population (Pennsylvania public-school principals). Data was organized and stored electronically; data was be coded, disaggregated into manageable segments, and categorized into meaningful units using the software programs NVivo and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). NVivo is software that supports qualitative and mixed methods research. (See chapter PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 16 three for detailed information regarding study methodology, chapter 4 for a display of results, and chapter 5 for a discussion of the findings.) The survey itself focused on determining the amount of special education knowledge, background information, frequencies of practices engaged, and personal views about special education leadership the participants have. The survey sought to identify knowledge, personal beliefs, and frequencies of engagement practices in special education and how these factors may impact leadership roles in the daily supervision of special education teachers and programs, comfort levels, and how instructional leadership may be impacted. The sample consisted of diverse demographics including pre-service teaching role, gender, race, experience, certification, student population of each participant’s school, and both rural/urban districts. The sample contained public-school principals from elementary and secondary public-schools across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The research design was comprised of two major sections. The first part synthesized the application of the data to analyze participants’ responses to provide feedback from current practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. The rationale and advantages of this have been previously explained. The second major segment targeted how personal views and knowledge of special education topics and initiatives impacts the instructional leadership skills of practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey was designed and developed by Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania’s doctoral student researcher, Mrs. Amanda J. Truitt-Smith. The survey drew on the existing leadership surveys and questions previously utilized by Frost and Kersten (2011) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 17 after consent was received to use the surveys (see Appendices C and E). The survey was designed to be administered in Web format. Definitions For the purposes of this study, the following definitions apply: Administrator: Individual charged with seeing to the day to day operations of a school district; research participants will be defined as a practicing Pennsylvania public-school principal. Pennsylvania public-school principals will advocate for all students within their district, set goals improve education, and create lifelong learners. Autonomy: Participants in a research study have the right to participate; participants can opt in or out of the study at any given time without risk. Participants will be given full disclosure prior to making any participation decision (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). Belmont Report: Created by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1978, The Belmont Report summarizes ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. The three principles identified are respect for persons (includes autonomy), beneficence, and justice (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979) Beneficence: Research study participants are treated in an ethical manner and protected from harm during the study. Participants are treated ethically no matter if they choose to opt out of the research study. Researchers continually strive to ensure participant well-being. Beneficence can also be noted to cover acts of kindness or charity that go beyond research obligation. (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 18 College: Independent institution of higher learning offering instruction in a Pennsylvania public-school degree or certificate acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. College is synonymous with university. Curriculum: Plan of study for a degree or certificate program at the collegiate level; list of classes and requirements necessary for completion of coursework. Data: Facts and information collected during the research study. Diminished Autonomy: An individual with restricted or diminished capacity; persons not capable of deliberation regarding personal goals (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report,” 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). ESEA: Created in 1965 by President Johnson, ESEA is the country’s education law which provides equal opportunities for all students. ESEA was reauthorized in 2001 and is now known as No Child Left Behind (Wright & Wright, 2007). Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Individualized educational program that is designed to meet the child's unique needs and from which the child receives educational benefit, and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living (Wright & Wright, 2007). Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Under IDEA 2004 schools are “required to educate children with disabilities with children who are disabled, “to the maximum extent appropriate.” A child may only be removed from the regular education setting if the nature or severity of the disability is such that the child cannot be educated in regular classes, even with the use of supplementary aids and services” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 23) Individualized Education Program (IEP): Legal document defining and describing a special education student’s course of study for one calendar year; important sections include PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 19 present levels of academic achievement, transition planning, goals/objectives, and program modifications and specially designed instruction. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation age birth to twenty-one. IDEA mandates how “states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B” (OSEP, 2006, para. 1). Mixed Methods Research Design: A research method for conducting research that involves collecting, analyzing, and integrating quantitative and qualitative research data into one study. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB was in effect from 2002–2015; NCLB was the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB was replaced by Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. NCLB included provisions to help students in poverty, minorities, students in special education programs, and those with limited English proficiency (Wright & Wright, 2007). NVivo: NVivo is software that supports qualitative and mixed methods research. NVivo is a platform to organize, analyze and find insights in unstructured, or qualitative data like in survey responses and web content (“What is NVivo, n.d.). Parent: IDEA Regulations 34 C.F.R. §300.30 (a)) define parent as the “biological or adoptive parent, a guardian, a person acting as a parent of the child (e.g. grandparent, stepparent) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 20 who lives with the child, a foster parent (unless prohibited by state law), or a surrogate parent who has been appointed following the procedures of the law” (Yell, 2004, p. 262). Population: The group to which the research sample belong; population for this study will include all certified principals who are actively using their degree/certificates at the time of this study in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Principal: The individual with the most authority within the public-school building; responsible for supervision of personnel, curriculum decisions, and discipline of students. Public-School: A school that receives funding from the public; this includes elementary, middle, and secondary schools. Qualitative Research Design: Denzin and Lincoln (2005) describe qualitative research as involving “… an interpretive naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.” (p. 3) Quantitative Research Design: Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon. It may emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques. Rehabilitation Act of 1973: “Civil rights statute designed to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination; purposes are to maximize employment, economic selfsufficiency, independence, inclusion and integration into society” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 430). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 21 Sample: Subgroup of the population; the research participants who are certified and working as school administrators from the target population. School District: Entity charged with providing a free and appropriate public education within a set geographical area. There are over 500 school districts in Pennsylvania; see Appendix F for a full list. Socioeconomic Status (SES): A total of person/families’ combined economic and sociological work experience in relation to others; it is based on household income, earners' education, and occupation. Special Education: “Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 21). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS Statistics is a software package used for interactive, or batched, statistical analysis. University: Independent institution of higher learning offering instruction in a Pennsylvania public-school degree or certificate acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. University is synonymous with college. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 22 Assumptions This research study contained multiple assumptions. The researcher assumed Pennsylvania public-school principals participating in this study held the proper certification as they were identified via their public-school directory. Pennsylvania public-school principals were assumed to be highly qualified based on federal and state mandates to hold the principal/administrative certificate. It was assumed all participants had a basic understanding of the terminology used throughout the survey. The researcher assumed for this study that participants would answer honestly. Prior to participation, participants were provided full disclosure. Participants were informed their results would remain anonymous. Participants were informed they could withdraw from the study at any time with no ramifications. With this research study having a qualitative section, this researcher assumed the “research is context bound, but that patterns and theories can be explicated to develop a profound understanding of a situation or phenomenon” (Simon, 2016, p. 98); in the case of this study, the researcher attempted to develop patterns based on experiences reported. Limitations of the Study This study was utilized to identify elements and describe relationships among curriculums and programs that contribute to, or act as barriers, to the lack of courses and training offered in pre-certification Pennsylvania public-school principal degree and certification programs. Pennsylvania public-school principal satisfaction surrounding special education topics can be significantly influenced by the institutional setting in which the participant received training, or the pre-certification teaching or administrative role held by the individual prior to completing the survey. This study was designed to permit readers to judge the information and PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 23 make their own decisions about whether the themes that emerged from the research could be transferred to their own situations. Organization of the Study The current study was comprised of five chapters. Chapter one included a comprehensive introduction of the problem. Chapter one encompassed the rationale and purpose of the study as well as the problem statement. It identified the significance of the study for public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. An introduction to the research questions was given as well as an overview of the theoretical frameworks and constructs that guided the research methods. Chapter one also contained the definitions of terms used throughout the study, assumptions made by the researcher and potential limitations that may be encountered. Chapter two consisted of the review of literature regarding the history of special education and principles of IDEA that have impacted the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s duties and the placements of special education students. There was information presented on the traditional role of the public-school principal within the public-school setting. The chapter also reviewed current Pennsylvania public-school principal preparation programs’ curriculum and coursework. Lastly, chapter two provided an overview of the principal’s knowledge and skills as well as the contribution inclusion have in the operation of special education programming. Chapter three outlined precise information regarding the methodology used throughout the study. Chapter three thoroughly defined the study’s participants, setting, population and sample selection criteria. There was information disclosing the ethical principles used throughout the study. The chapter provided a precise account of the research design which covered the survey instrumentation, including its reliability and validity; research questions and hypotheses; PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 24 variables; data collection and analysis procedures. Lastly, chapter three discussed any biases or limitations that may have been present or impacted study results. Chapter four presented the specific results of the research study, descriptive statistics, and hypotheses testing, as well as themes that emerged from the qualitative data. Chapter five contained the summary of the research, which included the findings related to the literature and possible implications for future degrees and certification programs. Chapter five also provided a thorough review of the study’s biases and limitations that were observed. Chapter five suggested recommendations for future studies and concluding remarks. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 25 CHAPTER II: Literature Review A Brief History of Special Education Today thousands of students throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania receive special education services and supports due to the passage of landmark legislation known as Public Law 94-142, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Prior to the passage of PL 94-142, school-aged Pennsylvania students with disabilities were typically excluded from public-schools (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). In 1990, PL-142 was amended, and along with those changes came the first version of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Since its initial passage, IDEA has been amended and now includes transition services and safeguards for parents. IDEA was most recently reauthorized in 2004 with two primary purposes (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). The first purpose is to provide an education that meets a special education student’s unique needs and prepares the student for further education, employment, and independent living (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McLeskey et. al, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). IDEA’s second purpose is to protect the rights of both special education students and their parents (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McLeskey et. al, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). IDEA is based on six major principles: zero reject, non-discriminatory identification and evaluation, FAPE, LRE, due process safeguards, and parental participation (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Zero reject dictates that Pennsylvania public-schools must educate all students with disabilities regardless of PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 26 the nature or severity of the disability (Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-school districts are required to provide educational programming to students aged 3-21(Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Under IDEA, Pennsylvania public-school districts must use unbiased evaluation methods to determine special education eligibility. Evaluations must not rely on one test measure to make the determination if a student is eligible for services; this includes testing a student in their native language (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Principles three and four guarantee all public-school students throughout Pennsylvania have access to FAPE in the LRE (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; McLeskey et. al, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). FAPE and LRE must be provided to students at no cost to the parent (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). It is imperative Pennsylvania public-school principals demonstrate a thorough understanding of IEP creation and implementation; additionally, principals must be active participants in the identification process “to ensure not only that the district follows appropriate procedures, but that the student receives an appropriate education” (Bateman & Bateman, 2001, p. 12). The LRE clause mandates special education is a continuum of services and students should only be removed from the general education classroom setting when supplementary aides and services cannot provide them a meaningful education (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2012). The IEP must address and justify why a student is not in the general education classroom setting (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2012). IDEA also safeguards the rights of students and their families. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 27 Parental consent must be received for all evaluations and placement determinations (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Lastly, IDEA provides provisions for parent and student input when making decisions for students receiving special education services (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-school principals must have a working knowledge of the foundations of special education because knowledgeable regarding students within their school, so they can ensure resources are allocated appropriately (Bateman & Bateman, 2001). As mentioned previously, special education students and their families have their rights to FAPE in the LRE guaranteed under the law thanks in part to the procedural safeguards of IDEA (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Most IDEA litigation due process cases are due to violations of FAPE, tuition reimbursement, and compensatory education (Zirkel, 2012). Due process rights are protected via legislation to ensure in the event there is disagreement between the school district and the parents, either party can initiate a due process hearing (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Special education litigation costs school districts billions of dollars and has an adverse effect on the relationships between the home and school (Mueller, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-school principals “need to know the rights and obligations of the parents and the district, the process, how to prepare for a hearing, what is involved, the principal's role, and what happens when the hearing is over” (Bateman & Bateman, 2001, p. 103). Due process hearing are “to resolve differences of opinion between parents and school officials regarding the education, placement, or services for the child with a disability” (Bateman PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 28 & Bateman, 2001, p. 16).The first landmark due process case to reach the Supreme Court after the establishment of PL 94-142 was brought via an appeal by a school district regarding the special education services of first grader, Amy Rowley. In the Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), the lower courts ruled the school district was required to pay for a sign language interpreter for Amy, a deaf student, so she could be included and participate in the curriculum to receive FAPE (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Sage & Burrello, 1994; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). The “Supreme Court concluded that FAPE has two prongs, the first being procedural compliance, and the second being a relatively relaxed substantive standard” (Zirkel, 2016, p. 1); this became known as the Rowley Standard. The Rowley standard is a two-prong test used by courts to determine whether public-school districts have provided FAPE as mandated under IDEA (Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). The first prong of the Rowley standard is deciding if the school has complied with the procedures of the IDEA (Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). The second part of the Rowley standard determines whether the IEP, which is to be based on the principles of IDEA, are detailed so the student receives educational benefit(s) from their placement and goals (Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). The decision from the Rowley case is still relevant and important when a court is deciding on whether a student is receiving FAPE (Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; Zirkel, 2016). FAPE has been the reason many cases have made it to the Supreme Court, as in the cases of Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984), School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985), Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988), and Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) that each address FAPE violations to some degree (Heward, 2000; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004; PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 29 Zirkel, 2016). In the case Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) the Court stated IDEA does not use cost factors to define related services nor does it exclude medical (nursing) services; therefore school districts must provide funds for related service providers and needs so that students with disabilities, like Garrett F., are able to have access to FAPE in the LRE. The Cedar Rapids Community School Dist. v. Garret F. reiterated the importance of the words “meaningful access” which was originally mentioned in the Rowley decision (Heward, 2000). Zirkel (2013) reviewed 224 court decisions to look for trends in special education cases. Out of the cases reviewed, states with the highest FAPE violations were: “(1) New York—thirty-five (16%); (2) California—thirty-two (14%); (3) Hawaii—twenty-two (10%); (4) Pennsylvania—nineteen (8%); (5) New Jersey—thirteen (6%); (6) Texas—eleven (5%); and (7) Alaska—ten (4%),56” (Zirkel, 2013, p. 226). It is imperative school districts in Pennsylvania strive to follow the regulations under IDEA to reduce litigation statistics. The Supreme Court’s latest decision regarding FAPE was in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 which “addressed the substantive standard for the central obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE). The Court had not revisited this issue for 35 years, having originally addressed it in its landmark IDEA decision in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley” (Zirkel, 2017, p. 1). In a unanimous decision in March 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a higher standard for students with disabilities. Endrew F.’s case revolved around one main theme: “Must schools provide a meaningful education in which children show significant progress and are given substantially equal opportunities as typical children, or can they provide an education that results in just some improvement” (McKenna, 2017, para. 4). The Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 highlighted the fact the IEP process is team PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 30 based, it should include opinions of professionals and parents; the team as a collective should work together for the betterment of the student. Parental Involvement Parents are critical when it comes to working with students. Pennsylvania public-school districts require parent support and follow-through; the Endrew Decision will help parents become more valued members of the IEP team in the eyes of the districts. IDEA Regulations 34 C.F.R. §300.30 (a) define a parent as the “biological or adoptive parent, a guardian, a person acting as a parent of the child (e.g. grandparent, stepparent) who lives with the child, a foster parent (unless prohibited by state law), or a surrogate parent who has been appointed following the procedures of the law” (Yell, 2004, p. 262). The rights of parents under IDEA can be broken down into five categories (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2013; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Parents have the right to participate in any meeting that relates to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child (Burke, 2013; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). They have a right to participate in any meeting or conversation regarding FAPE (Burke, 2013, Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Parents are entitled to be part of the team that decides whether their child has a disability or meets the criteria for special education and related services under the school code (Burke, 2013, Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). They have the right to be key members of the team that develops the IEP for their child (Burke, 2013, Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). They are also permitted to be part of the decision-making process when it comes to placement decisions for their child (Burke, 2013, U.S. Department of Education, 2018; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Parents rights were reaffirmed in the Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007). The Court held parents are guaranteed protections and rights under IDEA; and they are, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 31 as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf (Summers, Hoffman, Marquis, & Turnbull, Poston, & Nelson, 2005; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania publicschool principals must ensure the IEP team works together using data-based decision making to reduce the need for litigation. It is essential the Pennsylvania public-school principal understands parents are critical team members (Summers et al., 2005); parents “have essential information about their children with disabilities that is not available from any other source” (Bateman & Bateman, 2001, p. 14). There is research and evidence to support the positive effects of parental involvement when parents actively support and encourage their student’s education (Summers et al., 2005). When parents were actively involved, students achieve more regardless of ethnic background or socioeconomic status (Burke, 2017; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Olson & Fuller, 2010; Summers et al., 2005). The more parents are involved, the higher the grades, test scores, homework completion, and school attendance was. Students were also considered to have higher self-esteem when parents were actively involved in education as well (Burke, 2017; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Olson & Fuller, 2010; Summers et al., 2005). Throughout the school year, public-school students spend an average of 6.64 hours in the school setting per day, which is 33.2 hours per week (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). When so many hours are designated to learning, it should be part of the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s responsibility to foster parental involvement; “without parental involvement, students with disabilities are vulnerable to receive inadequate and inappropriate services” (Burke, 2013, p. 225). One way to ensure parents are involved and in the know is with the use of parent advocates (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Summers et al., 2005). Too often parents bring advocates to special education meetings when they feel like they are being excluded as equal PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 32 participants in the decision-making process; Krumins (2009) urged all parents to bring advocates to special education meetings in an attempt to alleviate stress, sort through the educational jargon, and provide a unbiased perspective when it comes to educational planning. Advocates are a way for parents to be proactive members of the IEP team; using an advocate can help foster the relationship between home and school and will make it possible to “work as a team to make the most of a child’s education” (Krumins, 2009, para. 17). When selecting an advocate to represent a parent and their child, parents should seek qualified candidates who are willing to get to know the student and be objective and unbiased towards the district (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009). Parental advocates have multiple roles to fill when dealing with the public-school system (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009). Advocates can help parents understand documents and paperwork related to the special education process (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009). The advocate’s role is to also help parents clarify issues, offer solutions when disagreements arise, and help parents find supports when (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009). Parents are urged to use advocates to have someone able to decipher written reports from educational professionals and speak on their behalf when they are not comfortable approaching the school system (Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009). A parental advocate is “worth their weight in gold when they can objectively look at a situation without an emotional charge and create solutions that work for the child” (Krumins, 2009, para. 10). The goal of the IEP process is to create a partnership; a team where everyone’s opinions and input is valued (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). All members of the IEP team should be valued; Pennsylvania public-schools should strive to include parents in the process as much as possible to avoid due process litigation (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 33 Special education should be viewed as a positive experience; its sole premise being that it was created for students to offer more supports and additional instruction in areas of weakness (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-school principals working with parents and the special education process must be aware of the past stigma attached to special education and the exclusion of parents from the process (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Changing the stigma involves changing perspectives; understanding the history of special education law and the many court decisions that have been resolved will help districts bridge the gaps between theory and practice. It is imperative Pennsylvania public-school principals understand where special education has been to avoid making the same mistakes. To sum it up, “special education is a necessary part of the educational system. When it is done properly, with good educators, and active parents, it can have a positive effect on the families and students. It can serve as a life preserver in a sea of confusion, despair and the unknown” (Pehrson, 2011, para. 14). It is the role of the Pennsylvania public-school principal to facilitate special education programming within their buildings. Traditional Role of Principal in Schools Pennsylvania principals in public education are responsible for not only school leadership, they are also accountable for referral and service delivery of special education programs within their school system (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004). Lynch (2012) noted in the traditional role, “the principal assumed responsibility for general education students and the director of special education assumed responsibility for students with disabilities” (p. 42). In Pennsylvania’s public-schools, principals are required to not only be instructional leaders, they PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 34 are also responsible for special education programming, personnel issues, public relations, budgeting, curriculum, and ensuring students are making adequate yearly progress (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006). Every Pennsylvania public-school principal must have the proper knowledge, skill set, and frame of mind to be an effective school leader (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). On average 79% of a principal’s time was spent on regular education and 21% was spent on special education issues (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006). Lasky and Karge (2006) surveyed 205 public-school principals; their results revealed 75% of principals felt the amount of time spent on special education had increased. Pennsylvania public-school principals have multiple duties and may choose to delegate responsibilities, yet they are still responsible for overall school management and program implementation (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006). “Resulting from landmark social and legislative events, special education in the United States has undergone drastic changes over the past 30 years” (Lynch, 2012, p. 44). Principals are often involved in compliance and legal issues related to special education. These findings were consistent with research reported in the literature (Bays & Crockett, 2007; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011). According to the data, interactions that happened between principals and special education teachers often revolved around paperwork and compliance issues; these interactions “may be necessary, but they are not sufficient to ensure positive learning outcomes for special education” (Bays & Crockett, 2007, p. 157). Pennsylvania publicschool principals should seek an instructional vision that identifies increased outcomes and performance for special education teachers and staff; these outcomes could be offered PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 35 via professional development to enhance collaboration, provide ongoing support and encouragement to staff, and continually evaluating instruction of their teachers (Bays & Crockett, 2007; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011). To face the many educational tasks and demands of the future, Pennsylvania publicschool principals must cultivate “skills and strategies that are critical for providing a positive learning environment for a highly diverse student population” (Miller & Martin, 2015, p. 129). Competent Pennsylvania public-school principals should allocate time for “structuring the story of special education, ensuring that school practices on behalf of students with disabilities are grounded in the field’s conceptual core” (Crockett, 2002, p. 160). Crum, Sherman and Myran (2010) evaluated theories and actions taken by school principals which enabled them to be successful leaders within their educational setting. Using Leithwood’s (2006) core practice of successful school leaders, five central themes emerged from the data; with the core theme being leadership (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Theme one, leadership with data; data drives decisions principals make daily. Theme two, honesty and positive relationships with staff is paramount (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Three, principals must foster ownership and collaboration with school stakeholders (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Four, principals must recognize and develop leadership skills of their current staff (Crockett, 2002; Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Finally, principals must be aware of current instruction and be involved in planning (Crockett, 2002; Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). The findings suggested school accountability and conversations must be the front runner of all activities involving leadership (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Due the importance of data-based decision making, it is critical leaders obtain multiple data sets from staff to make decisions. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 36 The Pennsylvania public-school principal has multiple duties; DiPaola, TschannenMoran, and Walther-Thomas (2004) identified two critical areas that must receive leadership attention and support. To be an effective leader, Pennsylvania public-school principals should focus on improving professional skills and knowledge of their faculty and staff they lead and support (Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004). PDE and Pennsylvania public-school principals need to look at developing more special education related areas as part of the principal induction program. Principals are to be the instructional leader for their building. Currently, principals must complete an induction program, yet not one of the eleven units outlined by PDE is specific to special education. (Principal Induction Program, PDE http://www.education.pa.gov/) School Boards should also consider, when looking at a candidate’s background knowledge/resume, how much the potential elementary school leader understands special education. Principals also need to take the necessary time to provide supports and necessary professional development to beginning teachers to promote success and retention; teacher supports are a “critical leadership activity” that requires “systematic efforts” (Billingsley, 2004, p. 371). Public-school principals must strive to make connections within the community (Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004,). To be considered an effective school leader for special education, principals must “(a) promote an inclusive school culture; (b) provide instructional leadership; (c) model collaborative leadership; (d) manage and administer organizational processes; and (e) build and maintain positive relations with teachers, families, and the community” (DiPaola et al., 2004, p. 3). Principal Preparation Programs Pennsylvania public-school principal education programs are not adequately preparing their participants to be instructional leaders for special education (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Today’s Pennsylvania PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 37 public-school principals “must not only manage school finances, keep buses running on time, and make hiring decisions, but they must also be instructional leaders, data analysts, community relations officers, and change agents” (ISLCC, 2008, p. 3). In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, principal certification programs are approved through the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). In 2018, Pennsylvania identified forty-nine PDE approved programs for principal degrees and certification (See Appendix A; PDE, 2018). Out of the 49 identified PA principal certification programs identified on the PDE website, the researcher was able to review curriculum and coursework for 47 programs (96%). Carlow University and Carnegie-Mellon were listed as a PDE approved program; however, neither university had programs listed on their official website for principal certification. Programs reviewed ranged from a post-master’s degree 12-21 credit certification programs and a master’s degree program (credit range 21-36; see Appendix O for curriculum data). To be leaders of special education programs, Pennsylvania public-school principals require training on special education law, procedure, programs, and students with disabilities (Garrison-Wade et al., 2007; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) conducted a survey which revealed 92% of participating principals had no formal training in special education or a special education teaching certification or license. Classes taken on special education at the undergraduate level were reported as follows: zero classes (57.1%), one class (16.9%); graduate level zero (66.4%) and one (12.5%). Classes taken during administrator training were reported as zero (45.9%) and one (27.8%) (Wakeman et al, 2006). Lasky and Karge (2006) reported “there is currently very little research examining the formal special education training or basic knowledge of special education laws and practices of school principals” (p. 21). Angelle and Bilton (2009), PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 38 Davis (1980), Lasky and Karge (2006), Lynch (2012), McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, and Terry (2013), and Pazey and Cole (2013) have all noted the discrepancy between principal preparation programs and subsequent practice. A survey conducted by Davis (1980) discovered most principals (51.9%) had never taken a special education class, and only 32.8% had any prior exposure of special education students in their certification programs and training. A similar survey completed 26 years later by Lasky and Karge (2006) revealed 36% of public-school principals had no experience with special education in their training programs. Another recent study of graduates from principal certification programs discovered that 40% of participants reported they lacked special education law knowledge, 28% doubted their abilities to mentor and support special education staff, and 28% were unsure of their abilities to manage special education programs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). In Pennsylvania, out of the 47principal preparation programs reviewed, only 14 (29.79%) programs offered one special education class as part of their required curriculum; one program required two special education classes (00.02%; see Appendix O for the complete review). Special education and knowledge of special education law has been targeted as a critical skill for public-school leaders; however, “within the context of social justice and school leadership, it is all but ignored” (Pazey & Cole, 2013, p. 249). A review of empirical literature indicated the research regarding special education law within education leadership was lacking and there is a need for increased study to be completed (Angelle & Bilton, Davis, 1980; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; McHatton et al., 2013; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Key findings from the literature indicate Pennsylvania public-school principals should receive training in twelve fundamental areas (Pazey & Cole, 2013). Those areas include communication and relationships (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Taylor-Backor & Gordon, 2015; Pazey & PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 39 Cole, 2003), leadership and vision (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; Pazey & Cole, 2013), budget (Pazey & Cole, 2003), special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013), curriculum and instruction, personnel, data analysis, collaboration (DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; Pazey & Cole, 2013), special education programs (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013), professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Taylor-Backor & Gordon, 2015), the organization (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Pazey & Cole, 2013), and advocacy (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Even though special education was listed as one of the identified competencies for Pennsylvania public-school principals, it continues to be ignored in certification programs (DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Lynch (2012) reported “a review of state certification requirements indicated that only eight states required special education training for pre-service principals” (p. 45). To be an effective leader, it is essential school administrators be informed on evidencebased practices with special and regular education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; DiPaola, TschannenMoran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). To do so, Pennsylvania public-school principals should receive training in special education areas; school leaders must have a solid grasp of IDEA, procedural safeguard and due process, zero reject, and discipline (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Researchers have reported special education law and procedures should become an integral part of certification programs (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 40 Pennsylvania public-school principal preparation programs must be “designed to meet the challenges of school improvement, not just graduate certified managers who lack the depth to lead effective school change” (Reames, 2010, p. 440). A review of the literature confirms school leaders acknowledge they have a limited understanding of all areas pertaining to special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Special education needs to be considered and discussed as much as gender, class, and race have all been discussed in the past; it is time to make special education part of the discussion, not the afterthought (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Riehl (2000) conducted a literature review of the role of the school administrator and special education. The argument for the review was that American schools were providing services to a more diverse population than ever before with special education numbers on the rise (Praisner, 2003; Riehl, 2000). Research on instructional school leadership suggested principals have a critical role in the development of teaching and learning within their respective districts (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Riehl, 2000). The research has suggested Pennsylvania public-school principals take steps to develop relationships between families, the community, and the school (DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Riehl, 2000). Pennsylvania public-school principals should continually be evaluating and critiquing their own buildings and practices to ensure students are receiving the best possible instruction (Riehl, 2000). After completing an in-depth literature review, Riehl (2000) made four suggestions. Suggestion one, based on the assumption administration is a form of practice it should be able to be supported by empirical and normative research (Riehl, 2000). Two, administrative practices were said to be both moral and “epistemological” and those values should be taught in administrative training programs (Riehl, 2000). Administrative practice was PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 41 said to be linked to identity, if this is the case, then it does matter whom is in the administrative role within districts (Riehl, 2000). Lastly, common language and discourse should be created to evaluate current programs and research (Pazey & Cole, 2012; Riehl, 2000). A recent study was conducted a study to determine what practicing principals felt should be included in certification programs (Christensen, Siegel, Williamson, & Hunter, 2013). Reported areas of highest importance (75% or more of participants) were how to modify curriculum, disciplining students under IDEA, state mandated testing accommodations, mentoring new special education teachers, inclusion, special education law, IEPs, and classroom discipline (Christensen et al., 2013). Overall, the study supported findings from other studies that principals do not feel they adequately prepared nor do they fully understand special education policies and procedures (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Christensen et al., 2013; McHatton et al, 2010). Principals and Instructional Leadership for Special Education Pennsylvania public-school principals are not only leaders of the school; they are instructional leaders for all (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Pennsylvania public-school principals are the most influential individual in a district, in their role, they ensure high-quality education and teaching happens in consistently throughout the school building they serve (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007); this includes special education. To be considered an instructional leader, “a school administrator must be knowledgeable about evidence-based practices within the field of both general and special education” (Pazey & Cole, 2012, p. 258). As mandated by law, public schools have the responsibility to identify students with learning and behavior deficits to enable them to receive supports needed to be academically successful (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2015; Wright & Wright, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 42 2007; Yell, 2004). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA reaffirmed the notion special education students had the right to be educated in the general education classroom setting with their nonexceptional peers (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2015; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-school principals have the power to promote inclusion and make changes to positively affect special education students (Praisner, 2003; Riehl, 2000). Riehl (2000) indicated all students should be treated as individuals, the cultural background of all students should be learned and used when teaching, and interethnic conflict should be treated as teachable moments when it happened. Public school principals “must be the change agents” (DiPaola et. al, 2004, p. 30; Reames, 2010); principals should create a caring, nurturing environment within their district, maintain high expectations for all students, and make academics the focus of the school (Riehl, 2000). Administrators should restructure schools to ensure all students have equal opportunities to access the curriculum and teachers should be encouraged to evaluate their own teaching for bias (Riehl, 2000). Pennsylvania public-school principals are required to be instructional leaders for their buildings (Bays & Crockett, 2007; Frost & Kersten, 2009). Bays and Crockett (2007) attempted to develop a hypothesis regarding instructional leadership for special education at the elementary school level. Their goal was to answer three questions regarding principals and special education: “(a) What were the practices used in supervising specially designed instruction, (b) what needs were addressed by these practices, and (c) what conditions caused instructional leadership and supervision to be conducted as it was” (Bays & Crockett, 2007, p. 156). When analyzing the data, the goal was to develop a “grounded theory about instructional leadership for special education, the main goals were to identify categories within the data to identify properties PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 43 and dimensions of those categories and to establish how categories related to one another” (Bays & Crockett, 2007, p. 149). Analysis of the data collected indicated principals in all districts were the board appointed instructional supervisor in the schools, even when a director of special education was part of the district, the principal remained the main instructional supervisor, with the director being in a supportive position (Bays & Crockett, 2007). Pennsylvania public-school principals in the secondary education setting are also responsible for ensuring best practices for special education. Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) conducted a study to determine the overall knowledge secondary principals had regarding special education issues, best practices, and procedures. Their research subdivided special education knowledge into two areas, fundamental and current issues. Fundamental knowledge was quantified, using perspectives from Cochrane and Westling (1977), the Council for Exceptional Children (2002), and Monteith (1998), as a principal’s understanding of professional practice, all teachers teaching all students, characteristics of disabilities, legislation, and learning differences. The second knowledge level was current issues, which included those that were the basis for current research, policy making, and best practices in special education (Wakeman et. al, 2006). Results of the survey indicated secondary principals are generally well informed regarding special education issues. Differences were reported between fundamental and current knowledge (Wakeman et al., 2006). These findings support previous research conducted in 2003 by Patterson, Marshall, and Bowling (2003) and DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2000) (Wakeman et. al, 2006). Relationships were reported between a principal’s knowledge and demographics, training, and practice and how their personal experiences have influenced beliefs. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 44 Researchers have reported a principal’s experiences with special education in their personal life had an influence on their knowledge as it pertains to education (Frost & Kerston, 2009; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Secondary principals who were previously special education teachers indicated more knowledge; the more knowledge a principal reported, the more involvement with special education programming and services was reported (Wakeman et. al, 2006). The U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) should fund technical assistance to provide information to principals; special education personnel should be afforded opportunities to interact with school leaders; and principals can benefit from training on how to be reflective leaders in special education (Wakeman et. al, 2006). Principal certification programs should include special education in their curriculum (Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Lastly, further research is needed to determine the principal’s impact on AYP (Wakeman et. al, 2006). Frost and Kersten (2011) looked at instructional leadership of principals. Their study focused on determining the amount of special education knowledge/background the participants had and how much that knowledge impacted their leadership role regarding their special education teachers (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Frost and Kersten’s (2011) study revealed two main demographic differences among participants: those with additional administrative supports (i.e. assistant principal, special education coordinator, etc.) and those without. The data suggested principals with extra support could use the personnel to support their special education staff; however, the extra supports also caused principals to become less engaged with special education directly. Principals who had a prior background in special education viewed themselves as having more awareness and involvement in the special education department in their building. Education and training programs to become certified as an elementary principal PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 45 were reported to be lacking in special education foundations as reported by this survey (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Many interviewed felt principal certification programs should focus more educating principals on interventions, behavior supports, and strategies. Principal involvement with their special education teachers was reported in a wide range in the survey. Involvement ranged from ‘seldom’ to ‘always’ (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Most principals reported they were most actively involved in the hiring of new special education teachers, conducting of formal observations, and completing teacher evaluations. The least involved activities reported were professional development training for special education, monitoring IEP compliance, and program planning (Frost & Kersten, 2009). Further research on the topic is warranted. Inclusion and the Public-School Principal The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandated all public-schools be accountable for the academic success of all students as measured by Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), including students with disabilities (Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). NCLB supported the inclusion of students in special education programs within the general education classrooms by decreeing states must develop academic achievement standards for all students to perform on grade level by 2014 (NCLB, 2001; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Inclusion is defined as “providing all students, including those with significant disabilities, equitable opportunities to receive effective educational services, with the needed supplementary aids and supports services, in age appropriate schools, in their neighborhood schools” (Bargerhuff, p. 2, 2001). NCLB further strengthened the mandates of IDEA as the focus was on the inclusion of all students within a district, as well as special education student participation in state and federal testing (Bargerhuff, 2001; NCLB, 2001; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). NCLB targeted students with disabilities, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 46 students with limited English proficiency, students with minority status, and those with an economic disadvantage (NCLB, 2001; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Inclusion is an essential component of IDEA and protects the rights of students with disabilities. From 1990 to 2007, student placement among 6 to17 year old students with high incidence disabilities placed in separate settings or schools decreased by 25%; placement using the pullout service delivery model decreased by 30%; and placement in general education for students in special education increased by 93% (McLeskey et al., 2010). When talking about inclusion, Pennsylvania public-school principals must look at IDEA. IDEA has two key factors when thinking about the least restrictive environment (LRE). First, IDEA mandates students should be with their peers in general education to the maximum extent that is appropriate (Bargerhuff, 2001; McLeskey et al., 2010; NCLB, 2001; PDE, 2016; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Secondly, special classes, separate schools or removal from the general education class should only happen when the disability is severe enough that supplementary aids and services can’t provide an appropriate education (Bargerhuff, 2001; McLeskey et al., 2010; NCLB, 2001; PDE, 2016; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004).Wade (2008) writes inclusion is not that every “student is educated with peers at all times, but it does mean that the responsibility of discovering effective means for all students to learn together is taken very seriously, and deviations from this approach are made with reluctance and only after careful deliberation” (para. 4). Pennsylvania public-school principals beliefs and previous special education experience can influence current views regarding inclusion in the public-school setting (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2011; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Pennsylvania publicschool principals have a “critical role in the implementation of successful inclusion in diverse, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 47 standards-based environments” (Voltz & Collins, 2002, p. 70). Identified themes and benefits regarding inclusion models were “being with typical peers, exposure to everything and high expectations, individualized curricular and instructional supports, skilled and knowledgeable staff, collaboration and teaming, a positive and caring environment, and providing a balanced educational program” (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007, p. 22). Other cited benefits for inclusion include increased awareness and tolerance of exceptionalities, increased empathy toward students with disabilities, learning while helping, and learning special skills (Bargerhuff, 2001; Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007; Voltz & Collins, 2010). The final highlights were that participants wanted their respective students to lead normal lives, yet on the other hand there were concerns for the future for students with more severe disabilities (Bargerhuff, 2001; Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007). Ball and Green found “the attitudes of school leaders are important for inclusive practices, but not as important as the training and experience of the school leaders charged with implementing these practices” (p. 72). Frost and Kersten’s (2011) study also supported this assumption; their findings revealed principals who had a prior background in special education viewed themselves as having more awareness and involvement in the special education department in their building. It was the opinion of many that more research needed to be completed regarding programs that certify administrators when it comes to special education (Christensen et al., 20xx; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, &Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wakeman et al., 2006). More research is required to assess Pennsylvania public-school principals’ views on inclusion “to establish PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 48 cultures that support the development of all students, certain attitudinal, organizational, and instructional changes must occur” (Ball & Green, 2005, p. 57). Bargerhuff (2001) reported the multitude of research that has been completed on principals’ involvement in inclusion has centered on the work of Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin and was based off survey data. Bargerhuff’s (2001) intent was to evaluate how leadership characteristics influence elementary inclusion models; to determine what specifically cultivates inclusion in their schools (Bargerhuff, 2001). Each principal believed students should be “valued for who they were instead of for what they could do” (Bargerhuff, p. 11, 2001). As a result, Bargerhuff suggested schools consider restructuring to allow common planning time for teachers to ensure inclusion success. Principals must use the relational leadership style and provide staff the proper resources if inclusion is to be successful. For inclusion to be successful there must be continuous communication between regular and special education staff and support personnel (Bargerhuff, 2001). One of the core objectives for educator preparation programs “is the development of teachers capable of providing individually designed instruction that is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to eligible students with disabilities” (Crockett, 2002, p. 161); administrator education programs should be no different. The main goal of special education is “finding and capitalizing on exceptional students’ abilities” (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2000, p. 13). Finally, pre-service certification programs must educate future leaders on inclusive practices (Bargerhuff, 2001; Crockett, 2002). Additional research needs to be completed to fully determine the implications of principal beliefs on successful special education inclusion practices. Principals have been recognized as vital contributors to the effectiveness of publicschools. Tubbs, Heard, and Epps (2011) reported every principal must have the proper PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 49 knowledge, skill set, and frame of mind to be an effective school leader. Principals must have working knowledge of all aspects of a school including day to day operations that including curriculum, staffing, maintenance, and building/grounds (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Voltz & Collins, 2010). Tubbs, Heard, and Epps (2011) stressed the importance educational leadership programs have and their lack of emphasis on the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. Looking more closely at the seven ELCC standards, researchers have provided rationale to be incorporated into a pre-service leadership training program. For standard one, researchers suggested principals must have adequate knowledge, skills, and personality to run a school effectively; leaders must be able to be able to perform projection and assessment tasks (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2011; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Classes in leadership and business should be completed to fulfill this requirement (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). For standard two, it was suggested principals be exposed to school facilities, journals, school websites, and the Educational Resource Information Center Education Facility Clearinghouse to complete a literature review on factors that impact success. Classes pertaining to standard two should include curriculum and instruction as well as business management (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). To meet standard three, future principals should complete coursework designed to improve their understanding of building codes, handicapped codes, fire safety, and health requirements that are needed for a school to operate. These skills can be targeted in a business management course (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). Achievement of standard four is through courses on public relations and school business management; objectives are for principals to recognize community involvement and develop positive public relations (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 50 2011). Standard five states leaders need to be ethic and act with integrity and fairness, to achieve this, programs should contain courses that embed education ethics (most likely in business management) (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). The sixth standard dictates principals maintain an awareness of current political, social, and legal issues. Future school leaders should complete coursework that contains school law, social foundations, and business management (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wakeman et. al, 2006). The final standard, number seven, is that school leaders can manage facilities This includes current building and grounds space, upkeep and maintenance of current buildings, and space management. The suggested requirement is completed in a practicum class or portfolio assignment. The researchers suggest a combination of field experiences, professional speakers, hands-on activities, case studies, and learning simulations be used to complete learning objectives (Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011). Principal preparation and certification programs do not provide enough background knowledge in special education to adequately prepare public-school administrators for the rigors of special education programming (Bargerhuff, 2001; Christensen et al., 2010; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Instructional leadership is anything Pennsylvania public-school principals can do to foster and enhance learning and teaching, this includes inclusion and special education. What subgroup in any school district across the country needs more enhanced learning and specialized teaching than those served by special education? Pennsylvania public-school principals need to be actively seeking ways to boost the achievement of the special education population, taking a hard look at inclusion and using the LRE is best practice according to IDEA. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 51 One common thread among much of the research seems to be if there is prior experience in special education or a related field, administrators are more likely to be involved in the day to day happenings (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wakeman et. al, 2006). When it comes to special education prior experience garners more positive attitudes towards inclusion (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wakeman et. al, 2006). PDE, certification programs, and school districts need to look at developing more special education related areas as part of administrator preparation certifications as well as their induction programs. Currently, Pennsylvania publicschool principals must complete an induction program, yet not one of the eleven units outlined by PDE is specific to special education (PDE, 2016). School Boards should also consider, when looking at a candidate’s background knowledge/resume, how much the potential school leader understands special education and is in favor of programs like inclusion (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Many times, Pennsylvania public-school principal positions are filled by capable staff; however, they have no experience in special education and inclusion. In Pennsylvania, to become a public-school principal, candidates must have baccalaureate degree from a regionally or nationally accredited college/university (PDE, 2018). Candidates must meet “the requirements set forth in section 24 P.S. § 12-1209 relating to good moral character” (PDE, 2018, para. 1). They must have a minimum of three years teaching experience and complete a “Pennsylvania-approved, graduate-level principal certification program that includes an internship/practicum or an equivalent out-of-state program” (PDE, 2018, para. 1) and maintain a 3.0 grade point average (GPA) while completing coursework (PDE, 2018). Candidates must also pass The School Leaders Licensure Assessment (PDE, 2018). The School PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 52 Leaders Licensure Assessment “reflect the most current research and professional judgment and experience of educators across the country, and they are based on both a national job analysis study and a set of standards for school leaders identified by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium” (ISLLC; ETS, 2003). The ISLLC standards were introduced to the public in 1996 and were revised in 2008. Both versions of the ISLLC provided the “frameworks for policy on education leadership in 45 states and the District of Columbia” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 1). The ISLLC standards were replaced in 2015 with The Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL); the PSEL are the third iteration of the original ISLLC standards. PSEL “are organized around the domains, qualities, and values of leadership work that research and practice indicate contribute to students’ academic success and well-being” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 6). The Council of Chief State School Officers reported “no students benefit more from an effective principal than those with disabilities. When a principal cultivates a school environment where all students feel safe, supported, and included, students with disabilities and other struggling learners thrive” (2017, p. 1). The 2015 PSEL standards were developed to serve as a model of professional standards. The PSEL standards …communicate expectations to practitioners, supporting institutions, professional associations and policy makers and the public about the work, qualities and values of effective educational leaders. They are a compass that guides the direction of practice directly as well as indirectly through the work of policy makers, professional associations and supporting institutions. They do not prescribe specific actions, encouraging those in leadership and its development to adapt their application to be most effective in particular circumstances and contexts (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015; p. 4) The PSEL are PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 53 …organized around the domains, qualities, and values of leadership work that research and practice indicate contribute to students’ academic success and well-being. Each standard features a title and a statement that succinctly define the work of effective educational leaders in that particular realm. A series of elements follow, which elaborate the work that is necessary to meet the standard. The number of elements for each standard varies in order to describe salient dimensions of the work involved (National Policy Board for Educational Administration 2015; p. 8). The PSEL are based on current research and the real-life experiences of educational leaders. The PSEL (2015) standards are “student-centric, outlining foundational principles of leadership to guide the practice of educational leaders so they can move the needle on student learning and achieve more equitable outcomes” (p. 1). The table below defines the standards and details the link to special education for Pennsylvania public-school principals. Table 1 Pennsylvania Public-School Principal Standards 2015 PSEL Standard Description of Standard Key Leadership Practices for Supporting Students with Disabilities (CCSO, 2017) Standard 1: Mission, Vision, and Core Values “Effective educational leaders develop, advocate, and enact a shared mission, vision, and core values of high-quality education and academic success and wellbeing of each student” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 9). “Work collaboratively to develop a mission and vision for their school that supports the success of all students, including students with disabilities” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 3). Standard 2: Ethics and Professional Norms “Effective educational leaders act ethically and according to professional norms to promote each student’s academic success and well-being” “Possess an ethical mindset to identify, interpret, and manage the ethical dilemmas in leadership for students with disabilities and address them by embodying the values of justice and care, equality and equity, and community in service of each student” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 4). (NPBEA, 2015, p. 10). Standard 3: Equity and “Effective educational leaders strive for equity of educational opportunity and culturally responsive practices to promote “Ensure the academic success and well-being of each student, including students with disabilities, through PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 54 Cultural Responsiveness each student’s academic success and wellbeing” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 11). equitable access to effective teachers, culturally responsive learning opportunities and supports, and necessary resources. Hold asset-based rather than deficit-based perspectives of students, and recognize relationships among disability, cultural differences, and social inequities (CCSSO, 2017, p. 5). Standard 4: Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment “Effective educational leaders develop and support intellectually rigorous and coherent systems of curriculum, instruction, and assessment to promote each student’s academic success and wellbeing” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 12). “Communicate high academic expectations for all students, including students with disabilities; promote high-quality, intellectuallychallenging curricula and instruction; and provide opportunities for students with disabilities to achieve within the general education curriculum using a multi-tiered system of support. Work collaboratively with classroom teachers to help them develop their capacity for effective instruction. Ensure that evidence-based approaches to instruction and assessment are implemented with integrity and are adapted to local needs” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 7). Standard 5: Community of Care and Support for Students “Effective educational leaders cultivate an inclusive, caring, and supportive school community that promotes the academic success and well-being of each student” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 13). “Ensure that students with disabilities have opportunities to learn with their non-disabled peers to the greatest extent appropriate. Promote inclusive social environments that foster acceptance, care, and sense of value and belonging in adult-student and student peer relationships” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 9). Standard 6: Professional Capacity of School Personnel “Effective educational leaders develop the professional capacity and practice of school personnel to promote each student’s academic success and well-being” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 14). “Hire and retain highly effective special education and general education teachers with a school-wide vision and a set of core values that support improving achievement and PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 55 outcomes for students with disabilities” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 10). Standard 7: Professional Community for Teachers and Staff “Effective educational leaders foster a professional community of teachers and other professional staff to promote each student’s academic success and wellbeing” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 15). “Promote collaborative cultures focused on shared responsibility for achieving the mission and vision of the school, and for the success of students with disabilities” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 12). Standard 8: Meaningful Engagement of Families and Community “Effective educational leaders engage families and the community in meaningful, reciprocal, and mutually beneficial ways to promote each student’s academic success and well-being” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 16). “Create partnerships with families of students with disabilities and engage them purposefully and productively in the learning and development of their children in and out of school. Engage families to provide insight about their children’s specific disabilities that allows teachers to better understand their needs, make educationally sound instructional decisions, and assist in interpreting and assessing student progress” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 13). Standard 9: Operations and Management “Effective educational leaders manage school operations and resources to promote each student’s academic success and wellbeing” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 17). “Manage their budgets and develop strong relationships with central offices in order to ensure the effective and efficient use of resources and that students with disabilities have access to appropriate transportation, classrooms, services, accommodations, and extracurricular activities” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 14). Standard10: School Improvement “Effective educational leaders act as agents of continuous improvement to promote each student’s academic success and wellbeing” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 18). “Provide learning opportunities for teachers and staff to equip them to participate in strategic processes of improvement, and to take part in implementing effective programs and practices for students with disabilities” (CCSSO, 2017, p. 15). Note: Sources: (NPBEA, 2015 & CCSSO, 2017) What is the educational impact? To produce qualified staff who are ready to be the leaders of any building they enter; Pennsylvania public-school principal training programs must PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 56 add a special education component into their certification process to eliminate the lack of knowledge many new principals have. A Pennsylvania public-school principal who possesses a solid understanding of special education procedures, inclusion practices, IDEA, and the PA School Code is more likely going to have a staff that is supportive and in favor of their directives regarding inclusion and special education programming (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Teachers will want to help develop policy change and will constantly be striving for professional excellence. If the leaders of the school lack the proper knowledge of special education law and policy, it does not foster adequate respect and trust from special education staff. Having special education background knowledge will enable Pennsylvania public-school principals to better understand the IEP process, empowering them to help make IEP team decisions as they arise, and help the principal convey to regular education staff (if needed) the rationale behind an IEP team’s decisions(Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). Having Pennsylvania public-school principals complete more training in special education will not only make them more well-rounded individuals (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, TschannenMoran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton et al., 2013; Wakeman, et al., 2006 ), it will add credibility to their decisions when it comes to special education policies, like inclusion, and student decisions made in the district Bargerhuff, 2001; Christensen et al., 2010; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006) Members of a school must work together to bring about a positive change in the lives of their students and boost academic achievement (Bargerhuff, 2001; Christensen et al., PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 57 2010; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). The principal must have the influence over their faculty/staff to motivate all parties towards the common goal (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). According to IDEA, students with special needs have the right to receive necessary curricular adaptations to be successful; adaptations include accommodations and modifications to their programs (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). At both the elementary, middle, and high school levels, students who receive accommodations are held to the same academic expectations as their general education classmates. Districts should adhere to the guidelines set forth under IDEA and presume students with disabilities are most appropriately educated with their non-disabled peers and removing them from the general education environment should only occur when the severity of their disability limits them from satisfactorily achieving in the general education classroom, even with supportive aides and services (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Detailed information is provided in each special education student’s IEP regarding modifications, accommodations, and placement options explains why a student is placed where they are to avoid legal ramifications (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Special education competency needs to be a mandatory component in administrator preparation programs. For inclusion to be an option, staff must be properly trained and believe in the positive outcomes inclusion can deliver (Bargerhuff, 2001; Frost & Kerston, 2009; Tubbs, Heard, & Epps, 2011; Wade, 2008; Wakeman et. al, 2006). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 58 Special education has been evolving for thirty-five years and will continue to do so; ensuring Pennsylvania public-school principals have a solid foundation in special education will ensure the principals of tomorrow are prepared today. Decisions to place students in other programs must be IEP team decision and based on data (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Katsiyannis, Losinski, & Prince, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). The suggestion should also be made that current certificate holders seeking employment must be made to complete training in special education as part of their induction program/process. Pennsylvania pubic-school principals are required to promote successful learning for all students; understanding special education will make this goal and inclusion more attainable. Summarizing the Information: Principals and Special Education Go Together The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of public-school principals throughout Pennsylvania. The goal was to identify the specific leadership characteristics and views of practicing public-school principals regarding special education. This study included both quantitative qualitative research methods to evaluate the professional skills Pennsylvania public-school principals felt they must possess to effectively lead special education programs. The researcher hypothesized Pennsylvania public-school principals, who need to be supportive regarding time and behavior management, are not given adequate training in special education topics prior to certification (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola et al., 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Data must drive leadership decisions principals make (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Principals must recognize and develop leadership skills of their current staff and be aware of current instruction and be involved in planning (Crockett, 2002; Crum, Sherman, & Myran, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 59 2010). School accountability and conversations must be the front runner of all activities involving leadership (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola et al., 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). The Pennsylvania public-school principal must be knowledgeable regarding special education law and procedures (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola et al., 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). The Pennsylvania public-school principal has multiple duties; to be an effective leader, principal should focus on improving professional skills and knowledge of their faculty and staff they lead and support (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004; NPBEA, 2015). Principals need to take the necessary time to provide supports and necessary professional development to beginning teachers to promote success and retention (NPBEA, 2015). Publicschool administrators must strive to make connections within the community (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004; NPBEA, 2015). Pennsylvania public school principals are expected to be instructional leaders for all students within their district (NPBEA, 2015). When it comes to leadership for students with disabilities, many public-school principals lack of experience in the field of special education and have limited pre-service training in special education related issues (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). As mentioned throughout this research review, the research has demonstrated that overall, Pennsylvania public school principals receive limited educational experiences when it comes to special education in pre-service or on-going professional development (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 60 DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). As mandated by law, public schools have the responsibility to identify students with learning and behavior deficits to enable them to receive supports needed to be academically successful (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2015; IDEA, 2002; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA reaffirmed the notion special education students had the right to be educated in the general education classroom setting with their non-exceptional peers (IDEA, 2002; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Special education leadership should be a significant concern for school Pennsylvania public school principals across the Commonwealth as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students; “to establish cultures that support the development of all students, certain attitudinal, organizational, and instructional changes must occur” (Ball & Green, 2005, p. 57). Special education leadership should be at the forefront for Pennsylvania public-school principals as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education programs, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). This literature review served to review the background of special education law and the features of an effective public-school principal. Pennsylvania public-school principal preparation programs must adapt their programs to prepare future principals to meet the demands of special education successfully lead all schools. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 61 CHAPTER III: Methodology Overview The purpose of this research study was to provide a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals could identify where their special education knowledge was lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their own district’s special education population. The purpose of this study was to examine the formal training, basic knowledge, frequencies of special education engagement, and personal views, and perceptions of public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The current study included both qualitative and quantitative research methods (Cresswell, 2009; Cresswell, Plano, & Clark, 2007; Graziano & Raulin, 2013; Patton, 2002; Tracy, 2013). The quantitative portion used data collected through a survey instrument to gather demographic background information, knowledge of special education topics of participants, frequencies of special education practices engaged in, and beliefs regarding special education. Through the survey, this study attempted to determine the level of special education knowledge among Pennsylvania public-school principals to determine if there was a relationship between demographic factors and years of experience as principal. The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey instrument, drew on the existing leadership surveys and questions previously utilized by Frost and Kersten (2011) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) after consent was received (see Appendices C and E). The survey was designed to be administered in Web format. The researcher’s goal was to have the survey ready for distribution by January 1, 2019, which was accomplished. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 62 The qualitative portion of the study focused on data collected from open-ended questions attached to the survey instrument to identify Pennsylvania public-school principals’ personal beliefs surrounding instructional leadership and special education practices. The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey instrument, section IV replicated the existing leadership survey completed, with permission (see Appendices D and E), by Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2007). Elliot, Fisher, and Rennie (1999) reported the “aim of qualitative research is to understand and represent the experiences and actions of people as they encounter, engage, and live through situations” (p. 216). This study, sought to understand and expand the current knowledge, programs, and training by utilizing a qualitative research design (Elliot, Fisher, & Rennie, 1999; Graziano & Raulin, 2013; Tracy, 2013) to identify elements and describe relationships among the elements that contributed to, or acted as barriers, to the lack of courses offered for pre-service administrators during their training programs. The identified themes (i.e., words and narratives) in the qualitative component were expected to corroborate the quantitative results. It was the researcher’s intention the results from this research would be helpful to colleges and universities when developing plans of study and programming for future Pennsylvania public-school principal and leadership training degrees and certificates. This research also provided a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principal certification programs could identify where their curriculum regarding special education knowledge was lacking and how to improve plans of study for future instructional leaders. Three major research questions guided this study: 1. What relationship, if any, existed between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 63 instructional leadership skills, and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) 2. To what extent were there differences in the knowledge, frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and secondary publicschool principals? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) 3. How does the relationship between the amounts of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program affect the instructional leadership in special education? (Addressed by survey section IV.) Based on this research, the researcher completed the following: (a) the researcher made recommendations from common themes that emerged from the study, (b) identified where the gaps in knowledge appeared to be and what could be done and (c) identified promising practices, if any that emerged from this review and evaluation. Participants The sample participants for the research study came from practicing elementary and secondary public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Random sampling was used to select districts from the possible 500 identified public-school districts from within the twenty-nine Intermediate Units (IUs) identified by PDE (see Appendix J); invitations were sent to all Pennsylvania public-school principals within the selected IU (see Appendix G). The sample was thought to consist of diverse demographics including pre-service teaching role, gender, race, experience, certification, student population of each participant’s school, and both rural/urban districts. The sample contained elementary and secondary representations. Participants were classified into four groups 0-5 years’ experience; 6-10 years’ experience; 11-15 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 64 years’ experience, and 16 plus years of administrator experience. Private schools, charter schools (including cyber), and vocational schools were not included in the current study. To gain a statewide representative sample, the researcher used a random number generator to select four IUs out of the 29 possible (see Appendix J). The following IUs were selected for district invitation: Riverview IU 6, Central IU 10, Luzerne IU 18, and School District of Philadelphia IU 26. All districts within each IU were sent an e-mail invitation to participate in the survey (see Appendices G, K, & M) once district approval was given by the superintendent (see Appendix M). Current principal e-mail addresses were obtained for all districts from their website except Wyoming Area School District (IU 18) eliminating five participants from the survey before it began. A total of 426 e-mail addresses were collected for potential dissemination once superintendent approval was granted. Setting The setting where public school administrators were employed was (potentially) thought to significantly impact the answers provided in this survey; participants were divided into elementary or secondary. Results were analyzed as collective and then again as separate entities (elementary and secondary school). Population and Sample Selection The research design was comprised of two major sections and all data was collected through online activities. The survey instrument given to participants gathered demographic data and identified legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge and frequencies by utilizing yes/no questions and Likert-type rating scales. The second activity involved open-ended questions (Tracy, 2013) to elicit current views and comfort levels of special education topics of current practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. Data was coded and analyzed to determine PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 65 patterns in the responses. Data was divided into key themes assigned (through review of each response) using a coding system. Survey Instrument The survey instrument was designed to be administered concurrently with the open-ended interview type questions portion of the study. All materials were distributed through Survey Monkey, an online survey tool (www.surveymonkey.com). The instrument consisted of an online, four-section survey. Section I, contained nine demographic background information questions. Section II was comprised of eighteen questions using a yes/no answer format to address the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs on legal topics, foundational and contextual knowledge. Section III contained fifteen questions using a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) to address the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ frequencies of use with legal topics, foundational and contextual knowledge. Section III also contained questions replicated from the work of Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) and evaluated Pennsylvania public-school principals’ perceived competencies for special education areas. Questions used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from emergent (0) to exemplary (5). Section II of the survey was further delineated into three sub-sections to address Pennsylvania public-school principals’ views relating to legal, contextual, and foundational knowledge of special education topics; all eighteen questions required a yes or no response. Six questions addressed perceptions on whether Pennsylvania public-school principals believed they possessed enough legal knowledge for effective leadership of special education programs within their school district. This section of the survey addressed six legal topics: special education provisions in the NCLB (now ESSA), components of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) that affect public schools, how the ADA affected public schools, special education rules and PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 66 regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code, and their district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The second area focused on foundational knowledge and whether Pennsylvania public-school principals believed themselves to have sufficient foundational knowledge in special education to effectively serve students with disabilities. Foundational knowledge included six questions that addressed accommodation in the LRE, parental involvement in IEPs, district’s special education placement continuum, identification and placement, discipline, and the district’s related services model (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The final yes/no section addressed contextual knowledge. Six questions were presented to Pennsylvania public-school principals to indicate if they perceived themselves to have contextual knowledge in special education to serve students with disabilities. This section queried responses on state learning standards, effective instructional practices, academic assessments, curriculum design, program improvement plans, and evaluation of IEPs by staff (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Section III contained three sub-sections to address Pennsylvania public-school principals’ frequencies of engagement surrounding legal, contextual, and foundation knowledge of special education topics based on the work by Frost and Kersten (2011) and perceived competencies developed by Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001). Legal frequencies used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). These 18 indicators were written as positive statements and participants were asked to indicate how often a specific instructional leadership behavior with special education teachers was used (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Legal frequencies assessed the hiring special education teachers, monitoring student IEPs, and the implementation of federal and state special education requirements, attendance at professional development related to legal issues in special education and attendance at pre-referral meetings of the school- PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 67 based service team (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Foundational frequencies counted attendance annual IEP meetings, reviewing annually special education workload, encouraging parental involvement, formal evaluations of special education teachers, and monitoring alignment of IEPs to state learning standards (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for foundational frequency tabulation. Contextual frequencies looked at arranging monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff, planning program improvement, weekly visits to special education classrooms, attendance at team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns, and monitoring special education curriculum (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for contextual frequency tabulation. The final component of Section III was based on the work of Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) and evaluated Pennsylvania public-school principals’ perceived competencies for special education areas. Questions used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from emergent (0) to exemplary (5). These eleven indicators were written as positive statements and aligned with the study’s objective and goals which sought to gather information from participants to assess their background information and thoughts on how prepared they were to step into leadership roles in special education after certification. Open Ended Questions In the qualitative data collection component, open-ended questions were used to elicit further descriptions of Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs regarding the administration of special education (see Appendix F for the question protocol). The protocol consisted of nine questions developed by researchers Frost and Kersten (2011) and GarrisonWade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) based on their literature reviews and surveys. Respondents PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 68 were asked to describe specific behaviors and beliefs pertaining to the administration of special education. The open ended questions were chosen to (a) learn specific strategies and/or processes principals believe future public-school principals need to learn to support special education practices (b) to gather data on the benefits and disadvantages of working within schools that serve students with diverse needs and backgrounds, (c) to identify specific principal beliefs on placement recommendations for special education students and (d) to offer specific strategies that they perceived were effective in working with students in special education. Open ended questions were as follows: 1. What type of disabilities have you encountered most frequently in your experience as a principal/administrator (Frost & Kersten, 2011)? 