Principals perspectives in determining the least restrictive environment for students with
disabilities in rural Northwestern Pennsylvania schools
*
A Dissertation
Presented to
The College of Graduate and Professional Studies
Department of Special Education
Slippery Rock University
Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania
__________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctorate of Special Education
__________________________________
By
Mr. Brandon M. Maines
Bachelor of Science in Education, Lock Haven University of PA, 2003
Master of Science in Education Teaching and Learning, Lock Haven University of PA, 2006
Master of Science in Education Educational Administration, Edinboro University of PA, 2007
Doctor of Education Special Education, Slippery Rock University of PA, 2021

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
2

Table of Contents
Signature Page
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Historical Perspective
B. Statement of the Problem
C. Significance of the Study
D. Delimitations
E. Assumptions
F. Definition of Terms
G. Conclusions
II. Review of Literature
A. Purpose of the Study
B. Research Questions
C. Need for the Study
D. Legal Impacts
E. Outline of Major Court Cases that Shaped Special Education Law
F. Least Restrictive Environment
G. Educational Leadership of Principal s in Special Education

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
3
H. Principal s Role in Mainstreaming/Inclusion
I. Developing a Systematic Program that Covers a Continuum of Services
J. Principal s Leading Special Education
K. Summary
III. Methodology
A. Action Plan: Intervention
B. Data Collection
C. Timeline
D. Data Analysis
E. Presentation of Results
F. Limitations
G. Summary
IV. Results of the Study
A. Demographics
B. Attitudes Toward Inclusion
C. Hypothetical Questions in Determining Least Restrictive Environment
D. Interview Questions
E. Summary
V. Discussion
A. Summary of Findings
B. Limitations
C. Recommendations for Future Studies
D. Conclusion

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
4

References
Appendix A: Survey
Appendix B: Interview Questions
Appendix C: IRB Approval

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
5
SIGNATURE PAGE

Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania
Department of Special Education
A Dissertation Written By
Mr. Brandon M. Maines
Bachelor of Science in Education, Lock Haven University of PA, 2003
Master of Science in Education Teaching and Learning, Lock Haven University of PA, 2006
Master of Science in Education Educational Administration, Edinboro University of PA, 2007
Doctor of Education Special Education, Slippery Rock University of PA, 2021

Approved by
Associate Professor of Special

_________________________________________, Title _______________________________
Education
Dr. Ashlea Rineer-Hershey, Dissertation Chair

Assistant Professor - Special Education
_________________________________________, Title _______________________________
Dr. Anne Rose, Dissertation Committee Member

Professor, Dept. of Special Education and Disability Policy Studies, Clarion University of PA

_________________________________________, Title _______________________________
Dr. Amy Love, Dissertation Committee Member

Accepted by
____________________________________, Dean College of Education,
Dr. Keith Dils
Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
6
ABSTRACT
This research was conducted to determine the perspectives of principals in determining
the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. When principals are placed into
the role of Local Education Agency (LEA) they are part of the decision-making process for
determining the least restrictive environment (LRE) for individuals with disabilities in their
schools. This research focused on the perceptions and attitudes that the principals have as it
relates to special education. The research utilized a two-part investigation. For the first part,
principals were asked to answer questions related to demographic data and educational
experiences. Then, were asked a series of questions related to their attitudes toward inclusionary
practices. Principals were then asked several hypothetical questions related to determining the
LRE for students with disabilities. In the second part of the research, participants engaged in a
face to face virtual interview that asked a series of questions related to their role as the LEA in
their school and the perspectives that each principal had in relations to determining the LRE for
students with disabilities. The results of the research indicated that principals lack the
fundamental capacity to fully understand special education and its implications. The research
showed and overwhelming need for in-depth professional development in the area of special
education for principals as it relates to leading their schools and special education population.
The need to build capacity to lead initiatives such as inclusion within their school is imperative
in moving forward to ensure that individuals with special needs are educated in the LRE.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The g ea e challenge in life i di co e ing ho o a e. The econd g ea e i being
ha
i h ha o find Oscar Auliq-Ice

