admin
Tue, 09/15/2026 - 17:40
Edited Text
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
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