2. What benefits do you perceive for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 3. What concerns do you have for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 4. Describe the working relationship with your administrator(s) (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 5. Describe a specific initiative/action/project that your administrator has undertaken to support inclusive services in your school building (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 69 6. Have you experienced any challenges in working with an administrator on issues related to inclusive practices? If so, please identify (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 7. What questions do you have regarding addressing the needs of learners with diverse needs and backgrounds that you feel should be addressed in an administrator preparation program (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 8. Please identify specific strategies and/or processes that you believe future administrators need to learn to support inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 9. Please identify any projects that you believe could help future administrators become skilled supporting inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Data collection consisted of an anonymous web-based survey with online scoring to ensure timely data collection. There was the potential for the researcher to send out 426 e-mail invitations to participate in the survey if superintendent approval was given for all identified districts. The researcher’s goal was to receive a minimum of 75 to 100 surveys in return; the goal was 20% (N=86). Simple random sampling was used to select participants to reduce the potential for human bias in the selection of participants to be included in the sample. Thus, the researcher assumed the sample provided a representative view of the target population. Data was organized and stored electronically; data was coded, disaggregated into manageable segments, and categorized into meaningful units using the software program NVivo and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS Statistics is a software package used for interactive, or batched, statistical analysis. NVivo is software that supported qualitative and mixed methods PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 70 research. The survey itself focused on determining the amount of special education knowledge/background the participants had, how much prior knowledge impacted their leadership role regarding their special education teachers and programs, comfort level when working with special education staff and students, and how often instructional leadership was impacted by special education. Ethical Principles/Human Subject Compliance All research subjects in this study were free from research abuses, as outlined in the Belmont Report of 1979. The current study adhered to all three fundamental ethical principles outlined in the report: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano & Raulin, 2013). Study participants were provided the ethical principle by being given autonomy; the freedom to deliberate, make considered choices, and opt in or out of the research study. Diminished autonomy was not an issue as there were no minors, geriatric/senile, or individuals with diminished capacity that were selected in data collection (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano & Raulin, 2013). During consent, all participants were provided information regarding the research study before consent to participate. No pressure or incentives were given to participate in the study; participants were free to withdraw participation at any time without penalty (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano & Raulin, 2013). Beneficence was adhered to as part of this study as the data and information collected caused no harm to those participating (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano & Raulin, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 71 Instrumentation The instrumentation used for this research study was an online survey containing demographics, yes/no questions, Likert-scales, and open-ended questions. Computerized random sampling was used to select participants to reduce the potential for human bias in the selection of participants to be included in the sample. Thus, the researcher assumed the sample provided a highly representative view of the target population. Participants were invited to participate in the survey via e-mail (see Appendix G for consent form); if a district was discovered to not have email access, they were eliminated from the study; participants had thirty days to respond to the electronic link and complete the survey. After thirty days; a second reminder notice was electronically sent to complete the survey if they had not already been done so (see Appendix N for reminder e-mail letter). The second notice provided participants an additional fifteen days to complete the survey for a total of 45 days of data collection. Validity To ensure validity of the research findings, and to minimize possible distortions that may have resulted from contact with study participants, there was no engagement or interaction with the research participants once initial consent had been given. Survey items regarding special education knowledge, frequencies, and perceptions were validated by the original authors of the survey instruments. This researcher gained permission from Frost and Kersten (2011; Appendices B & C) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001; Appendices D & E) to use their questionnaires. Data collection continued until the point of data saturation, all the while using the grounded-theory process. Internal validity is an inductive estimate of the degree to which conclusions about causal relationships can be made (e.g. cause and effect), based on the measures used, the research setting, and the whole research design. The researcher of this study PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 72 modified the Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer survey by deleting demographic items specific to the state of Colorado which were not pertinent to this study as it was conducted in Pennsylvania. Added to the survey were three demographic items to gather information on Pennsylvania public-school principals. Confounding variables were considered in the survey design process. Graziano and Raulin (2013) reported eight confounding variables that can interfere with internal validity (i.e. with the attempt to isolate causal relationships). History (the specific events occurring between the first and second measurements) and surveying (the effects of taking a survey upon the scores of a second surveying) were not factors as participants only completed the survey instrument one time. Maturation was not a factor. The survey was completed one time only in 2019; there were no issues for participants regarding the passage of time or specific events to impact survey results. There were no changes to the instrumentation after release to affect results; survey questions and items had been previously validated by researchers Frost and Kersten (2011) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001). Statistical regression (operating where groups have been selected based on extreme scores) and selection bias did not confound results; random selection was used to select participants statewide. Experimental mortality and selectionmaturation interaction were not applicable as this was a onetime only administered survey to determine views on special education and instructional leadership of practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. Reliability All efforts were made by the researcher to validate the reliability of survey material. Internal consistency, which refers to the degree different questions or statements measure the same characteristic, was used to determine patterns. When conducting qualitative research, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 73 reliability referred to the degree to which the researcher’s approach was consistent so that the survey may be repeated across different researchers and over time (Creswell, 2009). Clear and consistent procedures and protocols were used across all facets of the data collection process for the current study. Design of the Study The mixed methods data generated in this study can help current Pennsylvania publicschool principals evaluate their skills compared to a statewide sampling and provide information for colleges and universities across Pennsylvania to improve certification programs and degrees. The research design contained two major sections. The first section dealt with the application of the data to analyze participants’ responses to provide feedback from current practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. The rationale and advantages of this have been previously explained. The second major segment dealt with how current views and comfort level of special education topics and initiatives impacted the instructional leadership skills of current Pennsylvania public-school principals. The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey was administered in web format. The survey was designed around four categorical measures: demographic characteristics of principals and their certification preparation and development features; special education content knowledge; frequency of principal engagement in specific leadership practices; and personal beliefs. The appendices described the survey process, including consent forms and reminder emails. Research Questions and Hypothesis Three research questions guided this study. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 74 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program, instructional leadership skills, and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) H0: There will be no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. H1: There will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania publicschool principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. H0: There will be no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s proficiency and knowledge of special education policies and procedures. H2: There will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania publicschool proficiency and knowledge of special education policies and procedures. 2. To what extent are there differences in the knowledge, frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and secondary public-school principals? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) H0: There will be no difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 75 H3: There will be a positive difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. H0: There will be no difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. H4: There will be a positive difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. 3. How does the relationship between the amounts of special education training received by public-school principals in their certification program affect the public-school principal’s instructional leadership in special education? (Addressed by survey section IV.) In this study, The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey (Sections I, II, and III) was used to test the theory Pennsylvania public-school principals were not given adequate special education training that predicts their knowledge of special education topics, laws, and procedures will negatively influence their instructional leadership for special education programs and students. Concurrent with this data collection, qualitative data regarding personal views from The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey (Section IV, Open Ended Questions) explored the personal views of special education Pennsylvania public-school principals across the Commonwealth possess. The reasons for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were to bring together the strengths of both forms of research to compare and corroborate results. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 76 Variables It was the researcher’s intention this research would be helpful to colleges and universities when developing plans of study and programming for future Pennsylvania publicschool principal and leadership training degrees and certificates. This research also provided a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals could identify where their special education knowledge was lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their own district’s special education population. This study provided insight into understanding the factors that contributed to the lack of special education training in special education programs by higher education entities. Variable 1: The amount of special education training received (as reported) by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program. Variable 2: The amount of special education knowledge Pennsylvania public-school principals possesses evidenced by their answers to legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge questions on The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey. Data Sources The researcher collected data to obtain demographic background knowledge from each participant to determine skill and comfort level surrounding special education topics. Information was input into a statistical software program for analysis. As analysis proceeded, the data that emerged from the research was compared. Data was coded, reviewed, and modified by comparing different participant's views, situations, actions, accounts and experiences to determine emerging themes based on years of service and service role. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 77 Survey data collection consisted of a confidential web-based survey with online scoring that ensured timely data collection. The researcher assumed the sample provided a representative view of the target population. Data was organized and stored electronically; data was coded, disaggregated into manageable segments, and categorized into meaningful units using the software programs NVivo and SPSS. Data Collection and Analysis Procedures The study began after written approval was received from the Slippery Rock Institutional Review Board. The survey itself focused on determining the amount of special education knowledge, frequencies of engagement, and personal views on leadership the participants possess. The survey sought to identify how much prior participant knowledge impacted their leadership role regarding their special education teachers and programs, their comfort level, and how often instructional leadership was impacted by special education. The sample for the research came from elementary and secondary public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The sample consisted of diverse demographics including preservice teaching role, gender, race, experiences, certification, student population of each participant’s school, and both rural/urban districts. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participants in the study. Frequencies and percentages were collected from participants for demographic characteristics such as school setting, race, age, pre-certification role, and special education training received in degree programming. The means and standard deviations for the leadership behaviors were provided via tables and text. The collected data was analyzed continually throughout the research process, which is typical of qualitative research studies, but also by using the coding process to identify themes PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 78 which resonated with current special education familiarity and content knowledge of practicing school principals. Throughout the study, constant data analysis and refinement helped narrow the focus to central themes experienced by principals, and further validated the assumptions made within the study design. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate responses. The research design contained two major sections. The first part dealt with the application of the data to analyze participants’ responses to provide feedback from current practicing Pennsylvania public-school principals. The rationale and advantages of this have been previously explained. The second major segment dealt with how current views and comfort level of special education topics and initiatives impacted the instructional leadership skills of current public-school principals. Research data was collected using survey format for the principal beliefs portion of the study. NVivo and SPSS software was used to store and analyze responses. The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey was designed and developed by Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania’s doctoral student researcher, Mrs. Amanda J. Truitt-Smith. The survey drew on the existing leadership surveys and questions previously utilized by Frost and Kersten (2011) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) after consent was received to use the surveys (see Appendices C and E). The survey is designed to be administered in Web format. The researcher had the the survey ready for distribution on January 1, 2019. Data Collection Methods Participants were invited to participate in the survey via e-mail (see Appendix G for consent form); if a district was discovered to not have e-mail access, they were eliminated from the study; participants had 30 days to respond to the electronic link and complete the survey. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 79 After 30 days; a second reminder notice was electronically sent to complete the survey if it had not already been done so (see Appendix N for reminder e-mail letter). The second notice provided participants an additional 15 days to complete the survey for a total of 45 days of data collection. Biases/Limitations Study limitations may include: 1. Sample size: Until participants began completing the surveys; the actual number of participants could not be determined. The sample size may have been too small, making it difficult to find significant relationships from the data. 2. There was the potential for the data to be unreliable; the researcher would not be able to state with one hundred percent conviction participants answered questions truthfully. 3. Limited prior research on this topic. 4. Since the data was self-reported in an asynchronous manner (Tracy, 2013), the data may not be an accurate reflection of the administrator’s true knowledge and beliefs regarding special education and programming. There was the potential for participants to “carefully construct a desired presentation” (Tracy, 2013, p. 166) rather than give answers directly. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 80 CHAPTER IV: Results Public-school principals have a critical role in the development of special education programming, curriculum planning, professional development for teachers under their supervision, and evaluating the fidelity of current programs in place (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012). It is crucial the public-school principal be well-versed in special education content knowledge and procedures to ensure their school adheres to the law and operates smoothly. Research was warranted to ensure the Pennsylvania public-school principal has knowledge of special education law, policies, and procedures to diminish litigation opportunities (Bargerhuff, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010; McLeskey et al., 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Voltz & Collins, 2010; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Research Questions The overarching premise of the study was that Pennsylvania public-school principals are not given adequate training in special education in their certification programs. To test these concepts, the following research questions and specific hypotheses were constructed: 1. What relationship, if any, exists between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program, instructional leadership skills, and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) H0: There will be no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 81 H1: There will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania publicschool principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. H0: There will be no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s proficiency and knowledge of special education policies and procedures. H2: There will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania publicschool proficiency and knowledge of special education policies and procedures. 2. To what extent are there differences in the knowledge, frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and secondary public-school principals? (Addressed by survey sections I, II, and III.) H0: There will be no difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. H3: There will be a positive difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. H0: There will be no difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. H4: There will be a positive difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 82 3. How does the relationship between the amounts of special education training received by public-school principals in their certification program affect the publicschool principal’s instructional leadership in special education? (Addressed by survey section IV.) Instrument In this study, The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey (Section I: Demographics, Section II: Knowledge, and Section III: Frequencies) was used to gather quantitative data to test the theory Pennsylvania public-school principals are not given adequate special education training in their certification/degree program to fully prepare them for the rigors surrounding special education implementation and regulations. The researcher sought to determine if there was a lack of training and knowledge of special education topics, laws, and procedures that negatively influenced Pennsylvania public-school principals’ instructional leadership practices when it comes to implementing special education programs, inclusive practices, and supervising personnel. Concurrently, qualitative data was collected from Pennsylvania public-school principals’ personal views using Section IV: Leadership Beliefs of the survey instrument. Personal opinions were obtained to explore principals’ views regarding special education held by public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The reasons for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data were to bring together the strengths of both forms of research and to compare and corroborate results. The researcher intended to determine if there were any patterns in the data based on the years of service and place of employment (elementary versus secondary) that may have impacted principal views and knowledge. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 83 Participants The sample participants for the research study were obtained from practicing elementary and secondary public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Private schools, charter schools (including cyber), and vocational schools were not included in the current study. To gain a statewide representative sample, the researcher used a random number generator to select five IUs out of the 29 possible (see Appendix J). The following IUs were selected for district invitation: Midwestern IU 4, Riverview IU 6, Central IU 10, Luzerne IU 18, and School District of Philadelphia IU 26. The researcher obtained superintendent consent from 23 out of the 68 (34%) public-school districts that permission letters were sent to; 3 no responses were received for a total of 26 (38%) response rate for school districts contacted. See Table 2 for a list of the school districts that were sent invitations to participate in the survey. The researcher obtained superintendent consent from the following public-school districts from the Midwestern IU 4: Butler Area School District, Karns City Area School District, Seneca Valley Area School District, Neshannock Township School District, Commodore Perry Area School District, Greenville Area School District, Grove City Area School District, Mercer Area School District, Reynolds Area School District, Sharon City Area School District, Sharpsville Area School District, and West Middlesex Area School District. The researcher was given superintendent consent from the following public-school districts from within the Riverview Intermediate Unit Six: Clarion Area School District, Clarion-Limestone Area School District, Cranberry Area School District, Keystone Area School District, Oil City Area School District, Punxsutawney Area School District, and Titusville Area School District. Consent was obtained from the from the following districts in Intermediate Unit 10: Moshannon Valley School District, Penns Valley Area School District, and Philipsburg-Osceola Area School PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 84 District. The Northwest Area School District was the only school to provide superintendent consent from the Luzern Intermediate Unit 18. See Table 2 for a list of the school districts that were sent invitations to participate in the survey. Table 2 School Districts Invited to Participate in the Survey IU Invited SD IU 4 Butler Area SD Karns City Area SD Seneca Valley Area SD Neshannock Township SD Commodore Perry Area SD Greenville Area SD Grove City Area SD Mercer Area SD Reynolds Area SD Sharon City Area SD Sharpsville Area SD West Middlesex Area SD IU 6 Clarion Area SD Clarion-Limestone Area SD Cranberry Area SD Keystone Area SD Oil City Area SD Punxsutawney Area SD Titusville Area SD IU 10 Moshannon Valley SD Penns Valley Area SD Philipsburg-Osceola Area SD IU 18 Northwest Area SD Note: IU= Intermediate Unit; SD= School District All public-school principals within each identified district were sent an e-mail invitation (on 01/01/2019) to participate in the survey (see Appendices G, K, & M). Current principal email addresses were obtained for all districts from their website. A total of 108 e-mail addresses PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 85 were collected and 108 invitations were sent. The researcher obtained survey responses from a total of 19 (N=19) participants out of the 108 (18% return rate). Participants were invited to participate in the survey via e-mail (see Appendix G for consent form); participants were provided 30 days to respond to the electronic link and complete the survey. After 30 days; a second reminder notice was electronically sent to complete the survey to all participants who had not responded (see Appendix N for reminder e-mail letter). The second notice provided participants another 15 days to complete the survey for a total of 45 days for data collection. Survey responses were kept confidential; no one besides the researchers had access to information about who took a given survey. Participants were assigned a number pseudonym by the data analysis software program, NVivo upon completion. Survey results were kept confidential, the researcher never associated a survey respondent’s name or e-mail with their survey response in any reporting. Survey results were aggregated; that is, individual survey results were combined and presented as a group using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software program. Comments submitted on confidential surveys were not associated with a respondent’s name or e-mail address however, the comments were reported verbatim. All materials were distributed through Survey Monkey, an online survey tool (www.surveymonkey.com). Survey Results: Section I, Demographics Demographic results are shown in detail in the following pages. All survey respondents (N=19) responded to the first demographic question, see Table 3. Question one had participants indicate their current administrative role in the public-school setting. Seven participants were currently serving as K-6 Elementary School principals (37%). Twelve participants were employed at the secondary levels as public-school principals (63%). For data analysis purposes, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 86 results were coded and evaluated using elementary and secondary response collectively, separately, and compared. Table 3 Participants’ Current Administrative Role Elementary School Secondary Total Frequency Percent 7 37.0 12 63.0 19 Demographic question number two, required participants to report the length of service in their current administrative position, see Table 4. Eleven respondents (58%) have been working in their current principal role from one to five years. Five participants (26%) noted they had been serving as a public-school principal between six and ten years. Two (11%) reported working as a public-school principal from eleven to fifteen years. One participant (5%) indicated over sixteen years in their current position as principal. For data analysis purposes, statistical analyses were completed for survey questions based on length of service. Table 4 Participants’ Length of Service in Current Position Frequency Percent 1-5 Years 11 58.0 6-10 Years 5 26.0 11-15 Years 2 11.0 16 or more 1 5.0 Total 19 Figure 1 represented the breakdown of participants based on their current role in the public-school setting as well as years of service. Figure 2 displayed at the amount of special education classes taken and length of service in the position. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 87 Figure 1 Participant role and length of service displayed Length of Service Versus Current Role 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Elementary School Secondary School 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16+ Years Figure 2 Cross Tabulations for Participants Comparing Length of Service by the number of special education classes taken in certification program. Length of Service Versus SPED Classes Taken 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 0 1 2 3 16+ Years PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 88 All 19 participants (N=19) responded to the third demographic question with results displayed in Table 5. Question number three had participants report the size of the student population in the district which they served as the public-school principal. Two respondents (11%) noted working in public-school districts with student populations of less than 500 students. Eight respondents (42%) had district enrollments for students with a range between 501 to 1,000 students. One participant (5%) worked in a district with a student population of 1,001 to 1,500 students. Three participants (16%) were employed by districts with student populations of 1,501 to 2,000 students. Lastly, five participants (26%) were currently working as principals in districts with student bodies containing more than 2,001 individuals. Table 5 Participants’ Student Population Size Less than 500 Students 501-1,000 Students 1,001-1,500 Students 1,501-2,000 Students 2,000 or more Total Frequency 2 8 1 3 5 19 Percent 11.0 42.0 5.0 16.0 26.0 No respondent completing the current survey was under the age of 30. Age breakdowns for survey participants are shown in Table 6. Nine respondents (47%) reported their age to be between the ages of 31 and 40. Seven participants’ (37%) ages fell in the age range spanning 41 and 50 years. Three (16%) public-school principals were over the age of 51. When looking at ethnicity, demographic question number five, an overwhelming 95% (n=18) reported their ethnicity of origin as white. One participant (5%) reported their ethnicity as other. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 89 Table 6 Survey Participants’ Ages Age Frequency Percent 31-40 9 47.0 41-50 7 37.0 over 51 3 16.0 Total 19 All participants (N=19) responded to demographic question six regarding pre-service roles, see Table 7. The sixth demographic question specifically asked participants to report their previous educational role prior to becoming a Pennsylvania public-school principal. Thirty-two percent (n=6) reported their role in the public-school setting before becoming a principal was serving as a K-6 elementary school classroom teachers. Forty-seven percent (n=9) reported teaching in a high-school setting. Three respondents listed their pre-service role as other (16%). Five percent of participants were guidance counselors. Table 7 Participants’ Previous Role in the Educational Setting Frequency Elementary Teacher High School Teacher Guidance Counselor Other Total 6 9 1 3 19 Percent 32.0 47.0 5.0 16.0 Nineteen participants (N=19) responded to demographic question number seven identifying where their public-school principal certification/degree was obtained from, see Table 8. Principal certifications were issued by the following Colleges and Universities: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania (11%), California University of Pennsylvania (16%), Gannon PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 90 University (21%), University of Pittsburgh (11%), University of Scranton (5%), Westminster College (16%), and other (21%). Table 8 Higher Education Institution Where Participants Received Certification Institution Edinboro California Gannon Pitt Scranton Westminster Other Total Frequency 2 3 4 2 1 3 4 19 Percent 11.0 16.0 21.0 11.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 The eighth demographic queried the number of special education classes participants received as part of their certification program, see Table 9. Five participants (26%) disclosed they received no special education training or components in their educational programming prior to entering the field. Forty-seven (47%) percent reported completing one class in special education during their certification program (n=9). Twenty-one (21%) percent of respondents noted taking two classes in special education in their certification program (n=4). One participant said their schooling contained three classes in special education. The final demographic question addressed participant’s professional development in the area of special education within the last year. Seventeen participants (90%) indicated they have completed professional development within the last year on special education topics. Five percent (05%) percent of survey participants reported no continuing education in special education topics (n=2). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 91 Table 9 Special Education Classes Taken by Participants During Certification Classes 0 1 2 3 Total Frequency Percent 5 26.0 9 47.0 4 21.0 1 5.0 19 Data Analysis of Demographic Questions The Chi-Square Test of Independence (α = 0.05) was used to determine whether there was an association between demographic categorical variables (i.e., whether the variables were independent or related). The Chi-Square Test utilized a contingency table to analyze the data collected. A contingency table (also known as a cross-tabulation) classified the collected data according to two categorical variables, see Table 10. The categories for variable one (current role in the educational system) appear in the rows, and the categories for variable two appear in columns (length of service in current role). Each variable had two or more categories and each cell reflected the total count of cases for the specific pair of categories. Chi-Square (α = 0.05) was selected to determine statistical independence or association between current participant role and length of service. The researcher made the following assumption when analyzing the data collected: H0: Current principal role is independent of length of service in the position. H1: Current principal role is not independent of length of service in the position. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 92 Table 10 Current Participant Role and Length of Service Crosstabulation Length of Service Current Role Elem. Sec.. Total Count % Current Role % Length of Service % of Total Count % Current Role % Length of Service % of Total Count % Current Role % Length of Service % of Total 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16 or more 4 1 2 0 57.1% 14.3% 28.6% 0.0% 36.4% 20.0% 100.0% 0.0% 7 100.0% 36.8% 21.1% 7 58.3% 63.6% 5.3% 4 33.3% 80.0% 10.5% 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 8.3% 100.0% 36.8% 12 100.0% 63.2% 36.8% 11 57.9% 100.0% 21.1% 5 26.3% 100.0% 0.0% 2 10.5% 100.0% 5.3% 1 5.3% 100.0% 63.2% 19 100.0% 100.0% 57.9% 26.3% 10.5% 5.3% 100.0% Note: Elem=Elementary Principal; Sec.=Secondary Principal The key result in the Chi-Square Tests (see Table 11) was the Pearson Chi-Square. The value of the test statistic was 4.623. The footnote for this statistic pertained to the expected cell count assumption (it was expected all cell counts have values greater than 5); 7 cells had an expected count less than 5, so this assumption was not met. The corresponding p-value of the test statistic was p = 0.202. Since the p-value was greater than the chosen significance level (α = 0.05), the researcher did not reject the null hypothesis (test value .202 > table critical table value 2.353); rather, the researcher concluded there was not enough evidence to suggest an association between role in the school system (elementary/secondary) and length of service in the position. The test statistic was based on a 2 X 4 crosstabulation table and the degrees of freedom (df) for the test statistic 3. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 93 Based on the results: No association was found between current principal role and length of service (Χ2(2)> = 4.623, p = 0.202). Table 11 Chi-Square for Current Participant Role and Length of Service Crosstabulation Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases Value 4.623a 5.584 .095 Asymptotic Significance Df (2-sided) 3 .202 3 .134 1 .758 19 Note: a. 7 cells (87.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .37. Survey Results: Section II, Beliefs Section II, Beliefs was comprised of eighteen questions using a yes/no answer format to address the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs regarding legal topics, foundational knowledge and contextual knowledge. Survey results were uploaded into the statistical software program SPSS for further analysis. All questions in Section II: Beliefs required participants to respond to binary categorical variables; responses were a yes or no value. Once all respondent data was input into the SPSS program, “yes” variables were assigned a “1” and no variables were assigned a “0” for analysis purposes. There were no missing responses to report. Frequency counts and their corresponding percentages were reported in tables and text in the subsequent pages. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 94 Legal Knowledge Legal Knowledge concentrated on six legal topics pertinent to the public-school principal’s job. Legal Knowledge topics addressed whether principals indicated knowledge of special education provisions in NCLB (now ESSA), components of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) that affect public schools, how the ADA affects public schools, special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code, and their district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Legal knowledge results can be found in Tables 12, 13, and 14. The first legal knowledge question evaluated whether Pennsylvania public-school principals reported knowledge of IDEA, see Table 12. Ninety-five (95%) of respondents reported they had working knowledge of IDEA and its regulations. Five percent (5%) of respondents (n=1) reported lacking knowledge of IDEA. Legal knowledge question two, (survey question 12) addressed the understanding of special education provisions in NCLB, see Table 12. Sixteen participants (84%) reported knowledge of NCLB while only 3 participants reported a lack of knowledge (16%). Table 12 Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 Legal Knowledge 1: Q10 Frequency Percent Yes 18 95.0 No 1 5.0 Total 19 100.0 Legal Knowledge 2: Q11 Frequency Percent Yes 16 84.0 No 3 16.0 Total 19 100.0 The third legal knowledge question asked if the Pennsylvania public-school principal had knowledge of the components of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) that affected public schools, see Table 13. Sixty-three percent (63%) of respondents reported they understood PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 95 Section 504; while 37% (n=7) reported lacking expertise of Section 504. Legal knowledge question 4, (survey questions 13) addressed the understanding of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and its effect on public-schools, see Table 13. Eleven participants (58%) reported knowledge of ADA while only 8 participants reported a lack of proficiency (42%). Table 13 Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 Legal Knowledge 3: Q12 Frequency Percent Yes 12 63.0 No 7 37.0 Total 19 100.0 Legal Knowledge 4: Q13 Frequency Percent Yes 11 58.0 No 8 42.0 Total 19 100.0 The final two questions in the legal knowledge section addressed knowledge of special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code and the principals’ district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan, see Table 14. Forty-seven percent (47%) felt they understood special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code (n=9), while 53% (n=10) reported they did not grasp the special education rules and regulations (n=10). Ten participants (53%) indicated they understood their districts’ RTI plan, while 47% reported they did not (n=9). Table 14 Survey, Section II Results: Legal Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 and 6 Legal Knowledge 5: Q14 Frequency Percent Yes 09 47.0 No 10 53.0 Total 19 100.0 Legal Knowledge 6: Q15 Frequency Percent Yes 10 53.0 No 09 47.0 Total 19 100.0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 96 Foundational Knowledge Foundational knowledge focused on whether Pennsylvania public-school principals believed themselves to have adequate foundational knowledge in special education to effectively serve students with disabilities. Foundational knowledge included six questions that addressed accommodation in the LRE, parental involvement in the IEP process, the district’s special education placement continuum, identification and placement, discipline, and the district’s related services model (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Foundational knowledge question results can be seen in Tables 15, 16, and 17. Foundational knowledge question number one (survey question 16) revealed 84% (n=16) of the Pennsylvania public-school principals surveyed understood how to accommodate for the academic needs for students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment; only 3 participants (16%) reported a lack of understanding, see Table 15. The second foundational knowledge (survey question 17) had the same results as question one. Of those surveyed, 84% (n=16) were knowledgeable regarding the parents’ role in developing IEPs while 16% (n=3) did not fully understand a parents’ role in IEP development was, see Table 15. Table 15 Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 Foundational Knowledge 1: Q16 Frequency Percent Yes 16 84.0 No 3 16.0 Total 19 100.0 Foundational Knowledge 2: Q17 Frequency Percent Yes 16 84.0 No 3 16.0 Total 19 100.0 The third foundational knowledge question evaluated whether principals understood the special education continuum from least to most restrictive, see Table 16. All participants (N=19) disclosed they comprehended special education continuum and placement. Foundational PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 97 knowledge question 4, (survey question 19) addressed each district’s educational placement procedure for special education, see Table 16. Fifteen participants (79%) said they understood their district’s procedures for placing students in special education while 21% reported they lacked knowledge in this area (n=4). Table 16 Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 Foundational Knowledge 3: Q18 Frequency Percent Yes 19 100.0 No 00 000.0 Total 19 100.0 Foundational Knowledge 4: Q19 Frequency Percent Yes 15 79.0 No 4 21.0 Total 19 100.0 The remaining foundational knowledge questions (5 and 6) were devoted to discipline and related services, see Table 17. Foundational knowledge question five (survey question 10) asked principals if they were knowledgeable on the disciplinary interventions and supports for students with disabilities; 74% (n=14) felt they understood discipline and special education while 26% (n=5) did not. Seventy-nine percent (n=15) of principals indicated they were familiar with their district’s related service programs, such as speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, social work, etc. while 21% (n=4) lacked full awareness. Table 17 Survey, Section II Results: Foundational Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 and 6 Foundational Knowledge 5: Q20 Frequency Percent Yes 14 74.0 No 05 26.0 Total 19 100.0 Foundational Knowledge 6: Q21 Frequency Percent Yes 15 79.0 No 04 21.0 Total 19 100.0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 98 Contextual Knowledge The final yes/no section addressed Pennsylvania public-school principals’ competency of contextual knowledge and special education. Six questions were presented to public-school principal participants to determine if they perceived themselves to have contextual knowledge in special education to serve students with disabilities. This section queried responses on state learning standards, effective instructional practices, academic assessments, curriculum design, program improvement plans, and evaluation of IEPs by staff (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Contextual knowledge question results can be found in Tables 18, 19, and 20. Contextual knowledge question one (survey question 22) queried principals if they were comfortable with PA state learning standards for students with disabilities. Seventy-four percent of survey respondents (n=14) were comfortable with state learning standards and disabilities while 26% (n=5) felt they lacked awareness in this area, see Table 18. The second contextual knowledge question addressed effective instructional practices for students with disabilities. Of those principals who responded, 37% (n=7) reported they understood best instructional practices for students with disabilities and 63% (n=13) reported to be deficient, see Table 18. Table 18 Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 1 and 2 Contextual Knowledge 1: Q22 Frequency Percent Yes 14 74.0 No 05 26.0 Total 19 100.0 Contextual Knowledge 2: Q23 Frequency Percent Yes 07 37.0 No 12 63.0 Total 19 100.0 The third and fourth contextual knowledge questions determined proficiency levels for assessments and curriculum design for students with disabilities, see Table 19. Over half of the public-school principals surveyed (53%; n=10) believed they understood assessments for PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 99 students with disabilities while 47% (n=9) did not. On the other side, 47% (n=9) of respondents felt they possessed the ability to design curriculum for students with disabilities and 53% (n=10) did not possess sufficient knowledge and skills to design curriculum and programming for special education. Table 19 Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 3 and 4 Contextual Knowledge 3: 23 Contextual Knowledge 4: Q25 Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Yes 10 53.0 Yes 09 47.0 No 09 47.0 No 10 53.0 Total 19 100.0 Total 19 100.0 Contextual knowledge questions five and six (see Table 20) sought to determine if principals could develop a plan for program improvement in special education (knowledge 5, survey question 26) and how IEPs were evaluated by staff in the school (knowledge 6 survey question 27). Fifty-eight percent (n=11) of participants deemed they were unable to develop a plan for program improvement in special education. Eight participants (42%) felt they had the skill set to develop a special education improvement plan. Just under half of the public-school principals surveyed (47%; n=9) were unsure how student IEPs were evaluated within their district; 53% (n=10) reported having knowledge of IEP evaluation. Table 20 Survey, Section II Results: Contextual Knowledge Frequencies Questions 5 and 6 Contextual Knowledge 5: Q26 Frequency Percent Yes 08 42.0 No 11 58.0 Total 19 100.0 Contextual Knowledge 6: Q27 Frequency Percent Yes 10 53.0 No 09 47.0 Total 19 100.0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 100 Comparison of Special Education Classes Among Groups One purpose of this research study was to provide a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals could identify where their knowledge was lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their special education population. One of the research questions was to determine, what relationship, if any, existed between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program and their ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district. The information contained in Table 21 was an analysis between the number of classes taken in a certification program and the length of service for participants. The key result in the Chi-Square Test table was the Fisher’s Exact Test, see Table 21. The Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate the differences between the amount of special education training received in the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ certification program to each of the assessed questions in legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge. The Fisher’s exact text was used because one or more of cells in each category had a frequency of five or less. A chi-square test could not be performed because the chi-square test assumed each cell had an expected frequency of five or more, but the Fisher’s exact test had no such assumption and could be used regardless of how small the expected frequency was. The value of the test statistic was 10.84 with the corresponding p-value of p = 0.28. Since the p-value was greater than the chosen significance level (α = 0.05), the researcher did not reject the null hypothesis (test value 0.28 < 1.83 table value). Rather, the researcher concluded that there was no evidence to suggest an association between respondent role (elementary and secondary public-school principal) and the amount of special education training taken in a principal’s certification program and length of service in the position, see Table 21. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 101 The test statistic was based on a 2 X 4 crosstabulation table. Based on statistical analysis, no association was found between current principal special education classes taken and length of service (Χ2(2)> = 10.84, p = 0.28). Based on the statistics, the researcher concluded the following: 1. There was no relationship identified between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district. The Research accepted the null hypothesis: H0: There was no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's pre-service coursework and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of participants based on years of service in the position and the number of special education classes take during their certification programs. Table 21 Comparison of Length of Service and Special Education Training Pearson ChiSquare Fisher's Exact Test N of Valid Cases Value 11.987 Asymptotic Significanc Exact Sig. e (2-sided) (2-sided) df 9 .214 Exact Sig. Point (1-sided) Probability .222 a 10.836 19 .278 Note: a. 15 cells (93.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .05. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 102 Figure 3 Comparison of Length of Service and Number of Special Education Classes Taken Length of Service and Special Education Classes Recieved 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 0 11-15 Years 1 2 16+ Years 3 Survey Results: Section III; Frequencies Section III contained fifteen questions using 5-point Likert scales ranking answer choices from never (1) to always (5) that addressed the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ frequencies of use surrounding legal topics, foundational, and contextual knowledge. Section III contained four sub-sections to address Pennsylvania public-school principals’ frequencies of engagement in legal, contextual, and foundation knowledge of special education topics based on the work by Frost and Kersten (2011) and perceived competencies developed by Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001). Legal, foundational, and contextual frequencies used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). The indicators were written as positive statements and participants were asked to indicate how often a specific instructional leadership behavior with special education teachers was used (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Perceived PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 103 competency questions used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from emergent (0) to exemplary (5) and were also written as positive statements that aligned with study objectives. Legal Frequencies Legal frequencies assessed the hiring special education teachers, monitoring student IEPs, and the implementation of federal and state special education requirements, attendance at professional development related to legal issues in special education, and attendance at prereferral meetings of the school-based service team (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Descriptive statistics were broken down by respondent for Legal Frequencies for all participants (N=19) were reported in Table 22. Legal frequencies evaluated the hiring of special education teachers, IEP monitoring, state and federal guidelines, professional development issues, and attending pre-referral meetings (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Based upon the reported data, all principals rated hiring of special education teachers, monitoring the implementation of federal and state special education requirements, and monitoring of student IEPs in the often range with a mean span of 3.00 through 3.63. All principals reported they seldom attended professional development related to legal issues in special education (μ=2.47) and they seldom attended pre-referral meetings for special education (μ=2.95). Analysis of the data collected revealed both elementary and secondary principals were often involved in hiring special education teachers (elementary μ=3.57; secondary μ=3.67). Elementary school principals reported they often monitored student IEPs (μ=3.14) while secondary principals seldom engaged in IEP monitoring (μ=2.92). Elementary principals often attended meetings surrounding the pre-referral process for special education (μ=300) while secondary principals reported this was a practice they seldom engaged in (μ=2.92). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 104 The Independent Samples t-test, see Table 23, was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for all three areas: legal, foundational, and contextual frequencies. The Independent Samples tTest was used for Section II: Beliefs, Legal Frequencies (Table 23), Foundational Frequencies (Table 26) and Contextual Frequencies (Table 29) to test the statistical differences between the means of the elementary and secondary participant groups. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used compare the means of two or more independent groups (length of service) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for public-school principals based on years of service (See Table 24). Table 22 Comparison of Mean and Standard Deviations between All Participants for Legal Frequencies Survey Question All Participants (N=19) Μ 3.63 σ 1.16 σ² 1.36 3.00 .88 Monitoring federal/ state requirements. 3.05 Attending annual PD 2.47 Hiring SPED Teachers Elementary Participants (n=07) Μ High School Participants (n=12) 3.57 σ σ² .98 .96 Μ σ 3.67 1.30 σ² 1.70 .79 3.14 1.24 1.48 2.92 .67 .45 1.08 1.16 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.08 1.16 1.36 .77 .60 2.86 1.07 1.14 2.25 .45 .21 1.13 1.28 3.00 .58 2.92 1.38 1.90 Monitoring IEPs Attending pre-referral 2.95 meetings .33 Note: M= mean; σ = standard deviation; σ²= variance, PD=professional development; SPED=special education PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 105 Table 23 Independent Samples T-Test Section II, Legal Frequencies, Survey Questions 28-32; comparing participant role Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F p. t t-test for Equality of Means Std. 95% CI Sig. (2- Mean error tailed) diff. diff. LL UL df LF 1 Q28 .867 .365 -.167 17 .869 -.09524 .570 -.297 1.106 LF 2 Q29 1.074 .315 .528 17 .604 .22619 .428 -.677 1.129 LF 3 Q30 1.319 .267 -.158 17 .876 -.08333 .528 -.196 1.030 LF 4 Q31 2.671 .121 1.744 17 .099 .60714 .34810 -.128 1.342 LF 5 Q32 5.787 .028 .151 17 .882 .08333 .552 -.082 1.248 Note: CI=confidence interval; LF= legal frequency question; LL= lower limit; UL= upper limit; Diff.=difference; Q=corresponding survey question Table 24 ANOVA Section II, Legal Frequencies, Survey Questions 28-32; comparing years of service Legal Frequency 1 Question 28: Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 5.376 19.045 24.421 Legal Frequency 2 Question 29: Between Groups Within Groups Total 6.155 7.845 14.000 3 15 18 2.052 .523 3.922 .030 Legal Frequency 3 Question 30: Between Groups Within Groups Total 2.947 18.000 20.947 3 15 18 .982 1.200 .819 .503 Legal Frequency 4 Between Groups .991 3 .330 .509 .682 df Mean Square 3 1.792 15 1.270 18 F 1.411 Sig. .278 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Question 31: Within Groups Total Legal Frequency 5 Question 32: Between Groups Within Groups Total 106 9.745 10.737 15 18 .650 4.520 3 1.507 18.427 22.947 15 18 1.228 1.226 .335 Foundational Frequencies Foundational frequencies counted attendance at annual IEP meetings, reviewing annual special education workload, encouraging parental involvement, formal evaluations of special education teachers, and monitoring alignment of IEPs to state learning standards (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for foundational frequency tabulation. Descriptive statistics for foundational frequencies are found in Table 25. Based upon the reported data, all principals rated attendance at IEP meetings, reviewing special education workload, parental engagement, and conducting formal evaluation of special education teachers in the often range with a mean span of 3.21 through 3.84. All principals rated monitoring IEP alignment as something they seldom engaged in with ranges with a mean score of 2.63. Elementary principals reported they frequently attended IEP meetings (μ=3.86) and encouraged parents of special education students to participate in school functions (μ=3.29). Elementary principals reported frequent review of special education workload and formal evaluation of special education teachers in the often range (μ=3.71). Elementary principals rated IEP monitoring as something they seldomly did (μ=2.71). High school principals reported attendance at IEP meetings (μ=3.83), reviewing special education workload (μ=3.33), parental engagement (μ=3.17), and conducting formal evaluation PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 107 of special education teachers (μ=3.58) as practices they often engaged in. High school principals reported they also seldomly monitored special education IEP alignment (μ=2.58). Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance was used to determine homogeneity of variance for elementary and secondary principal participants for Section III: Foundational Frequencies (see Table 26). The researcher conduced an ANOVA for Section III: Foundational Frequencies, results can be seen in Table 27. Table 25 Descriptive Statistics for Foundational Frequencies, Survey Questions 33-37 Survey Question All Participants (N=19) Μ σ Elementary Participants (n=07) σ² Μ σ Attending IEPs Q33 3.84 1.01 1.03 3.86 .90 Reviewing SPED assignments to ensure staff is retained. Q34 3.47 .96 .93 3.71 Encouraging parent participation. Q35 3.21 .92 .84 Conducting evaluations SPED teachers. Q36 3.63 1.42 Monitoring alignment 2.63 of IEPs Q37 1.38 σ² .81 High School Participants (n=12) Μ σ σ² 3.83 1.11 1.24 1.11 1.24 3.33 .89 .79 3.29 .95 3.17 .94 .88 2.02 3.71 1.25 1.57 3.58 1.56 2.44 1.92 2.71 1.60 2.57 2.58 1.31 1.72 .91 Note: IEP=Individualized education plan; M= mean; PD=professional development; Q=corresponding survey question; SPED=special education; σ = standard deviation; σ²= variance PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 108 Table 26 Section III; Foundational Frequencies: Independent Sample Test for Equality of Variances Based on Participant Role Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Std. 95% CI Mean Error Sig. (2- Differen Differen df tailed) ce ce LL UL 17 .962 .024 .496 -.024 1.071 Code FF 1 Question Q33 F .339 p. .568 T .048 FF 2 Q34 .554 .467 .823 17 .422 .381 .463 -.595 1.357 FF3 Q35 .011 .918 .266 17 .794 .119 .448 -.826 1.065 FF 4 Q36 .994 .333 .188 17 .853 .131 .695 -.336 1.598 FF 5 Q37 .560 .464 .194 17 .849 .1315 .676 -.295 1.557 Note: CI=confidence interval; Diff.=difference; FF= foundational frequency question; LL= lower limit; UL= upper limit; Q=corresponding survey question Table 27 Section III; ANOVA for Foundational Frequencies, Questions 33-36 FF 1 Q33 FF2 Q34 FF3 Q35 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Sum of Squares 2.826 df Mean Square 3 .942 15.700 18.526 15 18 1.047 .810 3 .270 15.927 16.737 15 18 1.062 3.049 3 1.016 12.109 15 .807 F .900 Sig. .464 .254 .857 1.259 .324 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Total FF4 Q36 Between Groups Within Groups Total 109 15.158 18 .539 3 .180 35.882 36.421 15 18 2.392 .075 .972 Note: FF= foundational frequency question; Q=corresponding survey question Contextual Frequencies Contextual frequencies ranked participant involvement in arranging monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff, planning program improvement, weekly visits to special education classrooms, attendance at team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns, and monitoring special education curriculum (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for contextual frequency tabulation. Descriptive statistics broken down by role for Contextual Frequencies for all participants are noted in Table 28. Based upon the reported data, all principals rated they often made weekly visits to special education classrooms (μ=3.21) and attended meetings with special education staff to address concerns (μ=3.16). All principals reported they seldom arranged monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff (μ=2.79) and they planned improvements for special education programs (μ=2.47). Lastly, all principals reported they seldomly engaged in the monitoring of special education programming and ensuring curriculum was research or evidence-based (μ=2.42). Analysis of the collected data indicated both elementary and secondary principals reported they often made visits to special education classrooms (elementary: μ=3.00; secondary μ=3.33) and they often attended meetings special education staff to discuss concerns (elementary: μ=3.00; secondary μ=3.25). Secondary school principals reported they often PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 110 arranged monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff (μ=3.08) while elementary principals seldom engaged in promoting staff collaboration (μ=2.29). Elementary (μ=2.43) and secondary (μ=2.42) principals reported they seldomly assured that special education programs were evidence-based. The Independent Samples t-Test (see Table 29) was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for foundational frequencies while the ANOVA was used to evaluate statistics for participant length of service (see Table 30). Table 28 Descriptive Statistics for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 Survey Question All Participants (N=19) Μ σ σ² Elementary Participants (n=07) High School Participants (n=12) Μ Μ σ σ² σ σ² Arranging activities to build collegiality between SPED/ general education staff. Q38 2.79 1.23 1.51 2.29 .76 .57 3.08 1.38 1.90 Planning program improvement for SPED. Q39 2.47 .96 .93 2.29 .95 .91 2.58 .99 .99 Making weekly informal visits to SPED classrooms. 3.21 .98 .95 3.00 .58 .33 3.33 1.15 1.33 Attending meetings with SPED staff Q41 3.16 1.01 1.03 3.00 .82 .67 3.25 1.38 1.30 Monitoring SPED curriculum to ensure 2.42 .77 .60 2.43 .98 .95 2.42 .67 .45 Q40 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 111 that it is research- or evidence-based. Q42 Note: M= mean; Q=corresponding survey question; SPED=special education; σ = standard deviation; σ²= variance Table 29 Independent Samples T-test based on Participant Role for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. t .118 -1.401 df 17 Sig. (2tailed) .179 Mean Std. Error Diff. Diff. -.798 .569 95% CI CF 1 Q38 F 2.708 LL -1.998 UL .403 CF. 2 Q39 .405 .533 -.638 17 .532 -.298 .466 -1.282 .686 CF 3 Q40 6.049 .025 -.708 17 .489 -.333 .471 -1.327 .660 CF 4 Q41 1.022 .326 -.507 17 .618 -.250 .493 -1.290 .790 CF.5 Q42 1.338 .263 .032 17 .975 .012 .376 -.782 .805 Note: CI=confidence interval; CF= contextual frequency question, Diff.=difference; LL= lower limit; UL= upper limit; Q=corresponding survey question Table 30 ANOVA based on Length of Service for Contextual Frequencies, Survey Questions 38-42 Sum of Squares CF 1 df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total 4.658 22.500 27.158 3 15 18 1.553 1.500 1.035 .405 Between Groups Within Groups Total .810 15.927 16.737 3 15 18 .270 1.062 .254 .857 5.158 12.000 17.158 3 15 18 1.719 .800 2.149 .137 Q40 Between Groups Within Groups Total CF 4 Between Groups .317 3 .106 .087 .966 Q38 CF 2: Q39 CF 3 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 112 Q41 Within Groups Total 18.209 18.526 15 18 1.214 CF 5 Between Groups Within Groups Total 1.150 9.482 10.632 3 15 18 .383 .632 Q42 .606 .621 Note: CF= contextual frequency question; Q=corresponding survey question Perceived Competencies The final component of Section III was based on the work of Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) and evaluated Pennsylvania public-school principals’ perceived competencies for special education areas. Questions used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from emergent (0) to exemplary (5). Descriptive statistics broken down by Perceived Competencies for all participants (N=19) are shown in Table 31. Survey participants rated their perceived competencies as proficient (scores of 2 or more) and higher for all areas questioned. Review of the collected data indicated all principals rated their lowest competency as question 44, the ability to make and implement differentiated learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs (μ=2.79); although this was the lowest competency, participants reported the level as proficient. All principals reported they were proficient at being able to develop school-wide positive behavior support programs (μ=2.95; question 42). Question 43 analysis revealed all principals felt they had the ability to facilitate effective collaboration between general and special education teachers (μ=2.79). All principals rated their ability to lead an initiative that created a learning environment that allowed for alternative styles of learning (question 45) as proficient (μ=3.00). All participants rated themselves at proficient for question 46 (develop activities and make recommendations for professional development training regarding inclusive practices; μ=2.89) and question 47(the ability to generate options and possible solutions in resource management; μ=2.84). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 113 The Independent Samples t-test (see Table 32) was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for perceived competencies for the groups and the ANOVA was used to evaluate statistics for participant length of service (see table 33). Table 31 Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Competencies, Survey Questions 43-49 Survey Question I have the ability to: Develop school-wide PBS programs. Q43 All Participants (N=19) Μ 2.95 σ σ² Elementary Participants (n=07) High School Participants (n=12) Μ Μ σ σ² σ σ² .97 .94 2.86 1.35 1.81 3.00 .74 .55 Facilitate effective 3.21 collaboration between general/SPED teachers. Q44 1.03 1.06 2.86 1.35 1.81 3.42 .79 .63 Make/implement differentiated learning. Q45 2.79 1.18 1.40 2.29 1.50 2.24 3.08 .90 .81 Lead an initiative that creates a learning environment that allows for alternative styles of learning. 3.00 .94 .89 2.71 1.37 1.91 3.17 .58 .33 2.89 1.05 1.01 2.57 1.40 1.95 3.08 .79 .63 2.84 1.17 1.36 2.43 1.51 2.29 3.08 .90 .81 Q46. Develop activities for PD regarding inclusive practices. Q47 Generate options and possible solutions in resource management Q48 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Coach and provide constructive feedback and mentoring to special education and support service personnel. Q49 3.21 .85 .73 3.14 .90 .81 114 3.25 .87 .75 Note: IEP=Individualized education plan; M= mean; PBS= positive behavior support; PD=professional development; Q=corresponding survey question; SPED=special education; σ = standard deviation; σ²= variance Table 32 Section III; Perceived Competencies: Independent Sample Test for Equality of Variances Based on Participant Role, Survey Questions 43-49 Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Sig. (2df tailed) 17 .767 95% CI Mean Std. Error Diff. Diff. -.143 .474 PC 1 Q42 F 3.099 Sig. .096 t -.302 LL -1.14 UL .856 PC 2 Q43 1.891 .187 -1.151 17 .266 -.560 .486 -1.586 .466 PC 3 Q44 2.988 .102 -1.463 17 .162 -.798 .545 -1.949 .353 PC 4 Q45 7.827 .012 -1.009 17 .327 -.452 .448 -1.398 .493 PC 5 Q46 2.430 .137 -1.028 17 .318 -.512 .498 -1.562 .536 PC 6 Q47 3.694 .072 -1.193 17 .249 -.655 .549 -1.813 .501 PC 7 Q48 .104 .751 -.257 17 .801 -.107 .418 -.988 .774 Note: CI=confidence interval; Diff.=difference; LL= lower limit; UL= upper limit; PC= perceived competency question, Q=corresponding survey question Table 33 Section III; Perceived Competencies: ANOVA Based on Participant Length of Service, Survey Questions 43-49 Perceived Competency 1; Q42 Between Groups Within Groups Total Sum of Squares 6.266 10.682 16.947 df Mean Square 3 2.089 15 18 .712 F 2.933 Sig. .068 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Perceived Competency 2; Q43 Perceived Competency 3; Q44 Perceived Competency 4; Q45 Perceived Competency 5; Q46 Perceived Competency 6; Q47 Perceived Competency 7; Q48 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 115 4.549 3 1.516 14.609 19.158 4.431 15 18 3 .974 20.727 25.158 1.500 15 18 3 1.382 14.500 16.000 3.353 15 18 3 .967 16.436 19.789 .344 15 18 3 1.096 24.182 24.526 1.522 15 18 3 1.612 11.636 13.158 15 18 .776 1.477 .500 1.118 .115 .507 1.557 .241 1.069 .392 .517 .677 1.020 .412 .071 .974 .654 .593 Note: Q=corresponding survey question Section IV: Open Ended Questions In the qualitative data collection component, open-ended questions were used to elicit further description of Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs regarding the administration of special education (see Appendix F for the question protocol). The protocol consisted of nine questions developed by researchers Frost and Kersten (2011) and Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) based on their literature reviews and surveys. Respondents were asked to describe specific behaviors and beliefs pertaining to the administration of special education. The open ended questions were chosen to (a) learn specific strategies and/or processes principals PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 116 believe future public-school principals need to learn to support special education practices (b) to gather data on the benefits and disadvantages of working within schools that serve students with diverse needs and backgrounds, (c) to identify specific principal beliefs on placement recommendations for special education students and (c) to offer specific strategies that they perceived were effective in working with students in special education. Data was coded and analyzed to determine patterns in the responses. Data was divided into key themes assigned (through review of each response) using a coding system developed by the researcher. To obtain qualitative data, a semi-structured open-ended question protocol was used to elicit further description of Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs regarding the administration of special education. Respondents were asked to describe specific behaviors and beliefs in their daily administration of special education. The open-ended questions were included in the study to (a) learn specific strategies and/or processes Pennsylvania public-school principals believed future public-school principals need to learn to support special education practices (b) to gather data on the benefits and disadvantages of working within schools that serve students with diverse needs and backgrounds, (c) to identify specific concerns perceived when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (d) to identify any challenges experienced in working with special education teachers on issues related to inclusive practices or special education, (e) to offer specific strategies that they perceived were effective in working with students in special education , and (f) provide recommendations for principals and prospective principals to improve supportive special education practices. Open ended questions were as follows: 1. What type of disabilities have you encountered most frequently in your experience as a principal/administrator (Frost & Kersten, 2011)? PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 117 2. What benefits do you perceive for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (GarrisonWade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 3. What concerns do you have for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 4. Describe the working relationship with your administrator(s) (GarrisonWade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 5. Describe a specific initiative/action/project that your administrator has undertaken to support inclusive services in your school building (GarrisonWade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 6. Have you experienced any challenges in working with an administrator on issues related to inclusive practices? If so, please identify (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 7. What questions do you have regarding addressing the needs of learners with diverse needs and backgrounds that you feel should be addressed in an administrator preparation program (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 8. Please identify specific strategies and/or processes that you believe future administrators need to learn to support inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 9. Please identify any projects that you believe could help future administrators become skilled supporting inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 118 Pennsylvania public-school principals were asked to disclose their current beliefs related to special education and diversity issues of students within their district. This study attempted to create an understanding of the beliefs and special education practices held by current Pennsylvania public-school principals. Section IV of the survey was qualitative in nature. Elliot, Fisher, and Rennie (1999) reported the “aim of qualitative research is to understand and represent the experiences and actions of people as they encounter, engage, and live through situations” (p. 216). The researcher attempted to be free from bias and used verbatim responses as the data collection tool to “observe, measure, and predict empirical phenomena and build tangible, material knowledge” (Tracy, 2013, p. 39). Participants were asked to express their beliefs and ideals in relation to special education issues given their current role within their respective school districts. Nineteen (N=19) participants were asked open-ended questions (Tracy, 2013) in the online survey to gain insight into what professional skills Pennsylvania public-school principals felt were needed to effectively lead special education. Data analysis began with line by line open coding of the open-ended transcripts/responses (Tracy, 2013). The researcher started with word-based techniques to identify word repetitions and key-words-in-contexts (KWIC), see Table 34. Word repetitions were analyzed formally by generating a list of all the unique words in the text and counting the number of times each occurred. NVIVO was used to generate KWIC word lists. No clear patterns emerged from the word analysis. The researcher then attempted to look for naturally occurring shifts in thematic content using thematic transitions and evaluating words and phrases that indicated relationships among other items. The researcher conducted an unfiltered word count for each of the nine questions to look for patterns and words that indicated causal relationships; the top ten most used words from PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 119 each question were counted and reviewed using NVIVO, see Table 35. Causal relationships are often indicated by such words and phrases as, because, since, and as a result. Words such as if or then, rather than, and instead of often signify conditional relationships. The phrase is a is often associated with taxonomic categories. Time-oriented relationships were expressed with words such as before, after, then, and next. The researcher attempted to discover themes by searching for such groups of word and looking to see what kinds of ideas the words connected. A sample analysis of a detailed review of question six’s unfiltered words is shown in Table 35 for openended survey question number three (all questions were reviewed and analyzed the same way). The KWIC and unfiltered word counts did not provide clear patters to any themes in the questions presented. Table 34 Sample Analysis: A detailed display of Question Three’s Key Words in Context: Some top phrases containing 3 words (without punctuation marks) Occurrences differentiation of instruction 2 needs of students 2 to meet the 2 Some top phrases containing 2 words (without punctuation marks) Occurrences needs of 3 of students 3 to be 2 differentiation of 2 often times 2 of instruction 2 to meet 2 that the 2 instruction and 2 of the 2 meet the 2 Note: Open Ended Question 3: What concerns do you have for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 120 Table 35 Sample Phrase Analysis of Open-Ended Question 3 (Have you experienced any challenges in working with special education teachers on issues related to inclusive practices or special education? If so, please identify.) Order Unfiltered word count Occurrences Percentage 1. to 11 4.7210 2. and 11 4.7210 3. the 11 4.7210 4. of 8 3.4335 5. needs 7 3.0043 6. students 7 3.0043 7. that 5 2.1459 8. are 5 2.1459 9. be 3 1.2876 10. have 3 1.2876 The qualitative data was collected via the process previously identified in Chapter 3. Data was converted to a graphic and/or chart to provide a visual representation of the information for each question. All visual data contained the categories the responses fit into as well. Each data set was analyzed both individually and collectively by question. After conducting the KWIC and unfiltered word counts, the researcher opted to complete line by line coding for each question to determine patterns. The initial stage of the data analysis consisted of internally reviewing the individual collections for any identifiable similarities or relationships among the responses. The second stage of the analysis consisted of comparing any identified relations among each of the individual questions between responses and looking for similarities, differences and relationships. In the presentation of the data, there is an individual chart and comment for each of the 9 open-ended response items. The coded results from Question 1 (see Figure 4) indicated that as a group, Pennsylvania public-school principals identified two areas that were encountered most frequently in their PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 121 professional experiences. Note that some participant principals provided more than one item/area of need encountered for when answering question number one. Specific learning disability (37%) and emotional support/mental health needs (32%) were the top two areas that Pennsylvania public-school principals reported encountering the most often. Autism and ADHD both received a priority ranking by principals with 21%. Other health impairment (OHI) and speech-language disorders received rankings by 5% of participants. One participant (5%) was unsure what their top disability was. Figure 4 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 1. Note: ADHD= attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; ES= emotional; OHI= other health impairment; Speech= speech-language impairments; SLD= specific learning disability, support. The second open-ended question asked principals to explain the perceived benefits to working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). The results from Question 2 (see Figure 5) revealed that 26% of respondents reported there is a lack of training and resources needed for educators to be successful when PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 122 working with learners with diverse learning needs. Twenty-one percent had positive remarks and viewed working with diverse learners as a rewarding experience for all involved from staff to students. Sixteen percent of principals noted they had challenges when implementing inclusion program and 11% experienced challenges surrounding the varying levels of SES and exposure to different learning styles, see Figure 5. Four percent of participants said if the Pennsylvania public-school principal did not have the proper knowledge to implement and oversee special education programming they could do more harm than good. Figure 5 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 2 Note: SES= socioeconomic status PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 123 Open-ended question number three required Pennsylvania public-school principals to list their concerns for themselves and students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Sixteen percent of participants disclosed that they did not have any concerns working with learners with diverse learning needs, see Figure 6. A lack of training and resources was once again reported as high priority area with 32% of respondents citing areas of concern under this theme. Pennsylvania public-school principals also said it was difficult to ensure staff were following modifications and SDI in implemented IEPs. Having staff that was understanding of students differing needs and diversity was noted by 11% of survey participants. Five percent of survey respondents also expressed concerns for student safety, knowing changes to special education laws and regulations and a lack of parental support respectively. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 124 Figure 6 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 3 Note: IEP=individualized education plans; SPED=special education The fourth open-ended question required survey participants to describe the working relationship between administrators and staff. A wide variety of answers were received, see Figure 7. Answers that referenced average, good, and positive working relationships were all included in the average/good category; 33% of respondents indicated experiencing positive working relationships with staff and between administrators in their districts. Twenty-nine percent revealed using a team-based approach when working with others in the district. Fourteen percent of participants said they engaged in an open-door policy with their co-workers and another 14% used a consultative approach. Seven percent of participants reported being the sole PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 125 decision maker in the district and no engagement with others was completed when making decisions and issuing directives. Figure 7 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 4 Open-ended question five had survey respondents describe and identify a specific project, action, or initiative that was being completed within their district to support inclusive practices for students with disabilities (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Forty-two percent of respondents chose not to answer question number five, see Figure 8. Twenty-six percent said that co-teaching was the initiative being incorporated to support inclusion and students with disabilities. Twelve percent related that MTSS was their initiative and 10% were using modifications and SDI as ways to support students. Five percent of participants had implemented school wide mental health initiatives to engage students. The final 5% reported everything they did throughout their programming and day supported inclusive practices within their district. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 126 Figure 8 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 5. Note: SDI=specially designed instruction; MTSS= multi-tiered systems of support Open-ended question number six requested principals to explain any challenges or difficulties they had experienced when working with another administrator on issues related to inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Twenty-six percent of those surveyed had not experienced any challenges; however, 31% related they had experienced issues but did not wish to expand upon the reason for the difficulties, see Figure 8. Multiple respondents indicated issues and/or conflicts between themselves and teaching staff (43%). Principals who noted challenges with faculty/staff indicated that regular education teachers were the highest group to challenge the principal when it came to inclusive practices (32%) and special education teachers came in at 11%. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 127 Figure 9 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 6. Open-ended question number seven had Pennsylvania public-school principals generate specific questions they had regarding the needs of learners with diverse needs and backgrounds should be addressed in a principal certification/preparation program (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Most participants did not state specific questions, rather they commented on special education and gave suggestions. An overwhelming 68% of respondents indicated that special education should be included in principal certification and training programs, see Figure 10. Special education law, knowledge of best practices and eligibility requirements, and having a solid understanding of modifications and SDI were common responses received. Sixteen percent of those who completed the survey had no questions nor suggestions to improve preparation programs. Five percent felt that team-building should be addressed, 5% reported trauma training should be included, and the final 5% indicated that principals should be taught to address bias. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 128 Figure 10 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 7 The eighth open-ended question wanted principals to identify specific strategies and/or processes they believed future Pennsylvania public-school principals needed to learn to support inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Figure 11 shows the results in graphical format. The top ranked area principals indicated that future public-school principals required was a solid understanding of modifications and specially designed instruction options that are available to special educations students (30%). Knowledge of special education law (21%) was the second highest area reported by participants. Fourteen percent were unsure what areas they would recommend for learning, while another 14% reported other areas, such as professional development and continuing education requirements. A solid understanding of MTSS, the special education process, and technology all received priority ratings from 7% of respondents. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 129 Figure 11 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 8 Note: SDI=specially designed instruction; MTSS= multi-tiered systems of support The final open-ended question (number nine) had principals identify projects and areas they believed would help future Pennsylvania-public school principals feel competent when supporting inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). Question nine was like question number six in that it asked principals for ideas surrounding inclusion. The results from Question 9 (see Figure 12) indicated that as a group, Pennsylvania public-school principals identified knowledge in special education as the top area needed for competency with inclusion, this included special education laws and best practices. Forty-percent of participants rated special education knowledge and proficiency as the number one area of need. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 130 Figure 12 Summary of collective principal responses to open ended question 9 Note: MTSS= multi-tiered systems of support Based upon the data the following three themes emerged, see Figure 13 and Table 35: 1. The Pennsylvania public-school principal needs to be supportive regarding time and behavior management. 2. The Pennsylvania public-school principal the administrator must be knowledgeable regarding special education law and procedures. 