Challenges are always mountains in the distance that people struggle to even approach.
Approaching the mountain and making the decision to begin is the ultimate test of one s inner
strength. Continuing on that journey, overcoming obstacles, misfortunes and mind games just
makes one stronger. I personally thank God for guiding me on this journey through life and
finally being able to be me!
Thank You, Dr. Ashlee Rineer-Hershey, for all of your valuable and insightful guidance
throughout this process. Your encouragement and uplifting spirits along with your ability to
challenge me when I needed it goes without solitude. I must also thank the members of my
committee. Dr. Amy Love, your swift nature and class gave me the needed drive to ensure my
overall success in this process. Dr. Anne Rose, your intellectual guidance and feedback during
this journey was invaluable.
To my partner, Donnie Rice thank you for your patience and love during this specific
time in our lives. Thank you for your understanding and always being there when I needed a
break or just needed someone to talk to.
To Dr. Cybill Reed, your friendship and intellect was appreciated throughout this entire
journey. The phone calls and assistance that you provided is a debt that I will never ever be able
to repay.
To my friends, your encouragement and friendship goes beyond what anyone would ever
expect. I wish each and every person in this world had a friendship circle like us, that lasts for
forever.
To my most amazingly beautiful children, Maxwell and Molly, you give me the strength
to keep going day to day and work so hard for your happiness. My love for you goes beyond
every mountain and valley. You are my world!!!
Lastly, this work is dedicated to my parents Frankie and Bonnie Maines. Your ability to
raise me and challenge me, but also allowing me to be me is something that I struggle to find the
words to express. A day does not go by where I am so proud that you are my mom and dad!
You are the very best!

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
8

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
The success of any institution can be linked to leaders such as Bill Gates, Mike
Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos who set the stage for success. The area of education is no different.
School leaders set the tone and vision for the overall success of the school program. In 2001,
George W. Bush enacted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The NCLB law which grew
out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive
significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress
of all students. It put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance
of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education,
and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers (Klein, 2020).
This law placed much more emphasis on the local leaders and the decisions that they make in
reference to all students, but specifically students in special groups, including students with
special needs. The NCLB act is one of the first laws that focused on achievement with students
with special needs.
School leadership in the role of the principal is vital to ensuring that students with special
needs are included in the overall educational system in their least restrictive environment.
Designing a program that meets their specific and unique needs and making decisions on where
the child with a disability will be placed falls on the school leaders within the school. Prior to
NCLB, school leaders were considered managers of the school. Their daily duties included
managing the students and staff and ensuring each and every day was successful. Now, their
leadership is critical to the overall success of the school. In the past, school principals did not
have to engage with students with disabilities. The principal needs to be familiar with the

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
9
concept and practice of special education (Bateman & Bateman, 2014). Now, the principal s
role in determining the best program for the child with a disability is an everyday part of their
position. Because this role has become more focused on special education, it is critical to
understand how principals make the determination of where to educate a student with a disability
and their attitudes toward including students with disabilities in the regular education
environment.
Often decisions and options for students with special needs are limited in rural school
districts where the overall student population is low. Principals are tasked with providing the
highest quality of education with lowest amount of resources available. By determining the
factors that principals utilize when making decisions on placement of students in the least
restrictive environment, it will assist in providing guidance on professional development needs
and a more structured way of making determinations.
Statement of the Problem
Principals are tasked with many duties throughout their school day - from ensuring the
safety of all students to the day to day tasks to make any school run smoothly. Many principals
come to the job with a huge skill set that qualifies them to be the best leader to run the school.
While many of those skills are set and necessary, few principals have a large skill set in the area
of special education.
In Pennsylvania, the law requires that a representative from the school district that can
offer resources be a member of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team, this often is the
principal of the school. This representative is considered to be the Local Education Agency
(LEA). The LEA is a person identified within the local school district that is able to allocate
resources to ensure that the overall needs of students are met. While most school districts have a

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
10
special education director, that position is overwhelmed with the sheer number of students
requiring special education services that it is impossible to be at every IEP meeting. Thus, the
principal becomes the person responsible for ensuring the best education possible for students
with disabilities. The principal also ensures that the services that are necessary in the IEP are
done in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
Many school principals lack the necessary skills and mindset to ensure that all services
are done in the LRE and have very different attitudes and perspectives that guide their decisionmaking when making these determinations. Being in a rural area in Northwestern Pennsylvania,
the lack of resources available makes these determinations much more difficult. Each principal
has his/her own unique factors in making the determination for least restrictive environment thus
creating the problem in ensuring the best education is achieved for each and every student with a
disability.
While principals utilize their own backgrounds and knowledge base to make decisions for
students with disabilities, no one principal does it the same across school districts. Often,
principals within a school have similar determining factors that lead to their decisions and
guidance in IEP meetings, but the LRE should be very similar across all school districts.
Chapter 14 of the Pennsylvania school code provides guidance to all school districts that
they must have a continuum of services to meet the needs of all students. The guidance shows
there are 14 areas of special education for which a school district must be able to provide
services. The law sets this continuum for all schools. Schools utilize this parameter to set their
individual programs. The services that they provide are accomplished in many different ways.
When making the determination of an educational program for a student with disabilities
there are several legal implications in making that decision. School districts propose an

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
11
educational program that meets the child s needs in the least restrictive environment. If this
placement is incorrect, then a parent is able to file a due process claim against the school district.
Due process is a formal way to resolve disputes between parents and the school. These most like
include hearing officers and council representation. The law clearly states that it is the
educational professional s duty to ensure that the student is educated in the least restrictive
environment, not the parents; duty. As school districts are tasked with this challenge it is often
the principals, who often have very little experience in special education law, who make these
decisions for students with disabilities. The lack of uniformity can also cause distress among
students who are transient due to different services that are offered in different ways at different
districts.
In the last several years there has been an uptick in the number of due process cases that
have been brought to school districts. Many of the lawsuits are due to the school districts not
providing educational services to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.
While this problem continues to raise questions in the community, the areas within this
study are very rural and many contain high poverty rates. The following chart shows the
percentages of students with free and reduced lunch in each of the school districts. The state
median level is 42%.
Table 1
Free and Reduced Lunch Percentages by District
School District

Percentage of students receiving free
or reduced lunch

District A

52%

District B

39%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
12
District C

61%

District D

79%

District E

44%

District F

44%

District G

52%

District H

41%

It is assumed that the principals that service the school districts within this study have
very limited knowledge of special education law and the factors that can and do lead to due
process claims against the district. The lack of educational background is presumed to be very
high for principals and assistant principals within this study. Many of the principals and assistant
principals learn on the job, which is very dangerous and opens the schools up to very costly
litigation for students with special needs.
Through evaluation of the existing research, various sources point to principals not
having a conceptual understanding of laws and the governing of those laws for students with
special needs. Examination of the history of least restrictive environment and overall progress of
the laws that govern special education shows that the role of the building principal has recently
evolved since the onset of the NCLB Act. A principal s overall involvement in the role of
special education leader has only occurred in the last 20 years. Thus, creating the vacuum of
principals that do not possess the background knowledge necessary to effectively lead special
education. Their limited knowledge comes from on the job experiences, minimal professional
development, and by their own personal research.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
13
With the lack of fundamental knowledge this research was designed to obtain a better
understanding of the key concepts and ways that principals determine the least restrictive
environment for students with disabilities in their respective buildings and districts. Also,
understanding how their attitudes towards the special education population is critical to the
overall design of this investigation. By combining the determining factors that leaders utilize in
determining educational placement with their overall attitudes towards the special education
population in their schools, the contribution of the research will show the needs in this area for
the future. The focus of the research will be around two main research questions:
1. What are the determining factors that principals utilize when making least restrictive
environment determinations for students with disabilities?
2. What are the attitudes of principals and assistant principals towards inclusion of
students with disabilities in the regular education classroom?
The overview of this study utilizes a qualitative study using mixed methods. Due to the
large geographic area that the school districts cover it was determined that the use of an online
survey would be best to try to capture as many school principals and assistant principals that
were within the study. However, including the paper and pencil survey allows for individuals
who do not prefer, or trust, online data collection to partake in the study. To follow up on the
survey, the face to face interview was selected to give the interviewee the opportunity to express
him or herself about his/her true perspectives on special education.
Significance of Study
Much of the existing research conducted shows that principals lack the fundamental
understanding of special education and the laws the surround it. Review of the current and
existing research indicates there was zero evidence of research conducted in rural Northwestern