3. The Pennsylvania public-school principal should be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 131 Figure 13 Qualitative Data Themes A detailed discussion of the themes that emerged from the study can be found in Chapter five. Pennsylvania public-school principals were asked nine open-ended questions to gain additional insights related to behaviors demonstrated by public-school principals relative to the inclusion of students with disabilities. The researcher analyzed responses from question transcripts using predefined codes from the main constructs discovered in the question review. Based upon frequency of the examples and categories from answers provided by the participants, three repeating themes emerged: the Pennsylvania public-school principal needs to be supportive, knowledgeable, and be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. (see Table 36). The categories collaboration, resources, and expectations PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 132 were found in the first that the principal must be supportive. Multiple Pennsylvania public-school principals provided examples of school wide initiative and ways they support faculty, staff, and students when administering special education and programming. Many principals expressed the need for increased resources, funding, and staffing to adequately run special education programs within their district. Respondents commented 30 times throughout the qualitative section under theme one. The second resounding theme found within the qualitative component was that the Pennsylvania public-school principal must be knowledgeable regarding special education law. Knowledge of special education law and procedures surrounding special education were mentioned 21 times throughout the open-ended portion of the study. See Figure 13 and Table 35 for a breakdown of the coding as well as Chapter 5 for detailed discussion of results. Recall from the literature review that several studies have been conducted across the country researching public-school principals and their knowledge of special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & WaltherThomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2013; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). This information was vital, to certify Pennsylvania public-school principals are provided the appropriate pre-certification coursework and learning experiences. One premise for the current research study was to ensure the Pennsylvania public-school principal has knowledge of special education law, policies, and procedures to diminish litigation opportunities. Research was warranted from the perspective of the Pennsylvania public-school principal to confirm Pennsylvania public-school districts are providing high-quality education to students who receive special education supports and services allowing them to reach their full PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 133 potential. Being that special education law was mentioned 21 times as a necessity for Pennsylvania public-school principals, it should be considered a priority for certification requirements. The final theme that emerged from the study was that the Pennsylvania public-school principal should be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. Items coded under this theme were observed 27 times throughout the answer section, see Table 36. Knowledge of students’ disabilities was the top priority in this area. Participants also felt principals must have a working knowledge of modifications and SDI that area available and frequently used within their districts. The final coded area included items that dealt with leadership, these items included experiences in training items such as trauma, behavior, and IEP alignment to state standards. IDEA is based on six major principles: zero reject, nondiscriminatory identification and evaluation, FAPE, LRE, due process safeguards, and parental participation (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004); participants in this survey indicated a need for increased understanding of IEP procedures, implementation, and monitoring. Pennsylvania public-school principal preparation programs must be “designed to meet the challenges of school improvement, not just graduate certified managers who lack the depth to lead effective school change” (Reames, 2010, p. 440). A review of the literature affirmed what Pennsylvania public-school principals reported throughout the qualitative section of the current study; that school leaders acknowledge they have a limited understanding of all areas pertaining to special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Davis, 1980; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 134 Table 36 Codes, Categories, and Emerging Themes in Principals’ Open-Ended Responses Code Examples Adequate resources and staff Team Building Co-Teaching and inclusion Frequency 13 Category Resources 10 Collaboration 7 Expectations Theme The Pennsylvania public-school principal needs to be supportive regarding time and behavior management. Special education law 21 Special Education Law The Pennsylvania public-school principal the administrator must be knowledgeable regarding special education law and procedures. Special education best practices Knowledge of disabilities The Pennsylvania public-school principal should be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. 11 Modifying tests and projects to accommodate 7 Experiences Training 9 Knowledge of IEPs, including modifications and SDI Leadership Summary The data gathered in this study were analyzed to examine knowledge, frequencies, perceptions and view of Pennsylvania public-school principals regarding special education topics. A survey with quantitative and qualitative measures was used to collect data. The researcher examined the knowledge, frequencies, and reported behaviors identified by PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 135 Pennsylvania public-school principals. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe the characteristics of the sample, check variables for violations of assumptions, and address the current study’s research questions. Several data trends and tendencies were noted regarding study variables. Univariate analyses were performed on the survey responses regarding length of the current time in the principal position and number of special education classes taken. The mean, standard deviation, and variance were calculated for each data set to assess the respondent population and contained acceptable values. Qualitative data was coded by each question and then compared to identify common themes that emerged. A review of the hypotheses and results is shown in Table 36; the Hypothesis Matrix. Hypothesis one (H1) stated there will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. There was not enough data to assume the relationship; thus, the researcher rejected the hypothesis. The Chi-Square Test utilized a contingency table to analyze the data collected. A cross-tabulation classified the collected data according to two categorical variables, length of service and role in the school system (see Table 10). Chi-Square (α = 0.05) was selected to determine statistical independence or association between current participant role and length of service. The key result in the Chi-Square Tests (see Table 11) was the Pearson ChiSquare. Chi-square could not be computed since 7 cells had had an expected count of less than 5 cases. The research indicates there was not enough evidence to suggest an association between role in the school system (elementary/secondary) and length of service in the position. The second hypothesis (H2) stated there will be a positive relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. The researcher conducted frequency counts PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 136 for each question within survey section II, for legal, contextual, and foundational frequencies; the results were reported in text and tables. The researcher computed a Fisher's Exact Test of Independence to evaluate the differences between the amount of special education training received in the principals’ certification program to each of the assessed questions in legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge. (The Fisher’s exact text was used because one or more of cells in each category had a frequency of five or less.) Based upon the statistical analysis, there was no evidence to suggest an association between respondent role (elementary and secondary public-school principal) and the amount of special education training taken in a principal’s certification program and length of service in the position (see Table 21). The research found no association between current principal special education classes taken and length of service (Χ2(2)> = 10.84, p = 0.28). The researcher accepted the null hypothesis: H0: There was no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's pre-service coursework and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of participants based on years of service in the position and the number of special education classes take during their certification programs. Hypothesis three (H3) assumed there would be a positive difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. To examine H3, the percentage, mean and standard deviation were calculated for the primary questions asked to gather information related to this hypothesis (see Tables 22, 25, and 28). Independent Samples t-tests were used (see Table 23,26, and 29) to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for all three areas: legal, foundational, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 137 and contextual frequencies. ANOVA was used compare the means of two or more independent groups (length of service) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for public-school principals based on years of service (See Table 24, 27, and 30). Based on statistical analysis and comparison the the null hypothesis was accepted: H0: There was no relationship between the Pennsylvania publicschool principal's reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual frequencies reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. The final hypothesis (H4) assumed, there would be a positive difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. To examine this hypothesis, the percentage, mean and standard deviation were calculated for the primary questions asked to gather information related to this hypothesis (see Table 31). An Independent Samples t-tests was used (see Table 31) to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for perceived competencies. ANOVA was used compare the means of two or more independent groups (length of service) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for public-school principals based on years of service (See Table 33). Based on statistical analysis and comparison the null hypothesis was accepted: H0: There was no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 138 Table 37 Hypothesis Matrix Survey Section Alternative Hypothesis Statistical Tests Used Accepted or Rejected II There will be a positive Cross Tabulation relationship between the Chi-Square Pennsylvania publicFisher’s Exact Test school principal's years of experience as principal and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. Rejected; accept H0 III There will be a positive difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. Frequency Counts Chi-Square Fisher’s Exact Test Rejected; accept H0 III There will be a positive difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge reported between elementary and secondary public-school principals. Descriptive Statistics Independent Samples T-Test ANOVA Rejected; accept H0 III There will be a positive difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between elementary secondary principals and years of service. Descriptive Statistics Independent Samples T-Test ANOVA Rejected; accept H0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 139 Data collected from Pennsylvania public-school principals yielded valuable information regarding the present state of special education training in higher education and on the job skills needed for principals to successfully lead special education programs within their districts. Hypotheses 1, 2 3, and 4 were not supported by descriptive statistics, thus all hypotheses were rejected. A discussion of the findings of this study is detailed in Chapter 5. A review of the hypotheses and results is shown in Table 36; the Hypothesis Matrix. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 140 Chapter V: Discussion Study Overview The intended purpose of the current research study was to provide Pennsylvania publicschool principal a starting point to identify where their current knowledge base was lacking and identify critical areas principals should have a solid working knowledge required to be effective instructional leaders in their administrative roles. The researcher wanted to determine if Pennsylvania public-school principals received adequate training in special education in their certification programs which may have negatively influenced their instructional leadership practices regarding special education programs, inclusive practices, and supervising personnel. A detailed discussion of the analyzed results is included throughout chapter five. Sample Participant Discussion The sample participants for the research study were obtained from practicing elementary and secondary public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The researcher was able to obtain superintendent consent to conduct research in the district from 34% (N=23) public-school districts that permission letters were sent to. The researcher hoped to acquire consent from a larger number of districts in order to gather a robust, statewide sample of participants; however, this was not the case. All public-school principals within each identified district were sent an e-mail invitation (on 01/01/2019) to participate in the survey (see Appendices G, K, & M). A total 108 invitations were distributed, and 19 (N=19) responses were received and recorded. The researcher set the minimum response return rate at 10 participants for successful study analyzation; the researcher obtained survey responses from a total of 19 (N=19) participants out of 108 invitees (18% return rate) which exceeded expectations. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 141 Pennsylvania public-school principals were invited to participate in the survey via e-mail (see Appendix G for consent form); and were given 30 days to respond to the electronic link and complete the survey. After 30 days; a second reminder notice was electronically sent to complete the survey to all participants who had not yet responded (see Appendix N for reminder e-mail letter). The second notice provided participants another 15 days to complete the survey for a total of 45 days for data collection; response rate may have increased if the researcher had sent reminders at 15 days and 30 days rather than one reminder as most responses were received on days the e-mail invitations were sent. After the initial sending 26% of responses were received and at the 30-day reminder another 53% were received; more results may have been obtained if a third reminder had been sent. Once all responses had been collected, they were kept confidential; no one besides the researcher had access to information. Participants were assigned a number pseudonym by the data analysis software program, NVivo upon completion, this pseudonym was also assigned to responses when data was input into the SPSS program. Survey results were kept confidential, the researcher never associated a survey respondent’s name or e-mail with their survey response in any reporting, any response that may have been used or cited in the survey was linked to the respondent’s pseudonym. Survey Results: Section I, Demographics Nineteen Pennsylvania public-school principals opted to complete the survey; all surveys were completed in their entirety (N=19). Of those surveyed, 37% were currently serving as principals in a K-6 elementary setting and 53% were working as secondary administrators. Over half of the participants in the study were new principals serving between one and five years in their current position (58%; n=11). Forty-two percent (n=8) could be considered veteran PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 142 principals, serving on the job for six or more years. Five participants (26%) worked 6 to 10 years, two participants (11%) worked between 11 and 15 years, and one participant (5%) reported being on the job for 16 or more years. The population sample included a wide range of public-school districts size, with responses received from all district demographic categories. Reponses were received from districts that served less than 500 students (11% of the participants) to those who were administrators in districts with student populations over 2, 000 (26%). A larger sample size may have provided valuable insight into the differences experienced by rural versus urban principal roles and responsibilities. For purposes of this study, there were no statistical analyses conducted on district size, this may be an area for future research studies. Although there wasn’t a larger sample in each sub-category, the researcher was satisfied that each categorical variable for a district’s student body population was represented in the results. No respondent completing the current survey was under the age of 30 suggesting participants should be well versed on the happenings of the public-school setting and knowledgeable in their current position. Thirty-two percent (n=6) reported their role in the public-school setting prior to becoming a principal was serving as a K-6 elementary school classroom teacher, 47% (n=9) reported teaching in a high-school setting, 16% listed prior teaching role as other, and 5% worked as guidance counselors. Nine respondents (47%) reported their age to be between the ages of 31 and 40. Seven participants (37%) were between the ages of 41 and 50. Three (16%) were over the age of 51. Participants’ ethnicity results indicated 95% (n = 18) of principals were White; the remaining 5% identified as other (n=1) indicating the study lacked diversity. Any future studies should attempt to include principals of different ethnicities to identify differences that may be experienced. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 143 Nineteen participants responded to demographic question number seven identifying where their public-school principal certification/degrees were obtained from. Principal certifications were issued by the following Colleges and Universities: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania (11%), California University of Pennsylvania (16%), Gannon University (21%), University of Pittsburgh (11%), University of Scranton (5%), Westminster College (16%), and other (21%). PDE listed 47 entities that offer principal certifications in Pennsylvania. The current study only received responses from 19 principals, with only 15% (n=7) of certifying bodies represented in the study. If further research is conducted, future studies should attempt to obtain participants from other certifying agencies in Pennsylvania to ensure all colleges, universities, and programs are represented. The current study centered on the premise that Pennsylvania public-school principal education programs are not fully preparing their participants to be instructional leaders for special education (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012; McHatton, Boyer, Shaunessy, & Terry, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). The researcher was unable to state for certain that principal certification programs in Pennsylvania are not preparing public-school principals to fulfil their administrative role without an accurate sampling of the targeted university population. Survey respondents reported a range of exposure to special education in their principal certification programming. Twenty-six percent (n=5) reported they did not receive any special education training or components included in their educational programming prior to entering the field. Forty-seven (47%) percent of reported completing one class in special education during their certification program (n=9). Twenty-one (21%) percent of respondents reported two classes in special education training were included in their certification program (n=4). One participant PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 144 reported their schooling contained three classes in special education. To be leaders of special education programs, Pennsylvania public-school principals require training in special education law, procedure, programs, and students with disabilities (Garrison-Wade et al., 2007; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). In Pennsylvania, out of the 47 principal preparation programs reviewed, only 30% (n=14) programs offered one special education class as part of their required curriculum; one program required two special education classes (00.02%; see Appendix O for the complete review). When comparing the current survey to other similar studies, results of this survey are higher than those obtained by Wakeman et al (2006) whose survey revealed 46% of participating principals had no formal training in special education during their graduate coursework and 28% had one class. Although not identified in the demographic pre-service teaching role, at least one participant had a background in special education. Respondent 10503568830 identified their background as part of one of his/her answers in the open-ended questions reporting they had “a special education background. (11 years as Emotional Support/Autistic Support Teacher) I seem to be the only administrator in 10 districts to have this background.” The researcher would like to reiterate the statement by Lasky and Karge (2006) which indicated “there is currently very little research examining the formal special education training or basic knowledge of special education laws and practices of school principals” (p. 21); after examining the information in the current study and completing review of principal preparation curriculum, this researcher has more question than answers; further research is seriously warranted on the topic. One of the key findings from the literature review conducted by Pazey and Cole (2013) indicated public-school principals should receive training in twelve fundamental areas with special education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McHatton et al, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 145 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013) and professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Taylor-Backor & Gordon, 2015) listed as priorities. As previously stated throughout the literature review, the research has demonstrated that overall, public school principals receive limited educational experiences when it comes to special education in preservice or on-going professional development (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Pennsylvania public-school principals appear to agree that more education is needed in the area of special education as 90% (n=17) of survey respondents sought out professional development opportunities in the area of special education to further their knowledge within the last year. After a thorough review of the demographic data, the question arose whether there was any relationship between specific demographic values and the public-school principal. The researcher wanted to determine if a principals’ current role (elementary versus secondary) was independent of length of service in the position. The researcher hypothesized: H0: Current principal role is independent of length of service in the position. H1: Current principal role is not independent of length of service in the position. A Chi-Square Test of Independence (α = 0.05) was used to determine whether there was an association between demographic categorical variables. Data analysis in chapter four indicated the value of the test statistic was 4.623 and a corresponding p-value of p= 0.202. Since the p-value was greater than the chosen significance level (α = 0.05), the researcher did not reject the null hypothesis; rather, the researcher concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest an association between role in the school system (elementary/secondary) and length of service in the position. Based on the results it was concluded there was no association found PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 146 between current principal role and length of service. The research confirmed more in-depth questioning should be used to determine the scale of the Pennsylvania public-school principal’s knowledge base and their years of service. A better way to evaluate what a principal truly understands regarding the inner workings of special education, such as a competency/skills test, would provide more valuable insight than checking off yes/no and completing rating competencies and scales. When using a yes/no question format, the surveyed items left no room for delineation between minimal understanding versus being an expert in the area. Section II; Knowledge Discussion Section II, Beliefs contained 18 questions using a yes/no answer format that addressed the Pennsylvania public-school principals’ beliefs regarding legal topics, foundational knowledge and contextual knowledge. The questions in Section II: Beliefs required participants to respond to binary categorical variables (yes or no value); as previously stated, the researcher feels a better way to have collected data for critical knowledge areas may have been to change to format of the questions instead of using a yes/no format. A study conducted by Christensen et al., (2013) determined 75% or more of principals felt they needed more knowledge in special education areas, specifically on how to modify curriculum, disciplining students under IDEA, state mandated testing accommodations, mentoring new special education teachers, inclusion, special education law, IEPs, and classroom discipline. Overall, the current study supported findings from other studies that principals do not feel adequately prepared, nor do they fully understand special education policies and procedures (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Christensen et al., 2013; McHatton et al, 2010). Legal Knowledge PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 147 Legal Knowledge addressed six legal topics pertinent to the public-school principal’s job. Legal Knowledge topics questioned whether principals had reported proficiencies of special education provisions in NCLB (now ESSA), components of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) that affect public schools, how the ADA affects public schools, special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code, and their district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Ninety-five (95%; N=19) of the current study’s respondents reported they had a working knowledge of IDEA and its regulations. IDEA is based on six major principles: zero reject, non-discriminatory identification and evaluation, FAPE, LRE, due process safeguards, and parental participation (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004); one flaw in the questioning of the current study was that it did not address detailed information surrounding IDEA. The research was unable to determine or prove for certain participants had a true working knowledge of IDEA or whether their comprehension was rudimentary at best. Future studies should look at more detailed questioning of the public-school principal to fully check their comprehension of IDEA and the implications within the school system. Five percent (5%) of respondents (one participant) reported lacking knowledge of IDEA. The question should be delineated into knowing the key components of IDEA and what that entails; rather than simply stating having an awareness of IDEA. Legal knowledge question two addressed the understanding of special education provisions in NCLB. Sixteen participants (84%) reported knowledge of NCLB while only 3 participants reported a lack of knowledge (16%). Pennsylvania public-school principals that participated in this survey reported they had knowledge of the components of Section 504 (63%; n=12) and 58% percent (n=11) reported proficiency of ADA law. The final questions in the legal PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 148 knowledge section addressed knowledge of special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code and the principals’ district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan. Forty-seven percent (47%) reported they grasped special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code (n=9) while 53%) indicated they understood their districts’ RTI plan, while 47% reported they did not. The question remains why did participants report of mastery of the laws surrounding special education vary so much? It stands to reason principals who have less than five years’ experience on the job, especially principals without a special education background, would not fully understand IDEA and NCLB. It was possible principals did not have the knowledge they reported, thus the difficulty in performing a survey that only contained dichotomous answer choices. Future studies may want to include follow-up options to determine what made a participant report no, they did not have the knowledge of the law. Again, if a competency skills assessment was included in the study, the researcher would be able to determine if Pennsylvania public-school principals truly understood the law, or just reported they did. Foundational Knowledge Foundational knowledge questioned whether Pennsylvania public-school principals believed themselves to have adequate foundational knowledge in special education topics to effectively serve students with disabilities. Foundational knowledge included six questions that addressed accommodation in the LRE, parental involvement in the IEP process, the district’s special education placement continuum, identification and placement, discipline, and the district’s related services model (Frost & Kersten, 2011). IDEA is based on six major principles: zero reject, non-discriminatory identification and evaluation, FAPE, LRE, due process safeguards, and parental participation (Bateman & PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 149 Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Eighty-four percent (n=16) of the surveyed Pennsylvania public-school principals felt they understood how to accommodate for the academic needs of students with disabilities in the LRE. All respondents (N=19) indicated they comprehended special education continuum and placement; however, only 79% (n=15) reported they understood their district’s procedures for placing students in special education while. The discrepancy between those two answers made the researcher question if participants fully understood the LRE placement; if principals understand placement, but not how students obtain that placement, there may be a lack of comprehension for the construct. Under IDEA, Pennsylvania public-school districts must use unbiased evaluation methods to determine special education eligibility, administrative leaders (the principal) must be aware of the steps to achieve the supports granted under IDEA. Pennsylvania public-school principals are responsible for school leadership and they are also accountable for referral and service delivery of special education programs within their school system (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004). Additionally, public-school principals must be aware of disability categories and related services offered. Seventy-nine percent (n=15) principals indicated they were familiar with their district’s related service programs, such as speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, social work, etc. while 21% (n=4) reported a lack of awareness. IDEA guarantees all public-school students throughout Pennsylvania have access to FAPE in the LRE (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; McLeskey et. al, 2012; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). FAPE and LRE must be provided to students at no cost to the parent (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Heward, 2000; IDEA, 2004; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). The Pennsylvania public-school principal must also be aware of discipline when it pertains to PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 150 special education to ensure the law is adhered to. Seventy-four percent (n=14) of principals reported they comprehended discipline and special education. The research indicates publicschool principals should fully understand discipline as punishments of special education students, such as suspensions could result in changes of placement. Principals must be aware of the procedures and reasons a manifestation determination would need to be completed. To further evaluate the discrepancy presented in foundational knowledge more research needs to be conducted. The research has suggested that the more involved the parents are, the higher the student achievement (Burke, 2017; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Olson & Fuller, 2010; Summers et al., 2005). Increased parental involvement is directly correlated with higher the grades, test scores, homework completion, and school attendance was (Burke, 2017; Henderson & Berla, 1994; Olson & Fuller, 2010; Summers et al., 2005). According to the current survey, Pennsylvania public-school principals indicated they had a solid understanding of the key role parents play for students with IEPs. Pennsylvania principals (84%; n=16) reported they understood the critical role parents play in in IEP development. Remember, the goal of the IEP process is to create a partnership; a team where everyone’s opinions and input is valued (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Pennsylvania public-schools should strive to include parents in the process as much as possible to avoid due process litigation (Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Burke, 2017; Krumins, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). It is crucial Pennsylvania public-school principals fully understand how important the role parents play in IEP creation and development. Pennsylvania public-school principals are required to facilitate special education programming within their buildings; being knowledgeable is part of that role. Parents are guaranteed to be members of the team that develops the IEP for their PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 151 child (Burke, 2013, Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004) and mandated to be part of the decisionmaking process when it comes to placement decisions for their child (Burke, 2013, U.S. Department of Education, 2018; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Contextual Knowledge The final knowledge section of the survey surrounded reported competency of contextual knowledge and special education. Six questions were presented to public-school principals to indicate if they perceived themselves to have contextual knowledge in special education to serve students with disabilities such as state learning standards, effective instructional practices, academic assessments, curriculum design, program improvement plans, and evaluation of IEPs by staff (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Public-school principals must be informed of evidence-based practices with special and regular education (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; DiPaola, TschannenMoran, &Walther-Thomas, 2004; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Over half of survey respondent, 63% (n=12), reported they did not fully understand best instructional practices for students with disabilities and 37% reported proficiency (n= 7). Over half of the public-school principals surveyed (53%; n=10) reported they understood assessments for students with disabilities while 47% (n= 9) did not. On the other side, 47% (n= 9) of respondents reported the ability to design curriculum for students with disabilities and 53% (n=10) reported they did not have the knowledge and skills to complete this task. Just under half of the publicschool principals surveyed (47%; n= 9) did not fully comprehend IEP development and evaluation within their district; while 42% (n= 8) reported they had the skill set to develop a special education improvement plan. For principals to ensure their students are receiving the proper supports and instruction, Pennsylvania public-school principals should receive training in special education areas. Public- PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 152 school leaders must have a solid grasp of IDEA, procedural safeguard and due process, zero reject, and discipline (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). When talking about inclusion, Pennsylvania public-school principals must look at IDEA. IDEA has two key factors when thinking about the least restrictive environment (LRE). First, IDEA mandates students should be with their peers in general education to the maximum extent that is appropriate (Burke, 2013; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004) Secondly, special classes, separate schools or removal from the general education class should only happen when the disability is severe enough that supplementary aids and services can’t provide an appropriate education (Burke, 2013; Wright & Wright, 2007; Yell, 2004). Both sides of the inclusion issue need to focus on the key word “appropriate”. Appropriate can be a gray area for school districts; at times principals are constrained by budgets and use cost factors to determine what is appropriate. IEP teams must base inclusion decisions on the data; not only should inclusion be driven by the data, but teachers must have the proper training and supports to educate students in their classrooms. Pennsylvania public-school principals must be aware that with the proper modifications and adaptations, students with moderate to severe disabilities can be successful within the academic environment (Downing & Peckham-Harding, 2007). The current survey also queried principals if they were comfortable with PA state learning standards for students with disabilities; 74% (n=14) reported they were and 26% (n=5) reported they lacked awareness in this area. Review of the research has shown special education law and procedures should become an integral part of certification programs (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Bateman & Bateman, 2001; Lasky & Karge, 2006; McHatton et al, 2010; Pazey & Cole, 2013). Contextual knowledge questions also sought to determine if principals could develop a plan for program improvement in special education and how IEPs were evaluated by staff in the PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 153 school. Fifty-eight percent (58%; n=12) of participants reported they did not know how to develop a plan for program improvement in special education. Recall from the review of literature, that Ball and Green (2014) reported “the attitudes of school leaders are important for inclusive practices, but not as important as the training and experience of the school leaders charged with implementing these practices” (p. 72). Frost and Kerston’s (2009) study also supported this assumption; their study revealed principals who had a prior background in special education viewed themselves as having more awareness and involvement in the special education department in their building. Special education needs to be at the forefront of principal training; “school leaders, principals, and assistant principals, are responsible for every function of the school environment. The attitudes of school leaders are critical, “without adequate preparation, school leaders may be detrimental to inclusive school programs, as their lack of preparation limits their ability to provide appropriate opportunities for students with disabilities, hinders decision making, and puts schools at greater risk for legal liability” (Ball & Green, 2014, p. 72). Comparison of Special Education Classes Among Groups The purpose of this research study was to provide a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals could identify where their knowledge was lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their special education population. The research questions were designed to determine, what relationship, if any, existed between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program and their ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district. The researcher conducted a Chi-Square test to look at the analysis between the number of classes taken in a certification program and the length of service for participants. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 154 The key result in the Chi-Square Tests table was the Fisher’s Exact Test. The Fisher’s Exact Test was used to evaluate the differences between the amount of special education training received in the principals’ certification program to each of the assessed questions in legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge. The Fisher’s exact text was used because one or more of cells in each category had a frequency of five or less. A chi-square test could not be performed because the chi-square test assumed that each cell had an expected frequency of five or more, but the Fisher’s exact test had no such assumption and could be used regardless of how small the expected frequency was. The value of the test statistic was 10.84 with the corresponding p-value of p = 0.28. Since the p-value was greater than the chosen significance level (α = 0.05), the researcher did not reject the null hypothesis (test value 0.28 < 1.83 table value). Rather, the researcher concluded that there was no evidence to suggest an association between respondent role (elementary and secondary public-school principal) and the amount of special education training taken in a principal’s certification program and length of service in the position. The test statistic was based on a 2 X 4 crosstabulation table. Based on statistical analysis, no association was found between current principal special education classes taken and length of service (Χ2(2)> = 10.84, p = 0.28). Based on the statistics, the researcher concluded the following: 1. There was no relationship identified between the amount of special education training received by Pennsylvania public-school principals in their certification program and the ability to effectively lead special education programs within their district. The null hypothesis was accepted: H10. There was no relationship between the Pennsylvania public-school principal's pre-service coursework and their actual knowledge of special education content and topics. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 155 Section III; Frequencies Discussion Pennsylvania public-school principals do not have to be experts in special education to effectively manage public-school districts; however, fundamental knowledge about disability, inclusive guidelines and laws are however, essential for successful administration of special education programming. Section III of the survey contained fifteen questions using a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) that addressed the Pennsylvania publicschool principals’ reported frequencies in the areas of legal, foundational, and contextual knowledge. Legal Frequencies Legal frequencies assessed the hiring special education teachers, monitoring student IEPs, and the implementation of federal and state special education requirements, attendance at professional development related to legal issues in special education, and attendance at prereferral meetings of the school-based service team (Frost & Kersten, 2011). Descriptive statistics broken down by age for Legal Frequencies for all participants (N=19) were reported in Table 26. Based upon the reported data, all principals rated hiring of special education teachers, monitoring the implementation of federal and state special education requirements, and monitoring of student IEPs in the often range with a mean span of 3.00 through 3.63. All principals reported they seldom attended professional development related to legal issues in special education (μ=2.47) and they seldom attended pre-referral meetings for special education (μ=2.95). Analysis of the data collected revealed both elementary and secondary principals were often involved in hiring special education teachers (elementary μ=3.57; secondary μ=3.67). Elementary school principals reported they often monitored student IEPs (μ=3.14) while secondary principals seldom engaged in IEP monitoring (μ=2.92). Elementary principals often attended meetings PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 156 surrounding the pre-referral process for special education (μ=300) while secondary principals reported this was a practice they seldom engaged in (μ=2.92). The Independent Samples t-test (see Table 27) was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for all three areas: legal, foundational, and contextual frequencies. The Independent Samples tTest is a parametric test. The Independent Samples t-Test was used for Section II: Beliefs, Legal Frequencies (Table 27), Foundational Frequencies (Table 30) and Contextual Frequencies (Table 33) to test the statistical differences between the means of the elementary and secondary participant groups. Since the Independent Samples t-Test can only compare the means for two (and only two) groups, and cannot make comparisons among more than two groups, the ANOVA was used to evaluate statistics for participant length of service (see Tables 28, 31, 37). The independent t-Test was chosen because the survey data met the following requirements. The dependent variable was considered continuous (i.e., interval scale ranged from 1 to 5). The independent variable was categorical (i.e., elementary, secondary). The cases had values under both the dependent and independent variables. The Independent samples/groups demonstrated independence of observations; there was no relationship between the subjects in each sample. This meant that participants in the first group could not also be in the second group. Survey participants were only be assigned to one group; participants could only be coded as an elementary principal or a secondary principal. No survey participant in either group was able to influence subjects in the other group and neither group had any influence on the other group. Since the parameters/conditions were followed, the research assumed that the p value was accurate. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 157 Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance was used to determine homogeneity of variance for elementary and secondary principal participants for Section III: Legal Frequencies. The F statistic, degrees of freedom (df), and probability of obtaining these results was reported. If the alpha level was above .05, then equal variance was assumed, and the corresponding t-test was used. For each independent ANOVA, the test statistic, degrees of freedom (df), and p-value associated with obtaining the result was reported. An alpha level of .05 was used to determine statistically significant differences. The results were reported in text and tables. These analyses were used to test if the samples had equal variances to address the second research question seeking to determine what extent the differences in the frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and high school principals were. Analysis of question 28, reported attendance at annual IEP meetings for individual students, showed the f-ratio value was 0.87 with the p-value of .37, indicating the results were not statistically significant (p < .05). There was no statistical difference between attendance at IEP meetings between elementary and secondary public-school principals. For question 29, participants were asked to rate how often the engaged in reviewing special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff was retained. Statistical analysis showed the fratio value was 1.07 with a p-value of .32 indicating no difference between elementary and secondary principals (p < .05). Question 30 asked participants how often they encouraged parents of students with disabilities to participate in school functions; the f-ratio value was 1.32 with a p-value at .27 indicating results were not significant (p < .05). Once again there was not a statistical difference between how elementary and secondary principals reported more involvement. Question 31 evaluated how often principals conducted formal evaluations of special education teachers. For question 32, the f-ratio value was 2.67 with the p-value at 0.121; PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 158 the result was not significant at (p < .05). Analysis of question 32 revealed the f-ratio value was 5.787 with a p-value at .03; the result was significant (p < .05) for how often principals attended pre-referral meetings for special education; elementary principals (μ=3.00) reported attending pre-referral meetings more often than secondary principals (μ=2.92). The ANOVA was used compare the means of two or more independent groups (length of service) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for public-school principals based on years of service. ANOVA was chosen to evaluate responses for length of service because the dependent variable was continuous (interval scale; 1 to 5) and the independent variable was categorical (i.e., two or more groups; years of service). Participants had values on both the dependent and independent variables and the participants were independent samples/groups (i.e., independence of observations). There was no relationship between the subjects in each sample; indicating that respondents in the first group were not in the second group so no subject in either group influenced subjects in the other group. Analysis of question 28, reported attendance at annual IEP meetings for individual students, based on years of service showed the f-ratio value was 1.41 with the p-value of .28, indicating the results were not statistically significant (p < .05). There was no statistical difference between attendance at IEP meetings for length of service. For question 29, participants were asked to rate how often the engaged in reviewing special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff was retained. Statistical analysis showed the fratio value was 3.92 with a p-value of .30 indicating no difference principals (p < .05). Question 30 asked participants how often they encouraged parents of students with disabilities to participate in school functions; the f-ratio value was .82 with a p-value at .50 indicating results PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 159 were not significant (p < .05). There was not a statistical difference between length of service and reported involvement. Question 31 evaluated how often principals conducted formal evaluations of special education teachers. For question 31, the f-ratio value was .51 with the pvalue of .68; the result was not significant at (p < .05). Analysis of question 32 revealed the fratio value was 1.23 with a p-value at 0.34; the result was not significant (p < .05) for how often principals attended pre-referral meetings for special education based on years of service. ANOVA Test of Homogeneity of Variance revealed that the variance between the elementary and secondary groups was not statistically different for legal frequencies. The researcher concluded: H0: There was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education foundational frequencies reported between elementary and secondary school principals. Based on descriptive statistics, groups were similar in their perceptions and ratings; thus, the researcher accepted the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education legal frequencies between elementary and secondary school principals and length of service in the position. Foundational Frequencies Foundational frequencies counted attendance annual IEP meetings, reviewing annual special education workload, encouraging parental involvement, formal evaluations of special education teachers, and monitoring alignment of IEPs to state learning standards (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for foundational frequency tabulation. Descriptive statistics for foundational frequencies were found in Table 29. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 160 Based upon the reported data, all principals rated attendance at IEP meetings, reviewing special education workload, parental engagement, and conducting formal evaluation of special education teachers in the often range with a mean span of 3.21 through 3.84. All principals rated monitoring IEP alignment as something they seldom engaged in with ranges with a mean score of 2.63. Elementary principals reported they frequently attended IEP meetings (μ=3.86) and encouraged parents of special education students to participate in school functions (μ=3.29). Elementary principals reported frequent review of special education workload and formal evaluation of special education teachers in the often range (μ=3.71). Elementary principals rated IEP monitoring as something they seldomly did (μ=2.71). High school principals reported attendance at IEP meetings (μ=3.83), reviewing special education workload (μ=3.33), parental engagement (μ=3.17), and conducting formal evaluation of special education teachers (μ=3.58) as practices they often engaged in. High school principals reported they also seldomly monitored special education IEP alignment (μ=2.58). Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance was used to determine homogeneity of variance for elementary and secondary principal participants for Section III: Foundational Frequencies. The F statistic, degrees of freedom (df), and probability of obtaining these results were reported (see Table 29). If the alpha level was above .05, then equal variance was assumed, and the corresponding t-test was used. These analyses were used to test if the samples had equal variances to address the second research question seeking to determine what extent the differences in the frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between elementary and high school principals were. Results were as follows in table 30. When analyzing the data using Levene’s test, a value greater than .05 indicated the variability in the two conditions (elementary/secondary) was about the same. Levene’s test PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 161 indicated the results obtained from one condition (elementary principal) did not vary much more than the results from the second condition (secondary principal). Put scientifically, it meant that the variability in the two conditions was not significantly different. For question 33 the f-ratio value was 0.34 and the corresponding p-value was .57. The result was not statistically significant (p < .05); thus, the assumption was made that there was no statistical difference between elementary and high school principals’ attendance at IEP meetings. When evaluating question 34 the f-ratio value was 0.55 and the p-value was .47 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05). Data analysis indicated there was not a statistical difference in the way elementary and secondary principals reviewed annual special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff was retained. Analysis of question 35 revealed an f-ratio value of 0.99 and the p-value of .33 indicating results were not significant (p < .05) for how principals conducted formal evaluations of special education teachers. For question 36 the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 0.56. The p-value is .46 and the result was not significant (p < .05) for how often principals engaged in the monitoring of IEP alignment to state standards. The Sig (2-Tailed) value was greater than .05 for all questions; thus, the research indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the two conditions of elementary and secondary principals in the areas of foundational frequencies. When analyzing the data using ANOVA, a p-value greater than .05 indicated the variability in the conditions (service length) was about the same (see table 31). For question 33 the f-ratio value was 0.90 and the corresponding p-value was .46 indicating result were not statistically significant (p < .05); thus, the assumption was made that there was not a statistical difference between years of service as a principal and attendance at IEP meetings. When evaluating question 34, the f-ratio value was 0.25 and the p-value was .86 indicating the result PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 162 was not statistically significant (p < .05). Data analysis indicated there was not a statistical difference in the years of service and how principals reviewed annual special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff was retained. Review of question 35 revealed an f-ratio value of 1.26 and the p-value of .32 indicating results were not significant (p < .05) for how principals conducted formal evaluations of special education teachers. For question 36 the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 0.08 with a p-value of .97 indicating the result was not significant (p < .05) for how often principals engaged in the monitoring of IEP alignment to state standards. The Sig (2-Tailed) value was greater than .05 for all questions; thus, the research indicated there was no statistically significant difference between the two conditions of elementary and secondary principals in the areas of foundational frequencies. ANOVA was used to test if the samples had equal variances to address the second research question seeking to determine what extent the differences in the frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between participants were based in their years of service in the public-school principal position. The conclusion was made: H0: There was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education foundational frequencies reported between elementary and secondary school principals. ANOVA Test of Homogeneity of Variance revealed that the variance length of service for participants was not statistically different for foundational frequencies. Both groups were similar in their perceptions and ratings; thus, the hypothesis was accepted that there was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education foundational frequencies between a principal’s length of service and their engagement in special education practices. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 163 Contextual Frequencies Contextual frequencies looked at arranging monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff, planning program improvement, weekly visits to special education classrooms, attendance at team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns, and monitoring special education curriculum (Frost & Kersten, 2011). The 5-point Likert type scale ranged from never (1) to always (5) was used for contextual frequency tabulation. Descriptive statistics broken down by role for Contextual Frequencies for all participants are noted in Table 32. Based upon the reported data, all principals rated they often made weekly visits to special education classrooms (μ=3.21) and attended meetings with special education staff to address concerns (μ=3.16). All principals reported they seldom arranged monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff (μ=2.79) and they planned improvements for special education programs (μ=2.47). Lastly, all principals reported they seldomly engaged in the monitoring of special education programming and ensuring curriculum was research or evidence-based (μ=2.42). Analysis of the collected data indicated both elementary and secondary principals reported they often made visits to special education classrooms (elementary: μ=3.00; secondary μ=3.33) and they often attended meetings special education staff to discuss concerns (elementary: μ=3.00; secondary μ=3.25). Secondary school principals reported they often arranged monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff (μ=3.08) while elementary principals seldom engaged in promoting staff collaboration (μ=2.29). Elementary (μ=2.43) and secondary (μ=2.42) principals reported they seldomly assured that special education programs were evidence-based. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 164 The Independent Samples t-Test (see Table 33) was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for foundational frequencies while the ANOVA was used to evaluate statistics for participant length of service (see Table 34). When analyzing the contextual frequency data using Levene’s test, a value greater than .05 indicated the variability in the two conditions (elementary/secondary) was about the same. Levene’s test indicated the results obtained from one condition (elementary principal) did not vary much more than the results from the second condition (secondary principal). For question 37, arranging monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education the f-ratio value was 2.71 and the corresponding p-value was .12. The result was not statistically significant (p < .05); thus, the assumption was made that there was no statistical difference between elementary and high school principals’ involvement in building rapport between special and general education teachers. Planning program improvement for special education programs and services, question 38, the f-ratio value was 0.41 and the p-value was .53 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05). Data analysis indicated there was not a statistical difference in the way elementary and secondary principals planned improvement for their programs. Analysis of question 39 (making weekly informal visits to special education classrooms) revealed an f-ratio value of 6.05 and the p-value of .03 indicating results were significant (p < .05) for how often principals conducted weekly visits to special education classrooms. Elementary principals reported μ=3.00 and secondary μ=3.33 for the mean score visitation to special education classrooms. For question 40, attendance at team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns, the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 1.02. The p- PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 165 value is .33 and the result was not significant (p < .05) for how often principals met with staff to resolve dilemmas. Question 41, the monitoring of special education curriculum to ensure that it is research- or evidence-based, had an f-ratio value was 1.34. The p-value is .26 and the result was not significant (p < .05). The Sig (2-Tailed) value was greater than .05 for all questions; thus, the researcher concluded there was no statistically significant difference between the two conditions of elementary and secondary principals in the areas of foundational frequencies. Data analysis using ANOVA, a p-value greater than .05 indicated the variability in the conditions (service length) was about the same. For question 37 the f-ratio value was 1.04 and the corresponding p-value was .41 indicating result were not statistically significant (p < .05); thus, the assumption was made that there was no statistical difference between years of service as a principal and how often principals arranged monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff. Analyzation of question 38 (planning program improvement for special education programs and services), the f-ratio value was 0.25 and the p-value was .86 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05). Data analysis indicated there was not a statistical difference in the years of service and how principals reviewed annual special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff was retained. Review of question 39 revealed an f-ratio value of 2.15 and the p-value of .14 indicating results were not significant (p < .05) for how often principals informally visited special education classrooms. For question 40 the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 0.09 with a p-value of .14 indicating the result was not significant (p < .05) for how often principals reported attending team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns. For question 41 the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 0.61 with a p-value of .62 indicating the result was not significant (p < .05) for how PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 166 often principals monitored special education curriculum to ensure that it was research- or evidence-based. ANOVA was used to test if the samples had equal variances to address the second research question seeking to determine what extent the differences in the frequencies, and perceptions of special education policies and procedures between participants were based in their years of service in the public-school principal position. The conclusion was made: H0: There was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education contextual frequencies reported between elementary and secondary school principals. ANOVA Test of Homogeneity of Variance revealed that the variance length of service for participants was not statistically different for contextual frequencies. Both groups were similar in their perceptions and ratings; thus, the researcher accepted the hypothesis that there was no difference in the reported knowledge of special education contextual frequencies between a principal’s length of service and their engagement in special education practices. Perceived Competencies The final component of Section III was based on the work of Garrison-Wade, Sobel, and Fulmer (2001) and evaluated Pennsylvania public-school principals’ perceived competencies for special education areas. Questions used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from emergent (0) to exemplary (5). Descriptive statistics broken down by Perceived Competencies for all participants (N=19) are shown in table 35. Survey participants rated their perceived competencies as proficient (scores of 2 or more) and higher for all areas questioned. Review of the reported data indicated all principals rated their lowest competency as question 44, the ability to make and implement differentiated PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 167 learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs (μ=2.79); although this was the lowest competency, participants reported the level as proficient. All principals reported they were proficient at being able to develop school-wide positive behavior support programs (μ=2.95; question 42). Question 43 analysis revealed all principals felt they had the ability to facilitate effective collaboration between general and special education teachers (μ=2.79). All principals rated their ability to lead an initiative that created a learning environment that allowed for alternative styles of learning (question 45) as proficient (μ=3.00). All participants rated themselves at proficient for question 46 (develop activities and make recommendations for professional development training regarding inclusive practices; μ=2.89) and question 47(the ability to generate options and possible solutions in resource management; μ=2.84). The Independent Samples t-Test was used to compare the means of the two independent groups (elementary versus secondary participants) in order to determine whether there was statistical evidence that the associated population means were significantly different for principals’ perceived competencies while the ANOVA was used to evaluate statistics for participant length of service (see Tables 37). Survey participants rated their perceived competencies as proficient (scores of 2 or more) and higher for all areas questions. Analysis revealed no statistical difference in length of service and a principal’s rating of implementing a PBS system (question 42); the f-ratio value was 3.10 and the p-value was .10 (p < .05). Question 43 analysis showed principals believed they possessed the ability make and implement differentiated learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs; f-ratio value 3.00 and the p-value was .94 (p < .05). Question 44 (ability make and implement differentiated learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs) showed statistical difference between groups; f-ratio value was 7.83 and the p-value was .01(p < PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 168 .05). Data analysis of question 45 revealed an f-ratio value was 3.00 and the p-value was .94 (p < .05). Principals felt they had the ability to facilitate effective collaboration between general and special education teachers (questions 46) the f-ratio value was 2.43 and the p-value was .14 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05). All principals rated their ability to generate options and possible solutions in resource management (question 47) as proficient and there was no statistical difference between length of service; f-ratio value was 3.69 and the pvalue was .07. For question 48, the ability to coach and provide constructive feedback and mentoring to special education and support service personnel, there was no statistical difference between groups f-ratio value of .10 and the p-value was .75 The ANOVA test was used to test if the samples had equal variances to address the second research question seeking to determine what extent, if any, there were in the differences in the perceived competencies of respondents based on years of service. Analysis of the data using ANOVA, a p-value greater than .05 indicated the variability in the conditions (service length) was about the same. For question 42 the f-ratio value was 2.93 and the corresponding pvalue was .07 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05); thus, the assumption was made that there was no statistical difference between years of service as a principal and principals rated their ability to develop school-wide positive behavior support programs. When evaluating question 43 (the ability to facilitate effective collaboration between general and special education teachers), the f-ratio value was 1.56 and the p-value was .26 indicating the result was not statistically significant (p < .05). Data analysis indicated there was not a statistical difference in the years of service and how principals rated their ability make and implement differentiated learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs (question 44). Analysis of question 45 revealed an f-ratio value of .52 and the p-value of .68 indicating results were not PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 169 significant (p < .05) for how principals rated their ability to develop activities and make recommendations for professional development training regarding inclusive practices. For question 46 the analysis showed the f-ratio value was 1.02 with a p-value of .41 indicating the result was not significant (p < .05) for how principals rated their ability to develop activities and make recommendations for professional development training regarding inclusive practices. No statistical difference was observed in the participants perceived ability to generate options and possible solutions in resource management reported (question 47) f-ratio value was 0.07 with a p-value of .97 (p < .05). The final perceived competency, question 48, (ability to coach and provide constructive feedback and mentoring to special education and support service personnel) showed no statistical difference between years of service by participants; f-ratio value was 0.65 with a p-value of .59 (p < .05). It was initially assumed: H0: There was no difference in the reported perceived competencies reported between principals and years of service. ANOVA Test of Homogeneity of Variance revealed that the variance for the compared groups was not statistically different for perceived competencies; based on the research, the null hypothesis was accepted. Section IV; Open Ended Reponses Discussion The purpose of Section IV of the study was to examine the experiences of public-school principals throughout Pennsylvania. The goal was to identify the specific leadership characteristics and views of practicing public-school principals regarding special education. The study included qualitative research methods to evaluate the professional skills Pennsylvania public-school principals felt they needed to effectively lead special education programs. Three PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 170 key themes emerged from the data analysis: 1.) the administrator needs to be supportive regarding time and behavior management, 2.) the administrator must be knowledgeable regarding special education law and procedure, and 3.) the administrator should be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. Theme 1: The public-school principal needs to be supportive regarding time and behavior management. To face the many educational tasks and demands of the future, public-school principals must cultivate “skills and strategies that are critical for providing a positive learning environment for a highly diverse student population” (Miller & Martin, 2015, p. 129). Competent school principals should allocate time for “structuring the story of special education, ensuring that school practices on behalf of students with disabilities are grounded in the field’s conceptual core” (Crockett, 2002, p. 160). Survey participants reported the following: Maintaining safety of the staff and other students while ensuring that the rights one mandates of students whom receive special education are followed. We have more and more students that display aggressive behaviors in the primary ages but our hands are tied in regards to meeting their needs through alternative placements. (Respondent 10543350599) It is often times difficult to have the access or right services for multiple needs of students. Needs often times require money, and no one seems to be giving districts extra money to meet the ever growing, and various needs of students. (Respondent 10503664801) I often ask, how can we, as administrators, build capacity among our teachers, to include all learners in the learning process and actually engage them intellectually. (Respondent 10543350600) Crum, Sherman and Myran (2010) reported data drives leadership decisions principals make daily. Honesty and positive relationships with staff are paramount (Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). Principals must recognize and develop leadership skills of their current staff (Crockett, 2002; Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 171 I have an open door for my staff and students. I know my students and can provide input to help staff meet their needs. (Respondent 10543350600) In regard to feedback my teachers have reported liking an open line of communication with me, so they do not feel that they are handling the problems alone. Behaviors have been increasing, at least in the two districts I have worked, and teachers do not feel they have enough tools in their toolbox to be successful and to offer ideas to general education teachers. (Respondent 10507597596) Principals must be aware of current instruction and be involved in planning (Crockett, 2002; Crum, Sherman, & Myran, 2010). The findings suggested school accountability and conversations must be the front runner of all activities involving leadership. Due the importance of data-based decision making, it is critical leaders obtain multiple data sets from staff to make decisions. Administrators should have a strong working knowledge to understand eligibility criteria and the general versus special education process. They should learn what an IEP entails, providing FAPE and specifically what that means, understanding and identifying instructional practices, and understanding how specific disability areas can impact a student's ability to succeed. (Respondent 10507597596) Administrators are expected to be experts in all fields and that is simply not feasible. There must be trusted colleagues who are in order to balance the workload. That said, there could definitely be more "current practices" in special ed law, or more of a special ed focus at some of the PILs institutes. (Respondent 10543350596) The public-school principal has multiple duties; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, and Walther-Thomas (2004) identified two critical areas that must receive leadership attention and support that align with responses that were collected from the current study. To be an effective leader, the public-school principal should focus on improving professional skills and knowledge of their faculty and staff they lead and support (Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004). Principals need to take the necessary time to provide supports and necessary professional development to beginning teachers to promote success and retention; teacher supports are a “critical leadership activity” that requires “systematic efforts” (Billingsley, 2004, p. 371). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 172 Principals should be more aware of what strategies exist to support diverse learners. They need to know more about what the unique needs are and why. However, in the end, they can't have all of the answers. That is why they need to have their staff work as a collective group in order to determine the structure and support that a student needs to be successful. (Respondent 10507597596) How can we, as administrators, build capacity among our teachers, to include all learners in the learning process and actually engage them intellectually? (Respondent 10543064145) Public-school principals must strive to make connections within the community (Crockett, 2002; DiPaola et al., 2004,). To be considered an effective school leader for special education, principals must “(a) promote an inclusive school culture; (b) provide instructional leadership; (c) model collaborative leadership; (d) manage and administer organizational processes; and (e) build and maintain positive relations with teachers, families, and the community” (DiPaola et al., 2004, p. 3). Theme 2: The public-school principal must be knowledgeable regarding special education law and procedure. Public-school principals are expected to be instructional leaders for all students within their district. When it comes to leadership for students with disabilities, principals often lack preservice experience in the field of special education and limited pre-service training in special education related issues. This lack of leadership can be attributed to the notion the public-school principal does not possess the proper skill set to lead special education, areas such as special education terminology, eligibility requirements, and outcomes (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). These factors contribute to the diminished principal leadership role in the day to day operations that surround special education programming. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 173 I believe all principals should also have a supervisory license for special education. (Respondent 10543350599) It all goes back to intervention and data; we are told data should drive instructional decisions, but teachers are not given strategies that go above theory. I think that programs need to allow for more collaboration and shadowing those seeking the degree can see other components of the job that are not covered in the textbook. There needs to be more hands on training for special education. (Respondent 10507597596) First they need to understand the entire special ed process and what it parts of their job are involved. Next, they need to learn how to best support teachers and give them suggestions for differentiation and other methods that could be of help. (Respondent 10543350600) It is often times difficult to have the access or right services for multiple needs of students. Needs often times require money, and no one seems to be giving districts extra money to meet the ever growing, and various needs of students. (Respondent 10503664801) Public-school principals are not only leaders of the school, they are instructional leaders for all. “To be an instructional leader, a school administrator must be knowledgeable about evidence-based practices within the field of both general and special education” (Pazey & Cole, 2012, p. 258). As mandated by law, public schools have the responsibility to identify students with learning and behavior deficits to enable them to receive supports needed to be academically successful (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2015). The 2004 reauthorization IDEA contended education students had the right to be educated in the general education classroom setting with their non-exceptional peers. It is imperative that administrators have a solid knowledge of special education law and procedures. They must thoroughly comprehend Chapters 14, 15, and 16 and be able to apply that knowledge daily. All administrators should become aware of the special education process and timelines involved. They need to be aware of the common modifications and SDI used by their teachers. They should be current on inclusion practices and due process as well. (Respondent 10507597596) I fear that so many teachers do not know how to accommodate students' needs on various levels and, as a result, lack the ability to differentiate instruction and meet all learners' needs. (Respondent 10543064145) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 174 Special Education laws and best practices. More specific cases and experiences should be shared rather than just overall "textbook" information. (Respondent 10475503307) Special education leadership should be a significant concern for public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved. The research has demonstrated that in general, publicschool principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in pre-service or on-going professional development (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012); results that were supported by findings in this study. Special education leadership should be at the forefront for public-school principals must ensure successful outcomes for all students (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012). Theme 3: The public-school principal should be involved in multiple aspects of special education and inclusion practices. Pennsylvania public-school principals should continually evaluate and critique their own buildings and practices to ensure students are receiving the best possible instruction (Riehl, 2000). Administrative practices have been said to be both moral and “epistemological” and those values should be taught in administrative training programs (Riehl, 2000). As mandated by law, public schools have the responsibility to identify students with learning and behavior deficits to enable them to receive supports needed to be academically successful (Hallahan, Kauffman, & PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 175 Pullen, 2015). Principals who comprehend IDEA and its principles, something that was questionable based on the results of the content knowledge section of this survey, should be able to make decisions regarding special education without difficulty. Working with diverse learners requires adaptation from the teacher. Simply reciting textbook information is no longer acceptable in education. You need to tailor each lesson to meet your students, which also allows for the teacher to ensure that all students understand the material presented. A benefit for teachers and administrators alike is the exposure to cultures and beliefs that they otherwise would not see. (Respondent 10504377221) I fear that so many teachers do not know how to accommodate students' needs on various levels and, as a result, lack the ability to differentiate instruction and meet all learners' needs. (Respondent 10543064145) Inclusion is an essential component of IDEA and protects the rights of students with disabilities. Carpenter (2008) wrote inclusion is not that every “student is educated with peers at all times, but it does mean that the responsibility of discovering effective means for all students to learn together is taken very seriously, and deviations from this approach are made with reluctance and only after careful deliberation” (para. 4). Being that we had a culture of pull out for so long people did not want to leave that notion behind. They truly believed that it was the only way to support special education students. It ended up creating voids and separations in the curriculum which simply lowered the standard. It was a fight to get them to see that the standard should be the same and the structure and support for these students is what needs to change. I will say that after two years, the staff is buying in because they are seeing growth in students that they never suspected they would see. (Respondent 10504377221). Bell and Green found “the attitudes of school leaders are important for inclusive practices, but not as important as the training and experience of the school leaders charged with implementing these practices” (Behan, p. 57, 2016). Some teachers are not supportive of moving kids back into regular classes when a pullout service delivery model has been in place. Some regular education teachers have been resistant and not willing to implement changes and follow an IEP modification or SDI list. There are some teachers who believe that special education is a placement, not a continuum of services. I fear that so many teachers do not know how to accommodate PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 176 students' needs on various levels and, as a result, lack the ability to differentiate instruction and meet all learners' needs. (Respondent 10504377221) Special Education laws and best practices are critical for principals. More specific cases and experiences should be shared rather than just overall "textbook" information. (Respondent 10543064145) Special education law, best practices, inclusionary practices, and how to work collaboratively with content area teachers. (Respondent 10503452782) Bargerhuff found the multitude of research that had been completed on principals’ involvement in inclusion has centered around the work of Villa, Thousand, Meyers, and Nevin and was based off survey data. Research has supported the idea that administrators tend to believe should be “valued for who they were instead of for what they could do” (Bargerhuff, p. 11, 2001). Bargerhuff has suggested schools consider restructuring to allow common planning time for teachers to ensure inclusion success. Principals must use the relational leadership style and provide staff the proper resources if inclusion is to be successful. For inclusion to be successful, there must be continuous communication between regular and special education staff and support personnel. One of the core objectives for educator preparation programs “is the development of teachers capable of providing individually designed instruction that is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to eligible students with disabilities” (Crockett, 2002, p. 161); administrator education programs should be no different. The main goal of special education is “finding and capitalizing on exceptional students’ abilities” (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2000, p. 13). Working with diverse learners and inclusion provides all students with a variety of experiences. Inclusion teaches all parties involved to be accepting of differences between others…This goes for both students and staff. Inclusion challenges teachers to become well versed in a variety of classroom strategies and behavior management. (Respondent 10504377221) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 177 Preservice certification programs must educate future leaders on inclusive practices (Bargerhuff, 2001; Crockett, 2002). Additional research needs to be completed to fully determine the implications of principal beliefs on successful special education inclusion practices. Respondents reported the following as suggestions for future principal certification programs: First they need to understand the entire special ed process and what it parts of their job are involved. Next, they need to learn how to best support teachers and give them suggestions for differentiation and other methods that could be of help. (Respondent 10507597596) More special education law classes. (Respondent 10543350599) Technology integration with the help of promoting individual growth. (Respondent 10543350598) Developing an MTSS program; developing a SWPBIS program. (Respondent 10543064145) How to modify tests and projects to accommodate the individual needs of students so that they are not cookie cutter and differentiation of instruction and assessments. (Respondent 10504377221) Knowledge of adaptions and accommodations. (Respondent 10503457654) Understanding of individual student needs vs district resources and other resources outside of the district. (Respondent 10503452782) Biases/Limitations There were multiple limitations that existed within the current research study. Research limitations are characteristics that exist within the areas of the study that can alter the interpretation of the findings or analysis from the research (Tracy, 2013). Typically, limitations exist as a result of the study methodology, restrictions surrounding how generalizable the results and findings are, how applicable results may be to current educational practices, and how much the results may add to the current body of educational literature and research (Tracy, 2013). Study limitations included: PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 178 1. Sample Size 2. Potential for unreliable data 3. Limited prior research 4. Inability to control the research environment A significant limitation in the design of the study was the small sample size (n=19); the small sample size made the current study difficult to generalize to the entire state of Pennsylvania; however, the findings may be applicable to practices because the sampling method, supported the selection of all areas of Pennsylvania and differing district populations. The current sample did not include diverse participants; 95% of those who responded were white. The sample size was not large and may not reflect the actual population across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The sample size (n=19) may have be too small, making it difficult to find significant relationships from the data. Certain statistical procedures were unable to be applied due to a lack of participants. Additional benefits to the field of education may be gained by increasing the sample size. The researcher acknowledges it would have been more effective to have a larger sample to obtain a more representative view of public-school principals across the Commonwealth. A larger sample size would have permitted more reliable and in-depth analyses when responses were subdivided based on demographic features such as district size, years of overall experience, and professional development when searching for common themes based. Because this study was conducted with n=19 participants, results are limited when talking about the large number of principals currently working throughout the state of Pennsylvania. PDE has identified 500 public-school districts; the researcher was unable to say for certain this study represented 19 districts as results were anonymous and there was the potential some districts may have had PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 179 more than one participant that responded to the survey. Increased sample size would also have preferred to be able to compare principals who had a prior background in special education versus those who did not. Lastly, an increased sample size would have permitted a statewide analysis of certification programs as not all universities and colleges were represented in the study. The second identified limitation was the potential that the data was unreliable. The researcher was not able to state with one hundred percent conviction participants answered questions truthfully. A more significant limitation of the study may have existed in the actual design of the survey itself. Rural, urban, or cyber-charter school districts may not present with the same issues as the participants of this study regarding curriculum and special education matters. Since the data was self-reported in an asynchronous manner (Tracy, 2013), the data may not be an accurate reflection of the public-school principal’s true knowledge and beliefs regarding special education and programming. There was the potential for participants to “carefully construct a desired presentation” (Tracy, 2013, p. 166) rather than give answers directly. There is limited prior research on the topic; the research review suggested that overall, public-school principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in the public-school setting (Crockett, 2002; Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006; DiPaola, Tschannen-Moran, & Walther-Thomas, 2004; Frost & Kersten, 2011; Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch 2012; Pazey & Cole, 2012); however, there are limited studies in this area (the researcher was unable to identify a study specific to Pennsylvania principals). The final identified limitation of the study was the inability to control the research environment. The data collection process was conducted electronically via the internet with PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 180 email invitations and reminders that connected participants to the survey instrument that was accessible anywhere the participant could connect to the internet. The participants could answer the questions in any environment that they elected, and under any conditions. Additionally, the researcher could not respond to responses from the participants with any follow-up questions. Since the data was self-reported in an asynchronous manner (Tracy, 2013), the data may not be an accurate reflection of the principal’s true knowledge and beliefs regarding special education and programming. There was the potential for respondents to “carefully construct a desired presentation” (Tracy, 2013, p. 166) rather than give answers directly. One example where additional questioning from the researcher would have provided much more significant information were responses from the Section I: Legal Knowledge regarding public-school principal’s knowledge of the law, specific questions may have been asked to determine true understanding. Follow-up questions would have permitted insight in to some discrepancies noted between responses in various surveyed items. There were noted discrepancies between answers on knowledge and frequency questions and those reported in the open ended results; follow-up questioning would have permitted the research to have a more distinct focus. Recommendations for future research: Given the reality of study results and limitations, the following recommendations have been made for future research: • A study to conduct the perceptions of new public-school principals (under 5 years’ experience) regarding the effectiveness of their administrator training program to prepare them to be leaders for special education compared to those with five or more years’ experience. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION • 181 The researcher should look at conducting a broader survey to focus on determining the amount of special education knowledge, background, and personal views on leadership the participants have. The researcher may want to revise the survey to include competency knowledge question that have a specific answer rather than a yes/no format. Further research could focus on determining the amount of special education knowledge, background, and personal views on leadership the participants have in one study to analyze results. • The researcher may want to consider a survey that uses a pre-and post-test method with self-study materials on special education to determine if public-school principals are able to increase their knowledge after basic training in special education policies and procedures. • Future research samples should attempt to increase the number of participants from elementary and secondary school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The sample should attempt to consist of diverse demographics including pre-service teaching role, gender, race, experience, certification, student population of each participant’s school, and both rural/urban districts. • A study to conduct an in-depth review of curriculum requirements and course descriptions for university programs offering administrator certifications. Closing Remarks Further studies and research will contribute to an understanding of the factors that contribute to the lack of special education training in special education programs by higher education entities. Curriculum and classes to become a certified principal “must be interrelated and tied to problems of practice. Internships must be substantive, extend over time, and require PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 182 aspiring principals to engage in the actual work of leadership” (Petzko, 2008, p. 241). Tubbs, Heard, and Epps (2011) reported every administrator must have the proper knowledge, skill set, and frame of mind to be an effective school leader. Public-school principals must have working knowledge of all aspects of a school including day to day operations that including curriculum, staffing, maintenance, and building/grounds. More in-depth research can seek to understand and expand the current knowledge, programs, and training to identify elements and describe relationships among the elements that contribute to, or act as barriers, to the lack of courses offered for pre-service principals during their training programs. Future research can seek to identify how much prior participant knowledge impacts their leadership role regarding their special education teachers and programs, their comfort level, and how often instructional leadership is impacted by special education. It may be beneficial for researchers to attend statewide principal association conferences to gather data in breakout sessions where research can consist of various methods that include surveys, interviews, and open-ended responses. This researcher concludes there is more research that can be conducted to help improve practices throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. What can be Done? Instructional leadership is what the Pennsylvania public-school principal can do to foster and enhance learning and teaching for all students. What subgroup in any school district across the country needs more enhanced learning and specialized teaching than those served by special education? Today’s Pennsylvania public-school principals need to be actively seeking ways to boost the achievement of the special education population. The research conducted in the literature review provided many insights into how principals view special education, the law, and inclusion. The common thread in the literature demonstrated if a principal had prior experience PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 183 in special education or a related field, they were more likely to be involved in the day to day happenings of special education. All Pennsylvania public-school principals should have the desire to be actively involved in special education; whether they are a facilitator or the team leader, principals must be informed. Pennsylvania public-school principals need to be aware of where their knowledge is lacking. Often Pennsylvania public-school principal positions are filled by capable staff; however, they have limited or no experience in special education. School districts then experience a transition period where the principal is trying to become the respected new school leader and learn special education policy at the same time; both can be trying and difficult feats in and of themselves. Principals who understand special education law, policy, and procedure prior to filling the administrative role will have a smoother transition. Future principals must be aware there is not always a special education director on staff or in the building to handle special education related matters; ultimately the public-school principal is in charge and final decisions must go through them. What is the educational impact? To produce qualified staff who are ready to be the instructional leaders for any building they enter; Pennsylvania public-school principal training programs must add a special education component into their certification process to eliminate the lack of knowledge many new principals have. Mandating one class be taken to achieve competency in special education is not enough. More stringent coursework should be added to address special education topics and initiatives. A principal who has a solid understanding of special education procedures, IDEA, and the PA School Code is more likely going to have a special education staff that is supportive and in favor of their directives. They will have staff wanting to be actively involved in curriculum planning, developing policy change, and striving PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 184 for professional excellence. If the leader of the school does not have the proper knowledge of special education law and policy, it does not garner adequate respect and trust from special education staff as decisions can be called into question due to lack of understanding. Having special education background knowledge will enable Pennsylvania public-school principals to better understand the IEP process, empowering them to help make IEP team decisions as they arise, and help the principal convey to regular education staff (if needed) the IEP team’s decisions. After conducting the review of the literature and completing the study, the researcher indicates that PDE must look at increasing special education related areas as part of the principal certification program to combat the hypothesized knowledge gaps in special education. One way to combat this would be to require all future certification candidates to also obtain their special education supervisory certificate. At the present time, this would not be difficult, the statewide certifying assessments are the same, and there would be an additional three classes required to complete the supervisory certificate. Having Pennsylvania public-school principals complete more training in special education will not only make them more well-rounded professionally, it will add credibility to their decisions when it comes to special education policies and student decisions made in the district. Knowledge is power. Some Pennsylvania public-school principals fear due process; having a public-school principal who is knowledgeable in special education law and procedure will make the IEP team a more cohesive unit. Members of each Pennsylvania public-school district must work together to bring about a positive change in the lives of their students and boost academic achievement. The Pennsylvania public-school principal must have the influence over their faculty/staff to motivate all parties towards the common goal. A good leader will seek input from all team members; they PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 185 will bring about positive change by asking for input from all, developing/implementing new policy/procedures, curriculum, and continuously striving to improve morale and work performance. In summary, after reviewing the literature and completing the study, the research indicates that special education knowledge is lacking in Pennsylvania public-school principals. More research is warranted to fully examine gaps in knowledge and programming. To combat this lack of knowledge, special education competency needs to be a mandatory component in Pennsylvania public-school principal’s preparation training programs. Special education has been evolving for over 35 years and will continue to do so; having a solid foundation in special education will ensure Pennsylvania’s instructional leaders of tomorrow are prepared today. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 186 References Angelle, P., & Bilton, L. M. (2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 5-9. Ball, K., & Green, R. L. (2014). An investigation of the attitudes of school leaders toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education setting. National Forum Of Applied Educational Research Journal, 27(1/2), 57-76. Bargerhuff, M. E. (2001). Inclusive elementary schools and those who lead them. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education. Retrieved May 31, 2017 from http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=ejie Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2001). A principal’s guide to special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161. doi:10.1080/09362830701503495 Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Promoting teacher quality and retention in special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 370-376. Burke, M. M. (2013). Improving Parental Involvement. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23(4), 225-234. doi:10.1177/1044207311424910 Carpenter, W. (2008). The other side of inclusion. Educational Horizons, 86 (3). Christensen, J., Robertson, J. S., Williamson, R., & Hunter, W. C. (2013). Preparing educational leaders for special education success: principals’ perspective. The Researcher, 25(1), 94107. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 187 Cobb, C. (2015). Principals play many parts: a review of the research on school principals as special education leaders 2001–2011. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(3), 213–234. http://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354 College. (n.d.). Retrieved September 06, 2017, from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/college Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2017, January). PSEL 2015 and Promoting Principal Leadership for the Success of Students with Disabilities [PDF]. Gainesville: CEEDAR. https://www.ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/PSELforSWDs01252017_0.pdf Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special educations role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157168. doi:10.1177/07419325020230030401 Crum, K. S., Sherman, W. H., & Myran, S. (2010). Best practices of successful elementary school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 48-63. doi:10.1108/09578231011015412 Cruzeiro, P. A. & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal’s role with consideration for special education. Education, 126(3), 569-579. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr. M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 188 Leadership Institute. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonne S. (2000, 2ed ed.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Davis, W. E. (1980). An analysis of principal's formal training in special education. Education, 101(1), 89-94. DiPaola, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: the critical role of school leaders (COPPSE document no. Ib-7). Gainsville: University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education. DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., &Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School principals and special education: Creating the context for academic success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(1), 1-10. EJ758028 Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007). Inclusive education: what makes it a good education for students with moderate to severe disabilities? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 16-30. doi:10.2511/rpsd.32.1.16 Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 215-229. doi:10.1348/014466599162782 Educational Testing Services (2003). The official study guide: School leaders licensure assessment, Test Code: 1011. Princeton, NJ: Author. Frick, W. C., & Faircloth, S. C. (2007). Acting in the collective and individual “best interests of students”: When ethical imperatives clash with administrative demands. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 20(1), 21-32. Frost, L. A., & Kersten, T. (2011). The role of the elementary principal in the instructional leadership of special education. International Journal of Educational PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 189 Leadership Preparation, 6(2), Apr-Jun. Retrieved May 26, 2017, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ973829.pdf Garrison-Wade, D., Sobel, D., & Fulmer, C. L. (2007). Inclusive leadership: preparing principals for the role that awaits them. Educational Leadership & Administration, 19, 117-132. Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2013). Research methods: A process of inquiry (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2015). Exceptional learners: an introduction to special education (13th ed., Loose-Leaf Version). Boston: Pearson. Heward, W. L. (2000) Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Individuals with Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA]. (2004). Retrieved from: http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/94/142.pdf Katsiyannis, A., Losinski, M., & T. Prince, A. M. (2012). Litigation and students with disabilities: A persistent concern. NASSP Bulletin, 96(1), 23-43. doi:10.1177/0192636511431008 Krumins, J. (2009, January 10). Choose your advocates wisely - getting the best for your child with special needs. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from Autism Aspirations, https://www.autismaspirations.com/the-truth-about-individual-education-plans/ Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: Experience and confidence of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 19-36. Lynch, J. M. (2012, Summer). Responsibilities of today’s principal: implications for principal preparation programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2), 40-47. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 190 Mackenna, L. (2017, March 23). How a New Supreme Court Ruling Could Affect Special Education. The Atlantic. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/how-a-new-supreme-courtruling-could-affect-special-education/520662/ Mansfield, K. C., & Carpenter, B. W. (2008). Legislative advocacy for high quality leadership preparation: perspectives and implications for teaching and learning educational leadership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 3(2), 1-8. doi:10.1177/194277510800300203 Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. McCaslin, M. L., & Scott, K. W. (2003). The fivequestion method for framing a qualitative research study. The Qualitative Report, 8(3), 447-461. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss3/6 McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special Education, 46(3), 131-140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670 McHatton, P A., Boyer, N. R., Shaunessy, E., & Terry, P. M. (2010). Principals' perceptions of preparation and practice in gifted and special education content: are we doing enough? Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(1), 1-22. Miller, C. M., & Martin, B. N. (2014). Principal preparedness for leading in demographically changing schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(1), 129151. doi:10.1177/1741143213513185 Mueller, T. G. (2009). IEP facilitation. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41(3), 60-67. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 191 National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA] (2015). Professional Standards for Educational Leaders 2015. Reston, VA: Author. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002). Office for Human Research Protections. (2016, March 15). The Belmont Report. Retrieved September 11, 2017, from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmontreport/index.html Olsen, G., & Fuller, M. L. (2010, July 20). The benefits of parent involvement: What research has to say. Retrieved July 30, 2018, from Education.com, http://www.education.com/reference/article/benefits-parent-involvementresearch/?scrlybrkr OSEP. (2006, August 03). Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved September 06, 2017, from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home.html Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. A. (2013). The role of special education training in the development of socially just leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly,49(2), 243271. doi:10.1177/0013161x12463934 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, CA: SAGE. Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145. Reames, E. (2010). Shifting paradigms: redesigning a principal preparation programs’ curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 5(12), 436-459. doi:10.1177/194277511000501205 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 192 Rice, J. K. (2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of accountability: what research says. Brief 8. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, 1-5. Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: a Review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81. Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2014). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Los Angeles: SAGE. Sage, D. D., & Burrello, L. C. (1994). Leadership in educational reform: An administrator's guide to changes in special education. Baltimore, MD: P.H. Brookes Publishing Company. Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.). Seattle, WA, Dissertation Success, LLC. Snider, V. E., & Roehl, R. (2007). Teachers' beliefs about pedagogy and related issues. Psychology In The Schools, 44(8), 873-886. doi:10.1002/pits.20272 Summers, J. A., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., Poston, D., & Nelson, L. L. (2005). Measuring the quality of family-professional partnerships in special education services. Exceptional Children, 72, 65–83. Taylor-Backor, K. & Gordon, S. (2015). Preparing principals as instructional leaders: Perceptions of university faculty, expert principals, and expert teacher leaders. NASSP Bulletin. 99. 10.1177/0192636515587353. Tubbs, J. E., Heard, M. S., & Epps, A. (2011). Principals preparation program: managing the learning environment using PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 193 ELCC standards. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER),4(4), 17. doi:10.19030/cier.v4i4.4164 Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing special education administrators for Inclusion in diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the Council for Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 70-82. Wakeman, S., Browder, D., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals' knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education, NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 153-174. What is NVivo. (n.d.). Retrieved September 07, 2017, from http://www.qsrinternational.com/what-is-nvivo Wright, P.W. & Wright, P. D. (2007). Wrightslaw: Special education law, (2nd edition). Hartfield, VI: Hartfield House Law Press. Yell, M. L. (2016). The law and special education. (Fourth Edition). Boston: Pearson Publishing Company. Zirkel, P. A. (2012). Case law under the IDEA: 1998 to the present. In IDEA: A handy desk reference to the law, regulations, and indicators (pp. 669-752). Albany, NY: Lexis-Nexis. Zirkel, P. (2013). Adjudicative remedies for denials of FAPE under the IDEA. Journal of National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary, 33, 220–241. Zirkel, P. (2016). Parental participation: The paramount procedural requirement under the IDEA? Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, 15, 1–36. Zirkel, P. (2017). Endrew F. after Six months: A game changer? West’s Education Law Reporter, 348, 585-596. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Appendix A: University Data PDE Approved Principal Certification Programs 1. Alvernia University 2. Arcadia University 3. Bloomsburg University of Pa 4. Cabrini University 5. California University of Pa 6. Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit 21** 7. Carlow University 8. Carnegie-Mellon University 9. Chestnut Hill College 10. Cheyney University of Pa 11. Delaware Valley University 12. Drexel University 13. Duquesne University 14. East Stroudsburg University of Pa 15. Eastern University 16. Edinboro University of Pa 17. Gannon University 18. Gwynedd Mercy University 19. Holy Family University 20. Immaculata University 21. Indiana University of Pa/Main 22. Kutztown University of Pa 23. Lehigh University 24. Lincoln University 25. Lock Haven University 26. Marywood University 27. Millersville University of Pa 28. Moravian College 29. Neumann 194 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 30. State University/Main Philly PLUS** 31. Point Park University 32. Relay Graduate School of Education** 33. Robert Morris University 34. Rosemont College 35. Saint Francis University 36. Saint Joseph's University 37. Saint Vincent College 38. Shippensburg University of Pa 39. Temple University/Main 40. University of Pennsylvania 41. University of Pittsburgh/Pittsburgh Campus 42. University of Scranton 43. Waynesburg University 44. Westminster College 45. Widener University 46. Wilkes University 47. York College of Pa 195 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 196 Appendix B: Consent to Use Frost & Kersten Survey July 20, 2018 Dr. Thomas A. Kersten. Ed.D. Associate Professor Emeritus Roosevelt University 847-226-6816 Dear Dr. Kersten: I am a Special Education Doctoral student from Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania writing my dissertation titled The Instructional Leadership Role of Pennsylvania Public-School Principals and Their Effect on Special Education Practices, under the direction of my dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, who can be reached at (724) 738-2873 or richael.barger-ander@sru.edu. The Slippery Rock University IRB Committee Chair, Ann Romanczyk, Ph.D., can be contacted at (724) 738-4846 or by mail at 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock, PA 16057. I would like your permission to use the survey instrument from the International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation (2011) entitled “The Role of Principals with Special Education Teacher Survey” in my research study. I would like to use and print questions for my research study to be conducted with public-school principals in Pennsylvania. I will use the survey questions under the following conditions: • • • I will use the surveys only for my research study and will not sell or use it with any compensated or curriculum development activities. I will include the copyright statement on all copies of the instrument. I will send a copy of my completed research study to your attention upon completion of the study. If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by replying to me through email: amandajtruitt@gmail.com. If you would like to examine a draft copy of the survey to determine what questions from The School Leadership Study will be used, please let me know and I can send it to you via email. Sincerely, Amanda J. Truitt-Smith, M.S. CCC-SLP Doctoral Candidate 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 amandajtruitt@gmail.com PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 197 Appendix C: Permission To Frost & Kersten Survey Response Tom Kersten to me Amanda, You have my permission to use the survey. Good luck with your dissertation. Tom Kersten Thomas A. Kersten. Ed.D. Associate Professor Emeritus Roosevelt University 847-226-6816 ________________________________ From: Amanda Truitt Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 7:50 AM To: Tom Kersten Subject: Permission to use survey Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 10:18 AM PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 198 Appendix D: Consent to Use Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer Survey July 20, 2018 Dorothy F. Garrison-Wade, PhD Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs & Associate Professor School of Education & Human Development University of Colorado Denver 303-315-4957 dorothy.garrison-wade@ucdenver.edu Dear Dr. Garrison-Wade: I am a Special Education Doctoral student from Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania writing my dissertation titled The Instructional Leadership Role of Pennsylvania Public-School Principals and Their Effect on Special Education Practices, under the direction of my dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, who can be reached at (724) 738-2873 or richael.barger-ander@sru.edu. The Slippery Rock University IRB Committee Chair, Ann Romanczyk, Ph.D., can be contacted at (724) 738-4846 or by mail at 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock, PA 16057. I would like your permission to use the survey instrument from the 2007 Educational Leadership and Administration Journal entitled “Inclusive Leadership: Preparing Principals for the Role that Awaits Them” in my research study. I would like to use and print questions 3-19 from the survey; question one contains personally identifiable information and will be excluded and question two is not relevant for the state of Pennsylvania. I will use the survey questions under the following conditions: • I will use the surveys only for my research study and will not sell or use it with any compensated or curriculum development activities. • I will include the copyright statement on all copies of the instrument. • I will send a copy of my completed research study to your attention upon completion of the study. If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by replying to me through email: amandajtruitt@gmail.com. If you would like to examine a draft copy of the survey to determine what questions from The School Leadership Study will be used, please let me know and I can send it to you via email. Sincerely, Amanda J. Truitt-Smith, M.S. CCC-SLP Doctoral Candidate 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 amandajtruitt@gmail.com PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 199 Appendix E: Permission to use Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer Survey Response Garrison-wade, Dorothy Dorothy.GarrisonWade@ucdenver.edu via olucdenver.onmicrosoft.com to Donna, Connie, me Fri, Jul 20, 2018, 12:54 PM Hello Ms. Truitt, I have included the co-authors (Dr. Donna Sobel & Dr. Connie Fulmer) of the publication you’re referencing. I’m glad you are interested in our survey. You have my permission to use the survey. Dr. Sobel and Dr. Fulmer, please let Ms. Truitt know if she has your permission as well. Sincerely, Dr. Dorothy F. Garrison-Wade Dorothy F. Garrison-Wade, PhD | Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs & Associate Professor School of Education & Human Development University of Colorado Denver 303-315-4957 | dorothy.garrison-wade@ucdenver.edu| www.ucdenver.edu/education Fri, Jul 20, 2018, Sobel, Donna Donna.Sobel@ucdenver.edu via olucdenver.onmicrosoft.com 12:56 PM to Dorothy, me, Connie Hello Ms. Truitt: I too am pleased that you are able to use or work. This correspondence is to confirm that my permission is granted. Warm regards, Donna Donna M. Sobel, Ph.D. Associate Professor Emerita Assistant Director, Center for Faculty Development 720.352.7495 donna.sobel@ucdenver.edu Fri, Jul 20, 2018, Fulmer, Connie Connie.Fulmer@ucdenver.edu via olucdenver.onmicrosoft.com 1:17 PM to Donna, Dorothy, me Ditto my colleagues! Go for it! CLF PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 200 Appendix F: Public-School Principal Survey The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu To Pennsylvania Public-School Principals: I am a Special Education Doctoral student from Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania writing my dissertation titled The Instructional Leadership Role of Pennsylvania Public-School Principals and Their Effect on Special Education Practices, under the direction of my dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson. As a current Pennsylvania public-school principal, you are being invited to participate in a research study to determine if pre-service public-school principal degree and certification programs provide adequate special education training to ensure future public-school principals can make instructional leadership decisions regarding special education confidently. Special education leadership should be a significant concern for public-school principals across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as their roles have increased to ensuring successful outcomes for all students, the increased number of students placed in special education, the high cost associated with educating students in special education, and the due process ramifications if educational outcomes are not achieved. The research has demonstrated that in general, Pennsylvania public-school principals receive little to no formal training in leading special education in pre-service or on-going professional development. The purpose of this research study will be twofold. It is the researchers’ intention this research will be helpful to colleges and universities when developing plans of study and programming for future principal and leadership training degrees and certificates. This research will also provide a platform where current Pennsylvania public-school principals can identify where their knowledge is lacking and how to become a better instructional leader for their special education population. The researchers will collect data to obtain background knowledge from each participant to determine skill and comfort level as it pertains to special education. Information will be input into a mixed methods software program for analysis. As analysis proceeds, the data that emerges will be compared; data will be coded, reviewed, and modified by comparing different participant's views, situations, actions, accounts and experiences to determine emerging themes based on years of service and demographic features. Your responses are voluntary, and your PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 201 information will be kept strictly confidential. All responses will remain confidential, compiled together, and analyzed as a group. Instructions for Completing the Survey: The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey is broken into four sections: demographics, special education knowledge, frequencies of special education activities, and open-ended questions. Please complete the following questions to reflect your opinions as accurately as possible. Survey completion should take approximately 30 minutes. If you choose to not answer a specific question, leave it blank and move on to the next question. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, dissertation chair (724) 738-2873 or richael.barger-ander@sru.edu or Amanda J. Truitt-Smith, SRU Doctoral Candidate at (814) 590-7862 or axt1034@sru.edu. If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject, you may contact the Institutional Review Board at Slippery Rock University at (724) 738-4846 or irb@sru.edu. Thank you, Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 202 The Pennsylvania Public-School Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership Survey SECTION I: DEMOGRAPHICS 1. My current administrative role in the public-school setting is?  Elementary Principal K-6  Middle School Principal 6-8  High School Principal 9-12  High School Principal 7-12 2. How long have you served as an administrator in your current position?  1-5 Years  6-10 Years  11-15 Years  16+ Years 3. What is the size of the school district in terms of number student enrollment?  Less than 500 Students  501-1,000 Students  1,001 to 1,500 Students  1,501-2,000 Students  More than 2,001 students 4. Age     25-30 31-40 41-50 Over 51 5. Ethnicity of Origin  White  Hispanic or Latino  Black or African American  Native American or American Indian  Asian / Pacific Islander  Other 6. Prior to working as an administrator, I worked as:  Elementary Teacher (K-6)  High School Teacher, Science/Biology  Elementary Teacher, PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION  Special Teacher (Music, PE, Art, Technology)  Guidance Counselor K-6  Guidance Counselor 7-12  High School Teacher, English/Language Arts  High School Teacher, History  High School Teacher, Math 203  High School Teacher, Special Teacher (Music, PE, Art)  High School Teacher, Industrial Arts  Librarian  School Psychologist  Speech-Language Pathologist  Other 7. I obtained my principal certification from the following college, university, or program:  Alvernia University  Marywood University  Arcadia University  Millersville University of Pa  Bloomsburg University of Pa  Moravian College  Cabrini University  Neumann University  Cairn University  Pennsylvania State University/Main  California University of Pa Carbon Philly PLUS** Lehigh Intermediate Unit 21**  Point Park University  Carlow University  Relay Graduate School of  Carnegie-Mellon University Education**  Chestnut Hill College  Robert Morris University  Cheyney University of Pa  Rosemont College  Delaware Valley University  Saint Francis University  Drexel University  Saint Joseph's University  Duquesne University  Saint Vincent College  East Stroudsburg University of Pa  Shippensburg University of Pa  Eastern University  Temple University/Main  Edinboro University of Pa  University of Pennsylvania  Gannon University  University of Pittsburgh/Pittsburgh  Gwynedd Mercy University Campus  Holy Family University  University of Scranton  Immaculata University  Waynesburg University  Indiana University of Pa/Main  Westminster College  Kutztown University of Pa  Widener University  Lehigh University  Wilkes University  Lincoln University  York College of Pa  Lock Haven University  Other PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 8a. I completed special education training as part of my principal induction process.   Yes No 9a. I have completed professional development activities within the last year in the area of special education.   Yes No 204 8b. During my principal certification program, I received the following number of special education classes:       0 1 2 3 4 5+ 9b. If you answered yes to the previous question, please identify the areas you have obtained ongoing special education training within the last 12 months:       College class/credit Self-Study; Book Readings Self-Study; online training Webinars Conferences/Workshops School District Act 80 Days SECTION II: Knowledge Do you feel you have enough knowledge of the following topics to properly serve your students? Check Yes or No for each question. Legal Knowledge (Frost & Kersten, 2011) Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)  Yes  No Special education provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)     Components of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) that effect public schools. Yes No Yes No PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 205 Components of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) that effect public schools.  Yes  No Special education rules and regulations contained in the PA Administrative Code  Yes  No Your district’s Response to Intervention (RTI) plan.  Yes  No Foundational Knowledge (Frost & Kersten, 2011) How to accommodate for the academic needs for students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.  Yes  No Parents’ role in developing Individualized Education Plans.     Yes No Yes No Your district’s disciplinary interventions and supports for students with disabilities.     Yes No Yes No Your district’s related services delivery model (social work, speech, etc.).  Yes  No Your district’s special education continuum from least to most restrictive. Your district’s educational placement procedure for special education. Contextual Knowledge (Frost & Kersten, 2011) State learning standards for students with disabilities.  Yes  No Most effective instructional practices for students with disabilities.  Yes  No Academic assessments for students with disabilities.  Yes  No How to design curriculum for students with disabilities.  Yes  No How to develop a plan for program improvement in special education.  Yes  No PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 206  Yes  No How student Individualized Education Plans are evaluated by staff in your school. SECTION III: Frequencies Indicate the how often you engage in specific instructional leadership behaviors with special education teachers. Scale: 1=never 2=seldom 3=often 4=frequently 5=always Legal Frequencies (Frost & Kersten, 2011) Hiring special education teachers. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 Monitoring student IEPs 2 3 4 5 Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 2 3 4 5 Monitoring the implementation of federal and state special education requirements. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Attending annually professional development related to legal issues in special education. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Attending pre-referral meetings of the schoolbased service team. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Foundational Frequencies (Frost & Kersten, 2011) Attending annual IEP meetings for individual students. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Reviewing annually special education workload assignments to ensure an adequate amount of staff is retained. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Encouraging parents of students with disabilities to participate in school functions. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 207 Conducting formal evaluations of special education teachers. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Monitoring alignment of IEPs to state learning standards. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 2 1 3 2 4 3 5 4 5 Contextual Frequencies (Frost & Kersten, 2011) Arranging monthly activities to build collegiality between special and general education staff. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Planning program improvement for special education programs and services. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Making weekly informal visits to special education classrooms. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Attending team meetings with special education staff to discuss concerns. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always Monitoring special education curriculum to ensure that it is research- or evidence-based. Never Seldom Often Frequently Always 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 3 5 4 5 Perceived Competencies (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007) I have the ability to develop school-wide positive behavior support programs. Emergent 0 1 Proficient 2 Exemplary 3 4 5 I have the ability to facilitate effective collaboration between general and special education teachers. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability make and implement differentiated learning recommendations for learners with diverse needs. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to lead an initiative that creates a learning environment that allows for alternative styles of learning. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 208 I have the ability to develop activities and make recommendations for professional development training regarding inclusive practices. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to generate options and possible solutions in resource management (i.e., planning time, paperwork demands, and alternative scheduling). Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to coach and provide constructive feedback and mentoring to special education and support service personnel. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to foster collegial relationships between special and general education personnel. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to understand and make recommendations regarding the challenges parents of children with disabilities frequently encounter. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to understand and make recommendations regarding legal issues related to special education. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 I have the ability to develop and implement inclusionary practices in schools. Emergent Proficient Exemplary 0 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 209 SECTION IV: Open Ended Responses 1. What type of disabilities have you encountered most frequently in your experience as a principal/administrator (Frost & Kersten, 2011)? 2. What benefits do you perceive for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 3. What concerns do you have for yourself and your students when working in a school with learners having diverse backgrounds and needs (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 4. Describe the working relationship with your administrator(s) (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 5. Describe a specific initiative/action/project that your administrator has undertaken to support inclusive services in your school building (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 6. Have you experienced any challenges in working with an administrator on issues related to inclusive practices? If so, please identify (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 7. What questions do you have regarding addressing the needs of learners with diverse needs and backgrounds that you feel should be addressed in an administrator preparation program (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007)? 8. Please identify specific strategies and/or processes that you believe future administrators need to learn to support inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). 9. Please identify any projects that you believe could help future administrators become skilled supporting inclusive practices (Garrison-Wade, Sobel, & Fulmer, 2007). THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YOUR RESPONSES WILL PROVIDE VALUABE INSIGHT INTO THE FUTURE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION LEADERSHIP PLANNING IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 210 Appendix G: Online Survey Consent Form Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu To Pennsylvania Public-School Principals: You are being invited to participate in a research study titled The Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership in Public Schools. This study is being conducted by Amanda J. Truitt-Smith M.S. CCC-SLP, Doctoral Candidate from Slippery Rock University under the direction and guidance of Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, Professor in the Department of Special Education at Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania. As a current Pennsylvania public-school principal, you are being invited to participate in a research study to determine if pre-service public-school principal degree and certification programs provide adequate special education training to ensure future public-school principals can make instructional leadership decisions regarding special education confidently. The purpose of this research study is to determine if pre-service public-school degree and certification programs provide adequate special education training to ensure Pennsylvania public-school principals can make instructional leadership decisions regarding special education confidently. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey/questionnaire. This survey/questionnaire will ask about each Pennsylvania public-school principal’s potential lack of efficacy about their specific leadership role as it pertains to special education laws, unfamiliarity about the unique aspects and key features of special education, and a lack of technical competence for special education terminology, eligibility requirements, and outcomes. It will take you approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. You may not directly benefit from this research; however, we hope that your participation in the study may help you determine how much of a role special education plays in the day to day operations of the public-school system. Your answers may help improve current pre-service certification programs regarding special education curriculum and content. We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study; however, as with any online related activity the risk of a breach is always possible. To the best of our ability your answers in this study will remain confidential. We will minimize any risks by ensuring that data will be coded, disaggregated, and categorized into meaningful units using the software program NVivo so that responses remain confidential. Participants may elect at any time to be excluded from the analyses without penalty. Principals who elect to complete the survey will remain confidential; names and other identifiable information will be removed, and e-mail addresses of participants will not be published and will remain confidential. The survey will not use any means of deception or coercion and e-mail addresses will not be published or shared; all addresses will be deleted upon study completion. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 211 Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. You are free to skip any question that you choose. If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you may contact the researcher(s), Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson, who can be reached at (724) 738-2873 or richael.barger-ander@sru.edu or Amanda J. Truitt-Smith M.S. CCC-SLP at (814) 590-7862. If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject, you may contact the Institutional Review Board at Slippery Rock University at (724) 738-4846 or irb@sru.edu. Thank you, Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research study. Please print a copy of this page for your records. Appendix H: Acronyms PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 212 Appendix H: Acronyms Common Acronyms and Terms Used in Special Education in Pennsylvania Acronym Meaning 504 ADA ADR ALJ AT DOE DOR DREDF FAPE FERPA IDEA IEE IEP IFSP LEA LRE NCLB NORA NOREP OCR ODR OEO OSEP OSERS OT PATTAN PDE PSSA PSRS PT PWN SDC SEPRN SERR SLP SPED 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Americans with Disabilities Act Alternative Dispute Resolution Administrative Law Judge Assistive Technology U.S. Department of Education Department of Rehabilitation Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Free and Appropriate Public Education Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Independent Educational Evaluation Individualized Educational Program Individualized Family Service Plan Local Education Agency Least Restrictive Environment No Child Left Behind Notice of Recommended Assignment Notice of Recommended Educational Placement U.S. Office for Civil Rights Office of Dispute Resolution Office of Equal Opportunity / CDE U.S. Office of Special Education Programs / DOE U.S. Office of Special Education & Rehabilitation Occupational Therapy PA Training and Technical Assistance Network Pennsylvania Department of Education PA System of School Assessment Procedural Safeguards and Referral Services / CDE Physical Therapy Prior Written Notice Special Day Class Special Education Plan Revision Notice Special Education Rights and Responsibilities Speech Language Pathologist Special Education PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 213 Appendix I: Definitions Definitions For the purposes of this study, the following definitions apply: Administrator: Individual charged with seeing to the day to day operations of a school district; research participants can either be a principal or superintendent. Administrators will advocate for all students within their district, set goals improve education, and create lifelong learners. Autonomy: Participants in a research study have the right to participate; participants can opt in or out of the study at any given time without risk. Participants will be given full disclosure prior to making any participation decision (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). Belmont Report: Created by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1978, The Belmont Report summarizes ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. The three principles identified are respect for persons (includes autonomy), beneficence, and justice (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979) Beneficence: Research study participants are treated in an ethical manner and protected from harm during the study. Participants are treated ethically no matter if they choose to opt out of the research study. Researchers continually strive to ensure participant well-being. Beneficence can also be noted to cover acts of kindness or charity that go beyond research obligation. (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report”, 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 214 College: Independent institution of higher learning offering instruction in a professional school administrator program, synonymous with university (college, n.d.) Curriculum: Plan of study for a degree or certificate program at the collegiate level; list of classes and requirements necessary for completion of coursework. Data: Facts and information collected during the research study. Diminished Autonomy: An individual with restricted or diminished capacity; persons not capable of deliberation regarding personal goals (Office for Human Resource Protections, “The Belmont Report,” 1979; Graziano and Raulin, 2013). ESEA: Created in 1965 by President Johnson, ESEA is the country’s education law which provides equal opportunities for all students. ESEA was reauthorized in 2001 and is now known as No Child Left Behind (Wright & Wright, 2007). Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Individualized educational program that is designed to meet the child's unique needs and from which the child receives educational benefit, and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living (Wright & Wright, 2007). Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Under IDEA 2004 schools are “required to educate children with disabilities with children who are disabled, “to the maximum extent appropriate.” A child may only be removed from the regular education setting if the nature or severity of the disability is such that the child cannot be educated in regular classes, even with the use of supplementary aids and services” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 23) Individualized Education Program (IEP): Legal document defining and describing a special education student’s course of study for one calendar year; important sections include PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 215 present levels of academic achievement, transition planning, goals/objectives, and program modifications and specially designed instruction. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Law ensuring services to children with disabilities throughout the nation age birth to twenty-one. IDEA mandates how “states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education and related services to more than 6.5 million eligible infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. Infants and toddlers with disabilities (birth-2) and their families receive early intervention services under IDEA Part C. Children and youth (ages 3-21) receive special education and related services under IDEA Part B” (OSEP, 2006, para. 1). Mixed Methods Research Design: A research method for conducting research that involves collecting, analyzing and integrating quantitative and qualitative research data into one study. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB was in effect from 2002–2015; NCLB was the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. NCLB included provisions to help students in poverty, minorities, students in special education programs, and those with limited English proficiency (Wright & Wright, 2007). NVivo: NVivo is software that supports qualitative and mixed methods research. NVivo is a platform to organize, analyze and find insights in unstructured, or qualitative data like in survey responses and web content (“What is NVivo, n.d.). Parent: IDEA Regulations 34 C.F.R. §300.30 (a)) define parent as the “biological or adoptive parent, a guardian, a person acting as a parent of the child (e.g. grandparent, stepparent) PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 216 who lives with the child, a foster parent (unless prohibited by state law), or a surrogate parent who has been appointed following the procedures of the law” (Yell, 2004, p. 262). Population: The group to which the research sample belong; population for this study will include all certified principals and superintendents who are actively using their degree/certificates at the time of this study in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Principal: The individual with the most authority within the public-school building; responsible for supervision of personnel, curriculum decisions, and discipline of students. Public-School: A school that receives funding from the public; this includes elementary, junior-senior, middle, secondary, and vocational schools. Qualitative Research Design: Denzin and Lincoln (2005) describe qualitative research as involving “… an interpretive naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.” (p. 3) Quantitative Research Design: Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon. It may emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques. Rehabilitation Act of 1973: “Civil rights statute designed to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination; purposes are to maximize employment, economic selfsufficiency, independence, inclusion and integration into society” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 430). PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 217 Sample: Subgroup of the population; the research participants who are certified and working as school administrators from the target population. School District: Entity charged with providing a free and appropriate public education within a set geographical area. There are over 500 school districts in Pennsylvania; see Appendix F for a full list. Socioeconomic Status (SES): A total of person/families’ combined economic and sociological work experience in relation to others; it is based on household income, earners' education, and occupation. Special Education: “Specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” (Wright & Wright, 2007, p. 21). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS Statistics is a software package used for interactive, or batched, statistical analysis. University: Independent institution of higher learning offering instruction in a Pennsylvania public-school degree or certificate acknowledged by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. University is synonymous with college. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Appendix J: List of PA Intermediate Units Source: https://www.paiu.org/ius.php **Bolded and italicized IUs Chosen by random selection to participate in the study Intermediate Unit 1 Pittsburgh-Mount Oliver IU 2 Allegheny IU 3 Midwestern IU 4 Northwest Tri-County IU 5 Riverview IU 6 Westmoreland IU 7 Appalachia IU 8 Seneca Highlands IU 9 Central IU 10 Tuscarora IU 11 Lincoln IU 12 Lancaster-Lebanon IU 13 Berks County IU 14 Capital Area IU 15 Central Susquehanna IU 16 BlaST IU 17 Luzerne IU 18 Northeastern Educational IU 19 Colonial IU 20 218 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Carbon-Lehigh IU 21 Bucks County IU 22 Montgomery County IU 23 Chester County IU 24 Delaware County IU 25 School District of Philadelphia, IU 26 Beaver Valley IU 27 ARIN IU 28 Schuylkill IU 29 219 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Appendix K: List of PA Districts Selected for Survey Invitation Midwestern IU 4 Butler Area School District 110 Campus Lane Butler, PA 16001 Phone: (724) 287-8721 Commodore Perry School District 3002 Perry Highway Hadley, PA 16130 Phone: (724) 253-3255 Greenville Area School District 9 Donation Road Greenville, PA 16215 Phone: 724-588-2502 Grove City Area School District 511 Highland Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 Phone: 724-458-6733 Karns City Area School District 1446 Kittanning Pike Karns City, PA 16041 Phone: (724) 756-2030 Mercer Area School District 545 West Butler Street Mercer, PA 16137 Phone: 724-662-5100 Fax: 724-662-5109 Reynolds Area School District 531 Reynolds Road Greenville, PA 16125 Phone: (724) 646-5501 FAX: (724) 646-5505 Seneca Valley Area School District 124 Seneca School Road Harmony, PA 16037 Phone: (724) 452-6040 Fax: (724) 452-6105 Sharon City Area School District 215 Forker Boulevard Sharon, PA 16146 Phone: (724) 981-6390 FAX: (724) 981-0844 Sharpsville Area School District 1 Blue Devil Way Sharpsville, PA 16150 Phone: (724) 962-8300 FAX: (724) 962-7873 West Middlesex Area School District 3591 Sharon Road West Middlesex, PA 16159-9799 Phone: (724) 634-3030 FAX.: (724) 528-0380 Neshannock Township School District 3834 Mitchell Road New Castle, PA 16105 Phone: (724) 658-4793 Riverview IU6 Allegheny-Clarion Valley School District Allegheny-Clarion Valley PO Box 347 Foxburg, PA 16036 Phone: (724) 659-3555 Franklin Area School District Franklin Area 246 Pone Lane Franklin, PA 16323 Phone: (814) 432-2121 Brockway Area School District Keystone Area School District 220 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Brockway Area 100 Alexander Street Brockway, PA 15824 700 Beatty Avenue Knox, PA 16232 Phone: (814) 797-1261 Brookville Area School District Brookville Area 96 Jenks Street Brookville, PA 15825 Phone: (814) 849-1106 North Clarion County Schools 10439 Route 36 Tionesta, PA 16353 Phone: (814) 744-8544 Clarion Area School District Clarion Area 800 Boundary Street Clarion, PA 16214 Phone: (814) 226-8118 Clarion-Limestone Area School District Clarion-Limestone Area 4091 CL School Road Strattanville, PA 16258 Phone: (814) 764-5111 Cranberry Area School District Cranberry Area 1 Education Drive Seneca, PA 16346 Phone: (814) 616-8504 Oil City Area School District 10 Lynch Boulevard Oil City, PA 16301 Phone: (814) 676-2771 Punxsutawney Area School District 500 North Findley Street Punxsutawney, PA 15767 Phone: (814) 937-5151 Redbank Valley Area School District 910 Broad Street New Bethlehem, PA 16242 Phone: (814) 275-2424 Titusville Area School District 415 Water Street Titusville, PA 16354 Phone: (814) 827-2715 DuBois Area School District DuBois Area 404 Liberty Boulevard DuBois, PA 15801 Phone: (814) 375-8770 Union Area School District 354 Baker Street, Suite 1 Rimersburg, PA 16248 Phone: (814) 473-3121 Forest Area School District 120 West Birch Street Marienville, PA 16239 Phone: (814) 927-6688 Valley Grove Area School District 389 Sugarcreek Drive Franklin, PA 16323 Phone: (814) 432-3861 Central IU 10 Bald Eagle Area School District 710 S. Eagle Valley Road Wingate, PA 16823 Phone: (814) 355-4868 Fax: 814) 355-4869 Keystone Central School District 86 Administration Drive Mill Hall, PA 17751 (570) 893-4903 221 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Bellefonte Area School District 318 North Allegheny Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 Phone: 814-355-4814 Moshannon Valley School District 4934 Green Acre Road Houtzdale, PA 16651 Phone: 814-378-7609 Fax: 814-378-7100 Clearfield Area School District 2831 Washington Avenue Clearfield, PA 16830 Phone: 814-765-5511 ext. 6000 Fax: 814-765-5515 Penns Valley Area School District 4528 Penns Valley Road Spring Mills, PA 16875 Phone 814-422-2000 Fax 814-422-8020 Curwensville Area School District 650 Beech Street Curwensville, PA 16833 (814) 236-1100 Philipsburg-Osceola Area School District 200 Short Street Philipsburg, PA 16866 Phone: (814) 342-1050 Fax: (814) 342-7208 Glendale School District 1466 Beaver valley Road Flinton, PA 16640 Phone: 814-687-3402 Fax: 814-687-3341 Harmony Area School District 5239 Ridge Road Westover PA, 16692 Phone: 814-845-2300 Fax: 814-845-7811 Luzerne IU 18 Crestwood Area School District 281 South Mountain Boulevard, Mountain Top, PA 18707 Phone: (570) 474-6782 Fax: (570) 474-2254 State College Area School District 240 Villa Crest Dr. State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 231-1011 West Branch Area School District 516 Allport Cutoff Morrisdale, PA 16858 Phone: (814)345-5615 Pittston Area School District 5 Stout Street Pittston, PA 18640 Phone: (570) 654-2415 Fax : (570) 654-5548 Dallas Area School District 2000 Conyngham Avenue Dallas, PA 18612 Phone: (570) 675-5201 Tunkhannock Area School District 41 Philadelphia Avenue Tunkhannock, PA, 18657 Phone: (570) 836-3111 Hanover Area School District 1600 Sans Souci Parkway Hanover Twp., PA 18706. Telephone: (570) 831-2313 FAX: (570) 831-2322 Wilkes Barre Area School District 730 South Main Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-0376 Phone: (570)826-7111 Wyoming Area School District 222 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Hazleton Area School District 1515 West 23rd Street Hazle Township, PA 18202 Phone: (570) 459-3111 Lake Lehman Area School District 1237 Market Street Lehman, PA 18627 Phone: (570) 675-2165 Nanticoke Area School District 425 Kosciuszko St, Nanticoke, PA 18634 Phone: (570)735-1270 Fax: (570) 735-1350 Northwest Area School District 243 Thorne Hill Road Shickshinny, PA 18655-4412 Phone: (570) 542-4126 School District of Philadelphia, IU 26 The School District of Philadelphia 440 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130 Phone: (215) 400-4000 223 252 Memorial Street Exeter, PA 18643 Phone: (570) 655-3733 (Business & Administration) Fax: (570) 883-1280 Wyoming Valley West Area School District 450 North Maple Avenue Kingston, PA 18704 Phone: (570) 288-6551 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 224 Appendix L: Superintendent Approval Letter Dear Superintendent [Insert Name] I am a Special Education Doctoral student from Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania writing my dissertation titled The Leadership Role of School Administrators and Their Effect on Special Education, under the direction of my dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Richael BargerAnderson, who can be reached at (724) 738-2873 or richael.barger-ander@sru.edu. The Slippery Rock University IRB Committee Chair, Ann Romanczyk, Ph.D., can be contacted at (724) 7384846 or by mail at 1 Morrow Way, Slippery Rock, PA 16057. I respectfully seek your permission to conduct a Special Education Survey with the Principals and Assistant Principals in your district. As part of my doctoral dissertation, a validated and reliable survey will be used to determine the level of special education knowledge amongst Principals and Assistant Principals. The survey will be sent electronically to participants. All responses will be completely confidential and no identifying information will be sought or shared. This study is very valuable to the profession and may be used to help identify areas that need to be included in administrative credentialing course work and/or determine professional development opportunities and needs. If these are acceptable terms and conditions, please indicate so by replying to me through email: amandajtruitt@gmail.com. If you would like to examine a draft copy of the survey to determine what questions from The School Leadership Study will be used, please let me know and I can send it to you via email. Sincerely, Amanda J. Truitt-Smith, M.S. CCC-SLP Doctoral Candidate 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 amandajtruitt@gmail.com If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you may contact the researcher(s), Amanda J. Truitt-Smith M.S. CCC-SLP at (814) 590-7862. If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research subject, you may contact the Institutional Review Board at Slippery Rock University at (724) 738-4846 or irb@sru.edu. PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Appendix M: List of Superintendents Consents Riverview IU 6 Clarion Area School District 800 Boundary Street Clarion, PA 16214 Phone: (814) 226-8118 Clarion-Limestone Area School District Clarion-Limestone Area 4091 CL School Road Strattanville, PA 16258 Phone: (814) 764-5111 Cranberry Area School District Cranberry Area 1 Education Drive Seneca, PA 16346 Phone: (814) 616-8504 Oil City Area School District 10 Lynch Boulevard Oil City, PA 16301 Phone: (814) 676-2771 Punxsutawney Area School District 500 North Findley Street Punxsutawney, PA 15767 Phone: (814) 937-5151 Titusville Area School District 415 Water Street Titusville, PA 16354 Phone: (814) 827-2715 Keystone Area School District 700 Beatty Avenue Knox, PA 16232 Phone: (814) 797-1261 Midwestern IU 4 Butler Area School District 110 Campus Lane Butler, PA 16001 Phone: (724) 287-8721 Reynolds Area School District 531 Reynolds Road Greenville, PA 16125 Phone: (724) 646-5501 FAX: (724) 646-5505 Commodore Perry School District 3002 Perry Highway Hadley, PA 16130 Phone: (724) 253-3255 Seneca Valley Area School District 124 Seneca School Road Harmony, PA 16037 Phone: (724) 452-6040 Fax: (724) 452-6105 Greenville Area School District 9 Donation Road Greenville, PA 16215 Phone: 724-588-2502 Grove City Area School District Sharon City Area School District 215 Forker Boulevard Sharon, PA 16146 Phone: (724) 981-6390 225 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 511 Highland Avenue Grove City, PA 16127 Phone: 724-458-6733 Karns City Area School District 1446 Kittanning Pike Karns City, PA 16041 Phone: (724) 756-2030 Mercer Area School District 545 West Butler Street Mercer, PA 16137 Phone: 724-662-5100 Fax: 724-662-5109 Neshannock Township School District 3834 Mitchell Road New Castle, PA 16105 Phone: (724) 658-4793 Central IU 10 Moshannon Valley School District 4934 Green Acre Road Houtzdale, PA 16651 Phone: 814-378-7609 Fax: 814-378-7100 Penns Valley Area School District 4528 Penns Valley Road Spring Mills, PA 16875 Phone 814-422-2000 Fax 814-422-8020 Philipsburg-Osceola Area School District 200 Short Street Philipsburg, PA 16866 Phone: (814) 342-1050 Fax: (814) 342-7208 Luzerne IU 18 Northwest Area School District 243 Thorne Hill Road Shickshinny, PA 18655-4412 Phone: (570) 542-4126 FAX: (724) 981-0844 Sharpsville Area School District 1 Blue Devil Way Sharpsville, PA 16150 Phone: (724) 962-8300 FAX: (724) 962-7873 West Middlesex Area School District 3591 Sharon Road West Middlesex, PA 16159-9799 Phone: (724) 634-3030 FAX.: (724) 528-0380 226 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 227 Appendix N: Reminder E-mail Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu Enter Date Dear [Principal Name], Last month you were sent a link to complete the survey entitled The Principal’s Special Education Role as it Pertains to Instructional Leadership in Public Schools, asking for your opinions on your instructional leadership practices and special education beliefs. If you have already completed and submitted the survey, thank you for your insightful input. If not, please complete your survey using the following link: www.principalsroleinspecialeducation.com and submit your responses no later than 9:00 p.m. on February, 16, 2019. Your responses are much appreciated as they will help provide valuable input into future programing for administrator training programs. Your insight will also help us learn more about the current beliefs active school administrators have regarding special education and their current pedagogical practices. If you have any questions, please contact the researcher, Amanda J. Truitt, at axt1034@sru.edu or (814) 590-7862 Sincerely, Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Dr. Richael Barger-Anderson Professor Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 1 Morrow Way Slippery Rock, PA 16057 richael.barger-ander@sru.edu Amanda J. Truitt-Smith Doctoral Candidate Department of Special Education Slippery Rock University 77 Truitt Lane Fairmount City, PA 16224 axt1034@sru.edu PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 228 Appendix O: University Curriculum Data **Special Education Classes are in bold for ease of location. College/University Curriculum/Coursework Alvernia University 400 Saint Bernardine Street Reading, PA 19607 Post-masters certification: 21 Credits MED 515 Differentiated Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms MED 550 Introduction to Educational Administration MED 553 The School Administrator MED 610 School Law & Social Advocacy MED 611 School Finance MED 650 Functions of School Supervision MED 685 Principal Internship I and II - 3 credits Arcadia University 450 S. Easton Road Glenside, PA 19038 ED505 Cultural Foundations in Education ED645 Human Resources and Negotiations ED633 School Law ED635 Supervision of Teaching and Learning ED647 Data Driven Decision Making Practica ED580 Intro to Inclusive Education Practica ED634 Managing School Organizations and Change ED565 Intro to Instructional Technology ED637 Instructional Leadership School Finance ED599 Culminating Masters Project Special Education Curriculum Classes 0 0 • Bloomsburg University of Pa 400 E. Second St. Bloomsburg, PA 178151301 570-389-4000 Core Courses (9 credits) EDL.500 Introduction to Educational Leadership EDL.501 Organizational Behavior and Program Development EDL.503 School Law and Finance or EDL.524 Ethical, Legal & Leadership Issues in CSA Research Core (6 credits) EDL.502 Data, Driven Decisions or EDL.523 Assessment and the College Student Exp EDL.590 Educational Research and Writing K-12 School Principal Certificate (18 credits) 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 229 EDL.504 Supervision of Curriculum and Instruction EDL.507 Home School Community Relations EDL.508 Administrative Leadership in Education EDL.595 Principal Practicum/Internship SPEC ED.501 Special Education for Administrators Cabrini University 610 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 United States 610.902.8100 Core Courses (9 credits) EDG 501 - Educational Research EDG 521 - Sociocultural Foundations of Education EDG 540 - Philosophical Foundations of Education 1 Principal Certification Courses (24 credits) EDG 640 - The Principalship (30 hours) EDG 644 - Instructional Leadership (30 hours) EDG 647 - School Law EDG 643 - Management and Decision Making (30 hours) EDG 645 - Supervision and Performance Evaluation (30 hours) EDG 646 - Technology and Communications (30 hours) EDG 658 - Special Education Administration (30 hours) EDG 659 - Principal Internship (180 hours) Cairn University 200 Manor Avenue Langhorne, PA 19047 M.S. Degree Program: EDL 741 Principalship PK-12 EDU 703 Teaching Models and Instructional Strategies BIB 621 Introduction to Biblical Integration for Educators THE 601 Overview of Christian Theology SPE 664 Issues in Special Education for School Leaders EDU 717 Theoretical & Philosophical Foundations EDL 745 Organizational Theory and Team Building EDU 712 Curriculum Theory, Design & Assessment EDL 743 Financial and Business Management 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 230 EDL 742 Data Management and Technology Integration for School Leaders PK-12 EDL 744 School Law EDU 713 Educational Research EDL 791 Action Research Project Certificate Program: EDL 741 Principalship PK-12 EDL 745 Organizational Theory and Team Building EDL 742 Data Management and Technology Integration for School Leaders PK-12 EDL 743 Financial and Business Management EDL 744 School Law SPE 664 Issues in Special Education for School Leaders Ongoing EDL 784 PK-12 Internship California University of Pennsylvania 250 University Avenue California, PA 15419 M.S. ADP 641 G0 – School Community Relations Seminar ADP 647 G0 – Orientation and Assessment ADP 621 G0 – Curriculum Leadership ADP 661 G0 – Educational Leadership ADP 631 G0 – School Law & Ethics 3 ADP 670 G0 – Internship Part 1 ADP 626 G0 – Instructional Strategies ADP 664 G0 – Field Project/ Leadership (M.Ed. students only) ADP 673 G0 – Field Project/Research & Evaluation (M.Ed. students only) ADP 670 G0 – Internship Part 2 – Final Requirement for Certification Certification Track: ADP 641 G0 – School Community Relations Seminar ADP 647 G0 – Orientation and Assessment ADP 621 G0 – Curriculum Leadership ADP 661 G0 – Educational Leadership ADP 631 G0 – School Law & Ethics ADP 670 G0 – Internship Part 1 ADP 626 G0 – Instructional Strategies ADP 670 G0 – Internship Part 2 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 231 Carbon-Lehigh Intermediate Unit 21 4210 Independence Drive Schnecksville, PA 18078 Core Curriculum: Effective School Principalship Leadership for Student Achievement The Management of Education School Administration Legal Issues Leadership for Continuous Improvement Curriculum Essentials School and Community Relations School Finance and Resources Instructional Leadership 10 Learning Communities 0 Carlow University 3333 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Curriculum & Instruction Degree: No Principal certification listed on website; Cannot access curriculum and coursework N/A Carnegie-Mellon University Not listed on CMU website 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Chestnut Hill College 9601 Germantown Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19118 Cheyney University of Pa 1837 University Circle P.O. Box 200 Cheyney, PA 19319 EDUC 520 Educational Research and Evaluation (Required for M.Ed.) EDLR 600 Conceptual Foundations for School Leadership EDLR 610 Curriculum Theory, Development and Issues, Part 1 EDLR 611 Curriculum Theory, Development and Issues, Part 2 EDLR 615 The Improvement of Instruction, Staff Development, and Supervision EDLR 620 The Principal as an Effective Agent of Change EDLR 630 School and Community Relations EDLR 635 School Law EDLR 640 Personnel and Pupil Administration and Management EDLR 701 Educational Leadership Internship I EDLR 702 Educational Leadership Internship II XCW 506 Intro to Educational Leadership XCW 606 Principalship I XCW 626 Principle & Practices of Curriculum Development XCW 607 Principalship II N/A 0 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 232 XCW 641 School Law XCW 611 Internship I XCW 643 Basic Concepts in Special Education XCW 601 School Resource Management XCW 612 Internship II XCW 625 Supervision of Instruction XCW 613 Internship III Delaware Valley University 700 E. Butler Avenue Doylestown, PA 18901 M.S. in educational leadership: school administration (K-12 principal:) GE-6015 Introduction to Statistical Data and Research GE-6030 Theory and Application of Educational Administration GE-6035 Teaching and Supervising Diverse Student Populations GE-6060 Organizational Development, Change Theory and Staff Development GE-6070 Instructional Leadership and Supervision GE-6115 Principles, Methods, Development and Assessment of Curriculum GE-6130 School and Community Relations GE-6140 School Personnel Administration GE-6211 Building Exemplary School Curriculum by Design GE-6220 School Law GE-6240 School Finance and Accounting M.S. in educational leadership: supervisor of curriculum and instruction: GE-6015 Introduction to Statistical Data and Research GE-6030 Theory and Application of Educational Administration GE-6035 Teaching and Supervising Diverse Student Populations GE-6060 Organizational Development, Change Theory and Staff Development 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 233 GE-6070 Instructional Leadership and Supervision GE-6080 Foundations of Instructional Technology for Teaching and Learning GE 6091 Assessment Theory and Design to Support 21st Century Learning GE-6115 Principles, Methods, Development and Assessment of Curriculum GE-6130 School and Community Relations GE-6211 Building Exemplary School Curriculum by Design GE-6220 School Law Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 EDAM 702 School Leadership & Decision Making EDAM 705 School Law and Politics EDAM 708 Integration of Technology with School Instruction and Management EDAM 710 School Finance and Facilities EDAM 712 School and Community Partnerships and Relations EDAM 714 Instructional and Curriculum Leadership EDAM 715 School Principal Internship: Technology EDAM 716 School Principal Internship: Finance EDAM 717 School Principal Internship: Leadership EDAM 718 School Principal Internship: Relations Duquesne University 600 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 GADS 700 Orientation to School Leadership* GADS 557 Supervision GADS 681 School Law GADS 574 Pupil Personnel GADS 701 Principal Field Experience #1 GADS 671 Elementary School Admin. & Management GADS 575 Middle Level School Practice & Organization GADS 675 Secondary School Admin. & Management GADS 702 Principal Field Experience #2 GREV 500 Statistics in Behavioral Research 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 234 GADS 547 Advanced Curriculum GADS 703 Administration and Practice East Stroudsburg University of Pa 200 Prospect Street East Stroudsburg, PA 18301-2999 Core Requirements - 21 credits PSED 510 Teacher- School and Community PSED 515 Educational Data PSED 516 Learner & the Learning Process PSED 554 Construction PSED 584 Curriculum PSED 588 PSED 590 0 Foundations of Curriculum Middle and High School School Law Supervision of Instruction Educational Leadership (15 credits) PSED 573 Field Experience in Educational Leadership PSED 574 Field Experience in School Organization and Management PSED 575 Field Experience in Curriculum and Student Achievement PSED 595 Elementary and Secondary Educational Leadership Eastern University 1300 Eagle Road St. Davids, PA 19087 Edinboro University of Pa 219 Meadville Street Edinboro, PA 16444 EDUC 590 The Principalship I EDUC 591 The Principalship II EDUC 588 Principal as Instructional Leader IEDUC 589 Principal as Instructional Leader II EDUC 598 Leadership Models for Effective Education I EDUC 599 Leadership Models for Effective Education II Post Masters Certificate: EDLR 700 Introduction to Educational Leadership EDLR 721 Collaborative Leadership for Evaluation EDLR 731 School and Community Relations EDLR 741 Curriculum Leadership EDLR 760 Legal Aspects of Educational Leadership EDLR 765 Financial Aspects of Educational Leadership 0 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 235 EDLR 775 Educational Leadership Theory and Practice EDLR 789 Elementary Principal Internship* EDLR 794 Secondary Principal Internship* Gannon University 109 University Square Erie, PA 16541 GEDU 720 Quality Teaching, Continuous Learning, Professional Accountability GEDU 725 Principal Introductory Internship GEDU 722 School Financial Management GEDU 726 Finance Developmental Internship GEDU 730 Diverse Learner Competencies for School Leaders GEDU 731 Diverse Learner Developmental Internship GEDU 721 Principal as Agent of School Reform GEDU 723 Legal Aspects of Educational Administrators GEDU 727 Legal Aspects Developmental Internship GEDU 728 Principal Mastery Internship GEDU 732 Principal Leadership Cohort Mentor Portfolio Advisor 0 Gwynedd Mercy University EDU 571 The Principalship 1325 Sumneytown Pike EDU 572 Curriculum and Instructional Gwynedd Valley, PA 19437 Supervision EDU 573 Communications and SchoolCommunity Relations EDU 574 School Law and Policy Issues EDU 576 Human Resources and Staff Development EDU 577 School Resources Management EDU 578 Educational Leadership EDU 579 Seminar on Current Issues in Education EDU 595 Practicum I: Leadership and School Administration EDU 596 Practicum II: K-12 Principalship 0 Holy Family University 9801 Frankford Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19114 30 Credits Total Core Curriculum (9 credits) EDUC 527 Process and Pedagogy of Communication EDUC 578 Legal, Social and Political Issues 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 236 Research course, either EDUC 607 Seminar in Reading Research EDUC 505 Introduction to Research 3 Educational Leadership – Leads to Pennsylvania Principal Certification (21 credits) EDUC 580 Theories in Educational Leadership EDUC 582 Supervision and Performance Evaluation EDUC 583 The Principalship EDUC 584* Practicum I: Prin. K-6 EDUC 585* Practicum II: Prin. 7-12 1 EDUC 588 School Finance EDUC 589 Seminar in School Lead 3 EDUC 591* Practicum III: Prin. K-12 EDUC 620 Curriculum Development Immaculata University 1145 King Road Immaculata, PA. 19345 Indiana University of Pa/Main 1011 South Drive Indiana, PA. 15705 Kutztown University of Pa 15200 Kutztown Road Kutztown, PA 19530 21 Credits EDL 621 Administration EDL 622 Curriculum and Instruction EDL 623 Supervision EDL 625 School Law and the Legal Process EDL 626 School and Community Relations EDL 643 Special Education for School Leaders EDL 690 Practicum Experience EDAD 756 EDAD 798 elementary level EDAD 798 secondary level 1 Course of Study - 24 Credits I. Planning and Preparation: Curriculum - 6 credits SEU 567: Curriculum in a Standard Aligned System EDU 541: Supervision and Finance 0 II. Environment - 6 credits EDU 599: School Leadership in a Diverse Society 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 237 EDU 528: Student Diversity and Critical Pedagogy III. Instruction - 6 credits EDU 526: Data-Driven Decision Making SEU 544: Action Research for Teacher Leaders IV. Professionalism - 7 credits EDU 562: School Law EDU 593: Internship Lehigh University Iacocca Hall 111 Research Drive Bethlehem, PA 18015 Curriculum for K-12 Principal Certification (37 Credits) Core Requirements - 12 credits EDL 400 Organizational Leadership and Change Management EDL 424 Leadership: Self and Groups EDL 421 Instructional Leadership EDL 420 Data Based Decision Making Leadership & Management Skills - 15 credits EDL 422 Curriculum Management for the School Executive EDL 467 Supervision and Professional Development EDL 476 School Resources Management EDL 479 School Law and Ethics EDL 423 Leading Inclusive Learning Systems Apprenticeship - 10 Credits (All Core Requirements & Leadership & Management Skills coursework must be completed before proceeding to this section) EDL 404 The Principalship I EDL 405 The Principalship II EDL 414 Principal Internship I EDL 415 Principal Internship II Note: In order to attain the Master's degree and Pennsylvania K-12 Principal Certification, students need to also take the following courses in addition to the courses listed above: 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Lincoln University 1570 Baltimore Pike Lincoln University, PA 19352 Educ 471 Diversity and Multicultural Perspectives Educ 403 Research Course Requirements (36 credit hours, research track; 42 credit hours, certification track) Required Administrative Courses (30 credit hours) EDU 631 Human Resource Management in Education 3 EDU 632 Ethics in Educational Leadership and Practice 3 EDU 634 School Law 3 EDU 636 K-12 School Administration and Assessment 3 EDU 638 Curriculum Design & Instructional Improvement 3 EDU 642 Supervision and Instruction in K-12 Schools 3 EDU 647 School Finance and Fiscal Affairs 3 EDU 656 The Principalship 3 EDU 657 Instructional Leadership 3 EDU 658 School & Community Relations 3 238 0 Required Capstone (6 credit hours) EDU 661 Research Methods in Education 3 EDU 662 M.Ed. EL Thesis Project, or EDU 663 M.Ed. EL Comprehensive Examination Prep. 3 Required Field Experience for Certification Track Only (6 credit hours) EDU 659 K-12 Principal Internship I 3 EDU 660 K-12 Principal Internship II 3 Lock Haven University 401 N. Fairview Street Lock Haven, PA 17745 EDLD600 Intro to Educational Leadership EDLD602 School Law EDLD605 Curriculum and Program Evaluation EDLD607 Professional Development in Schools EDLD612 Instructional Strategies EDLD615 Supervision: Child Development Issues EDLD620 Leadership and Supervision 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Marywood University 2300 Adams Avenue Scranton, PA 18509 EDLD625 Special Education Leadership and Administration EDLD630 Leadership Skills for Curriculum Development EDLD650 Supervision: Curriculum Issues in a Standards Aligned System EDLD680 Supervision: Leadership and Administration EDLD685 Supervision Leadership and Administration Issues - Advanced Field Experience EDLD692 Reflective Practice and the Design of Action Research EDLD694 Supervised Advanced Field Experiences Masters Level Program: 36 Credits I. Professional Education and Core Courses EDUC 501 Research Theory COUN 532 Multicultural Issues in Counseling EDUC 605 Communication Theory and Organizational Dynamics EDUC 555 Professional Contribution II. Concentration EDUC 545 Administrative Theory for School Leaders EDUC 546 Seminar: Problems and Issues in Education EDUC 547 Curriculum Planning For Schools EDUC 548 Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction EDUC 549 Law and the School EDUC 551 School Finances EDUC 552 Personnel Leadership in Schools EDUC 593 Administrative Internship 3 Elective Credit Classes Certification Requirements (18 Credits) EDUC 545 Administrative Theory for School Leaders EDUC 547 Curriculum Planning For Schools EDUC 548 Supervision and Evaluation of Instruction EDUC 549 Law and the School 239 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Millersville University of Pa P.O. Box 1002 Millersville, PA 17551 Moravian College 1200 Main Street Bethlehem, PA 18018 240 EDUC 551 School Finances EDUC 593 Administrative Internship M.Ed. is a 36 credit program. 0 EDFN 545 Advanced Educational Psychology EDFN 601 Methods of Research EDFN 603 Philosophy of Education EDLD 610 Leadership Theory and Organizational Behavior EDLD 614 School and Community Relations EDLD 620 School Law, Public Policy and the Principal EDLD 667, EDLD 668 and EDLD 669 Leadership Seminars EDSU 700 Functions of Supervision EDSU 701 Introduction to Supervision EDSU 703 Curriculum and Supervision EDLD 798 Applied Supervision EDLD 799 Applied Practicum 30-credit post-graduate program 0 EDUC 617 Special Education: Identification & Effective Intervention EDUC 618 Effective Inclusionary Practices EDUC 622 School Law and Professional Ethics EDUC 655 Standards-Based Curriculum Design EDUC 658 Building a Culture of Learning EDUC 667 Teacher Supervision and Evaluation EDUC 668 Data-Driven Instructional Systems EDUC 723 Organizational Leadership EDUC 724 Principal Certification Practicum I EDUC 725 Principal Certification Practicum II PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Neumann University One Neumann Drive Aston, PA 19014-1298 The Pennsylvania State University 128 Outreach Building University Park, PA 16802 241 21 graduate credits; admission into the program requires six credits in special education. EDU 506 School Policy and Law EDU 507 The Principalship EDU 508 Fiscal and Facility Management EDU 509 Administration and Staff Development EDU 520 Curriculum Design and Evaluation EDU 577 Principal Certification Internship Online Credits Required: 18 or Master's degrees are a 30-credit M.Ed. program General Educational Leadership: core M.Ed program, has seven course strands: 0 Leadership & Administration Organizational Theory & Practice Diversity & Equity Educational Policy & Politics Law & Ethics Educational Resource Allocation Data Use & Research School Leadership-- using the general educational program as a foundation, this emphasis in our M.Ed. program is geared towards students who are interested in being school leaders. Embedded in this program is the Pennsylvania principal certification coursework. Point Park University 201 Wood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222 18-credit, post-baccalaureate program EDUC 538 Educational Administration EDUC 545 The Principalship EDUC 546 Curriculum Supervision & Leadership EDUC 549 Applied Research Practicum I: School Administrator - School Principal K-12 EDUC 550 Applied Research Practicum II: School Administrator - School Principal K-12 SPED 534 Differentiated Instructional Practices 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Relay Graduate School of Education 40 W. 20th Street., Floor 7 New York, NY 10011 Robert Morris University 6001 University Boulevard Moon Township, PA 15108 The National Principals and Principal Supervisors Academy consists of a two-week summer intensive in June or July and four weekend “intersessions” throughout the academic year. Developing a vision for strategic leadership Executing effective instructional planning Using data to drive instruction Creating a positive culture of high expectations for students Building an aligned staff culture Leading adult professional development Delivering effective observation and feedback sessions M.S. in Instructional Leadership degree program: 30 Credits Principal Certification Certificate: 15 credits 242 0 0 Curriculum Design & Assessment Foundations of Online Teaching Theory Learning & Classroom Management Enterprise Operating Systems Enterprise Database Systems Advanced Cobol Programming Rosemont College 1400 Montgomery Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Certification Requirements: 24 Credits EDU 4525 - Educational Leadership EDU 4528 - Standards-Aligned Curriculum & Instruction EDU 4590 - Classroom Assessment and Analysis EDU 4545 - Supervision and Evaluation EDU 4540 - Special Education Legal Requirements EDU 4536 - Finance and Resource Management EDU 4537 - School Law and Ethics EDU 4615 - Administrative Internships 1 M.A. Requirements: 6 Additional Credits EDU 4595 -Action Research in Education EDU 4518 -Social and Political Issues in Education Saint Francis University Program is 33 credits. 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 117 Evergreen Drive Loretto, PA 15940 Core: 15 credits required. No substitutions. MBA 500 - Perspectives on Management MBA 504 - Managerial Communications EDUC 532 - Educational Statistics EDUC 533 - Educational Research Procedures EDUC 512 - The Social Psychology of Learning 243 (+1 if special education supervisor certificate is added to coursework.) Enrichment: 3 credits required. EDUC 560 - Successful Inclusion for Educational Leaders (Principal certification track) EDUC 557f - Administration of Special Education (Special Ed Supervisor track) Specialization: 15 credits required. MHRM 512 - Employment Law MHRM 520 - Collective Bargaining MHRM 521 - Human Resource Management EDUC 582 - Teaching and Learning with Technology EDUC 553 - School and Community Development EDUC 515 - Curriculum Development and Saint Joseph's University 5600 City Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19131 Management EDUC 556 - School Law EDUC 581 - Ethics in Education EDUC 605 - Instructional Supervision EDUC 604 - School Principalship Educational Leadership - Education M.S.: 36 credits EDL 600 EdLeader Resrch &ReflectPract EDL 655 EDL 660 EDL 665 Interpersonal Relations Measurement & Evaluation Administration Planned Change EDL 670 Human Resource Development EDL 675 Curriculum Develop & Practice EDL 680 Law & American Ed 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Saint Vincent College 300 Fraser Purchase Road Latrobe, PA 15650 EDL 685 Curriculum EDL 690 EDL 695 Seminar in Admin of EDL 696 Advanced Fieldwork/Seminar II 244 Managing Financial Resources Advanced Fieldwork/Seminar I EDL 697 Advanced Fieldwork/Seminar III SPE 620 Fund SE Prac for School Ldrs Master of Science Degree in School Administration and Supervision: 39-credits 0 GCED 600 Educational Leadership and Professional Development GCED 605 Statistics and Research Design GCED 610 Current Issues and Trends GCED 615 Curriculum and Systems Design GCED 620 Assessment and Diagnostics GCED 630 Managing Financial and Material Resources GCED 645 Philosophical and Ethical Perspectives in Education GCED 655 Educational Jurisprudence GCED 675 Inclusionary Education GCED 680 Supervision of Instruction GCSE 607 Family and Professional Collaboration GCSE 697 Teaching Culturally Diverse Students with Limited English Proficiencies GCAD 676 Internship in School Administration: Fall Term GCAD 686 Internship in School Administration: Spring Term GCAD 696 Internship in School Administration: Summer Term Shippensburg University of Pa 1871 Old Main Drive Shippensburg, PA 17257 Post-Master's Degree Certification Program for School Principals: 15 Credits ELP514 Practicum I Leadership Field Experiences at the Building Level (PILs) ELP516 Curriculum Assessment and Instruction PK-12 for Diverse Student Populations (PILs) ELP518 The Role of Supervision in Promoting Student Achievement (PILs) 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 245 ELP519 Advanced Leadership and the School Principal PK-12 (PILs) ELP520 School Finance and Student Learning (PILs) ELP521 Legal and Ethical Issues that Impact on Student Learning (PILs) ELP522 Practicum II Advanced Leadership Field Experiences at the Building Level (PILs) Temple University/Main 1801 N. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 M.Ed. in School Leadership: 30 Credits 0 EDAD 5300 Intro Issues Sch Ldship 3 EDAD 5301 Leadership for Learning EDAD 5303 Ldshp in Diverse Context EDAD 5304 Sch Operations, Mgmt, Tech EDAD 5305 Knowledge Sch Improve EDUC 5101 Critical Understanding of Social Science Research Principal Leadership Concentration Courses EDAD 5302 Contexts for Sch Reform EDAD 5306 Change Leadership EDAD 5307 Clin Exp in Sch Ldship EDAD 5308 Clinical Experiences in School Leadership University of Pennsylvania 3440 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Certification Track: 15 Credits EDSL 506: Instructional Leadership to Promote Learning EDSL 509: Field Internship Seminar: Inquiry Into Leadership for School Improvement EDSL 503: Developing Instructional Leadership in Practice EDSL 504: Field Internship Seminar: Inquiring Into Organizational and Legal Dimensions of Principal Leadership EDSL 505: Aligning Fiscal, Human, and Community Resources in Support of the School's Instructional Mission Master’s Degree Additional Credits: EDSL 508: Applying Teaming and Moral Decision-Making Concepts in Schools EDSL 510: Critical Issues in Education 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 246 EDSL 507: Practitioner Research EDSL 502: Leadership in Public, Independent, and Parochial Schools EDSL 501: Sustainability in Schools University of Pittsburgh 230 South Bouquet Street Pittsburgh, PA 15260 15-month cohort-based program; the Leadership Initiative for Transforming Schools (LIFTS) program 2 ADMPS 2123 Summer Leadership Institute ADMPS 2402 Health, Mental Health, and Safety Internship ADMPS 2404 Instructional Leadership Internship ADMPS 2406 Assessment and Accountability ADMPS 2407 Politics of Education/School Community Partnerships ADMPS 2405 School Law ADMPS 2408 Positive Behavior Support (PBIS) Internship ADMPS 2410 Institutional Leadership ADMPS 2412 Leadership for Inclusive Schools Internship University of Scranton 800 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18510 M.S. in School Leadership: 27 Credits Educational Research Course (3 credits) EFND 506 - Educational Research and Statistics Foundations of Education Course (6 credits) EFND 516 - Advanced Educational Psychology EFND 521 - Advanced Foundations of Education Curriculum and Instruction Course (6 credits) ECUI 506 - Curriculum Theory and Development ECUI 542 - Literacy and Diversity Administration Courses (24 credits) EADM 501 - Educational Administration 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 247 EADM 506 - Problems in School Administration and Supervision EADM 511 - School Finance EADM 516 - School Law EADM 521 - Principal as Administrator EADM 526 - Principles & Practices of Supervision EADM 531 - Practicum in Elementary School Administration EADM 536 - Practicum in Secondary School Administration ECUI 506 - Curriculum Theory and Development Waynesburg University 51 W College Street Waynesburg, PA 15370 Post-masters certification: 24 Credits EDU 507 Curriculum and Instructional Leadership EDU 579 Leadership Filed Experience EDU 516 Assessment, Data Collection, and Technology EDU 579 Leadership Field Experience EDU 578 School, Community Relations EDU 579 Leadership Field Experience EDU 577 Supervision and Management EDU 579 Leadership Field Experience EDU 575 Special Education Leadership EDU 579 Leadership Field Experience EDU 568 Internship EDU 585 Seminar in Educational Leadership (taken concurrently with EDU 568) 1 M.ED. in Educational Leadership requires an additional 12 credits EDU 508 Contemporary Issues in Technology EDU 517 Instructional Leadership and Program Evaluation EDU 599 Educational Research Elective Westminster College 319 S Market Street New Wilmington, PA 16172 M.Ed. in School Leadership: 33 Credits ED 710 History and Philosophy of Education EP 740 Human Development ED 940 Research 1 OF THE ABOVE 3 COURSES 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 248 EAD 810 School and Community Relations EAD 826 Curriculum and Instruction EAD 830 Principles of Educational Leadership EAD 840 Supervision of Curriculum EAD 850 School Law EAD 860 Public School Finance and Economics EP 810 Assessment and Data Analysis EP 820 Special Education for School Leaders CS 710 Computers in Education (or demonstrated proficiency) EAD 980 Internship in Administration and Supervision Widener University One University Place Chester, PA 19013 M.Ed. in School Leadership: 39 Credits Research (3 semester hours) ED 510 Applications of Educational Research Foundations (12 semester hours) ED 502 Politics of Education or ED 504 Social Foundations of Education ED 503 Foundations of Educational Measurement ED 506 School Law & Child Rights ED 508 History & Philosophy of Education Professional Core (18 semester hours) ED 545 Supervision in Public Education ED 546 Analysis, Innovation, & Evaluation of Curriculum ED 547 Seminar in School Leadership ED 555 Current Issues in Elementary & Secondary Education ED 666 The School Leader’s Role in Special Education ED 747 Personnel Management for School Administrators ED 750 Organization & Administration of K– 12 Schools Practicum (6 semester hours) ED 810/811 Practicum in School Administration I & II 1 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Wilkes University 84 W South Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 M.S. in Educational Leadership: 36 Credit; certification only: 27 Credits 249 1 Certification Track: ED 517: The Principal as Educational Leader ED 523: Administrative Leadership in Curriculum and Instruction ED 571: Special Education Programming and Administration ED 573: Evaluation of Educational Programs ED 575: School Law for Principals ED 576: School Management and Communications ED 578: Staff Development and Supervision ED 592: Administrative Internship and Applied Research Project Additional credits for M.S.: ED 508: Intercultural Communication ED 525: Introduction to Educational Research ED 587: Technology Leadership York College of Pa 441 Country Club Road York, PA 17403 M.Ed. in Educational Leadership: 36 Credit; certification only: 24 Credits Certification Track: 24 Credits MED 502 Advanced Educational Psychology MED 550 Legal and Ethical Issues in Education for Administrators MED 560 The Principalship MED 561 Introduction to Organizational Leadership MED 562 Supervision of Instruction MED 565 School Financial Management MED 572 Supervision of Educational Personnel MED 594 Administrative Internship M.Ed. in Educational Leadership: 33 Credit; MED 501 Introduction to Educational Research MED 502 Advanced Educational Psychology MED 503 Curriculum Trends and Issues MED 504 Group Processes in Education 0 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION MED 550 Legal and Ethical Issues in Education for Administrators MED 560 The Principalship MED 561 Introduction to Organizational Leadership MED 562 Supervision of Instruction MED 565 School Financial Management MED 572 Supervision of Educational Personnel MED 594 Administrative Internship 250 PA PUBLIC-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 251 Appendix P: IRB Approval Letter From: irb Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:28:13 PM To: Barger-Anderson, Richael. Subject: IRB Protocol Approved Dr. Barger-Anderson, Protocol #: 2019-020-88-B Protocol Title: The Instructional Leadership Role of Pennsylvania Public School Principals and Their Effect on Special Education Practices The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Slippery Rock University has received and reviewed the requested modification(s) to the above-referenced protocol utilizing the expedited review process. The IRB has approved the protocol effective December 6, 2018. You may begin your project as of December 6, 2018. Your approved protocol will be subject to review within one year from the date of approval by the IRB. If you complete the study within the next year, please notify the IRB with a Final Report. The Final Report form and instructions can be found on the IRB website. Please contact the IRB Office by phone at (724)738-4846 or via email at irb@sru.edu should your protocol change in any way. Your formal letter will be sent via interoffice mail. Thanks, Casey Casey Hyatt Grants and Sponsored Research/ Institutional Review Board (IRB)/ Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) Secretary IRB & IACUC Office Direct Line: 724-738-4846 Fax: 724-738-4857