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
14
Pennsylvania that focused on the determining factors and principals attitudes toward educating
students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.
By gaining a comprehensive understanding of the determining factors and attitudes that
principals employ when making special education decisions, this research study could provide
guidance for future professional development in this area. The local intermediate unit provides
professional development monthly to the principals within their geographic area. The results of
this study could guide the professional development team at the intermediate unit in the
development of a comprehensive special education program designed to help principals and
assistant principals gain a better knowledge base in the area of special education. Furthermore,
the results of this study could provide local information to the school districts for future
professional development guidance for their administration. Finally, the results of this study
could assist local and state university principal preparation programs to ensure that they are
providing a comprehensive special education part to their preparatory programs.
Delimitations
The limitations of this study are that the study is based upon the honesty and fidelity of
the survey and interview subjective responses of the administrators surveyed and interviewed.
At times, the questions within this study can create instability when faced with questions that
may appear to be negative toward a particular principal or the district that they serve. Another
limitation of the study is that due to the study being conducted across several school districts
each school district has very different systems in place to service students with special needs.
Some of the schools within the focus of the study utilize the local intermediate unit s consortium
classrooms to service students with the most complex needs, while other schools service these
students within their own programs due to the lower numbers of students enrolled in a particular

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
15
disability category. Consortium classrooms are developed and implemented by the local
intermediate unit to assist schools with low enrollment within a category. These classrooms are
spread throughout the districts serviced by the intermediate unit. Local school districts can
utilize these consortium classrooms housed in different districts to meet the unique needs of the
students that they serve.
This study was limited to Northwestern Pennsylvania and may not represent other areas
in Pennsylvania or outside of the state. Also, the limitations of total school enrollment are
indicative of the nature of the special education programs that they serve. Being that this study is
in Northwestern Pennsylvania, a school district in a similar district, with enrollment the same, in
another part of Pennsylvania may not show the same results.
Assumptions
The special education law is very complex and comprehensive. Elementary and
secondary principals do not have a fundamental base of special education law. This lack of
fundamental knowledge can lead to misinterpretations of the law that could misguide principals
in making the decisions for educational placement incorrectly. Understanding LRE along with
interventions, adaptations and modifications can also influence a principal s decision when
determining educational placement. Principals need to have a through understanding of how
special education functions within a school. This functioning has an overall impact on general
education, student placement, master scheduling, personnel, resources, and the overall operation
of the school building.
Being in the rural areas of Northwestern Pennsylvania, the socioeconomic status of the
schools is very low. These areas lack resources and industry to increase the median income
levels of the households. Rooted in farming, much of the industry is not modernized and leads to

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
16
higher poverty levels within each of the school districts. Many of the schools have limited
resources - both physical and financial resources - in order to meet the students needs in the
LRE. Therefore, with the lack of resources, understanding and meeting the needs of the students
becomes very difficult when trying to adhere to the laws surrounding special education.
Definition of Terms
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

IDEA defines LRE in two prongs: (1) To the maximum

extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions
or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; (2) Special classes,
separate schools, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily
(Sec. 300.114 LRE requirements, 2017).
Mainstreaming

students with disabilities are placed in the regular education classroom for part

of the school day (US Legal, 2019).
Inclusion

secures opportunities for students with disabilities to learn alongside their non-

disabled peers in the general education classroom (Your Dictionary, 2020)
Special Education

a form of learning provided to students with exceptional needs, such as

students with learning disabilities or other challenges
School leader

means a principal, assistant principal, building administrator or other individual

who is (a) an employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary school, local educational
agency, or other entity operating an elementary school or secondary school, and (b) responsible

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
17
for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operation in the elementary school or
secondary school building (ESSA, 2015)
Local Education Agency (LEA)

As defined by ESEA, a public board of education or other

public authority legally constituted within a state for either administrative control or direction of,
or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city,
county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a state, or for a combination of
school districts or counties that is recognized in a state as an administrative agency for its public
elementary schools or secondary schools (U.S. Department of Education, n.d)

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) a written plan for the provision of services for the
education of students who are disabled or gifted (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2020)

Disability a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or
more major life activity (ADA National Network, 2020)

Educational Placement

the overall instructional setting in which the students receives their

education including the special education and related services provided (Law Insider, n.d.)

Professional Development

a wide variety of specialized training, formal education, or

advanced professional learning intended to help administrators, teachers, and other educators
improve their professional knowledge, competence, skill and effectiveness (Great School
Partnerships, 2013)

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
18
General Education

the program of education that typically developing children should receive,

based on state standards and evaluated by the annual state educational standards test (Webster,
2019)
Conclusion
Investigating the nature of the principal s perspectives in determining the least restrictive
environment is essential in determining the need for professional development. Understanding
how each of the principals in these rural school make determinations for students when being
placed in the LEA role. By ensuring that the principals understand the process, and can make
educated decisions, is essential in preserving the integrity of education for all students with
disabilities in the rural counties in Northwestern Pennsylvania and across the country.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
19
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Purpose of the Study
For years, the idea of special education and the location in which those services are
provided have been widely controversial topic of debate. Through various challenges and
changes, the world of special education has and continues to be dramatically transformed. One
aspect of this transformation is the idea of where special education services are to be delivered.
The historical context of the transformation along with recent case studies has proven that there
continues to be very biased opinions on where to best service individuals with disabilities.
Special education supports and services and the related services that often accompany special
education vary from state to state. What one student may receive in one state is not necessarily
what that student will receive in another state. This is due to the overwhelming different
interpretations of the laws that govern the country relating to special education, and the
individual state laws that surround special education. In Pennsylvania, Chapter 14 of the
Pennsylvania School Code of 1949 regulations govern the oversight of special education services
and how those services impact children with disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.SC. Section 1400 et seq.)
requires that each LEA to make available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the
LRE and provide a continuum of placement alternatives for children with disabilities
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2001). Regulations call for LEA s to ensure that the
needs of the students with disabilities are met in the LRE. The IDEA 2004 identifies the LEA
representative as someone who;
(i) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to
meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;
(ii) is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
20
(iii) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.
(34 CFR 300.321(a)(4))
(Parker, n.d.)
The LEA representative is a very important role and is a required member of the IEP
team. (Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, 2018). In rural Northwestern
Pennsylvania, the financial resources are often stretched very thin and, all too often, principals
fulfill the role of the LEA in IEP meetings. Principals have the authority, as the law states, to
expedite each of the three criteria. The issue arises when principals do not have the background
knowledge in special education and are called upon to make decisions that clearly impact the
child and the child s right to a free and appropriate public education.
The purpose of this study is to examine the determining factors that principals utilize
when making decisions regarding placement of students in their least restrictive environment.
Inclusion of students with disabilities have also transformed over the years, and more and more
students with disabilities are being educated among their general education peers. Principals that
serve as LEAs have to be the driver of inclusion. Inclusion implies the presumption of
placement in the regular education classroom with children without disabilities (Thompson,
2015). The attitudes of principals who serve as LEA in IEP meetings can impact the educational
placement of students. This research will also examine the attitudes that principals possess in
making placement decisions for students with disabilities.
Research Questions
1. What are the determining factors that principals utilize when making least restrictive
environment determinations for students with disabilities?

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
21
2. What are the attitudes of principals and assistant principals towards inclusion of
students with disabilities in the regular education classroom?
Need for the Study
Rural Northwestern Pennsylvania contains several school districts that serve students
from low socio-economic homes. This research examines the perspectives of principals from
seven rural school districts in counties in Northwestern Pennsylvania. Recently there has been
an increase in the number of legal claims that these districts are facing. The use of LEAs with
limited background knowledge in special education could have an impact on the likelihood that
the school district will be facing litigation. The impact of the rural areas and the use of
principals in the role of special education LEA is essential in determining whether school
districts should utilize principals in determining special education services for students with
disabilities. Understanding the background training, knowledge of special education law and the
attitudes of the principals in making decisions regarding the least restrictive environment is
needed to determine how educational placement decisions are made.
Legal Impacts
Prior to the 1950s, individuals with disabilities were either segregated, institutionalized,
or remained at home for their education. Early special education laws were created to remedy
this exclusion (Carson, 2015). Two landmark court cases set the stage for transformation in the
way in which individuals with disabilities are educated in the public-school system. The
Supreme Court s decision in Brown v. Board of Education ultimately sparked the desegregation
of students with disabilities (McGovern, 2015). Although the decision specifically concerned
segregation based on race, it highlighted the importance of providing an equal education to all
students including those with disabilities (Prager, 2014).

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
22
In the early 1970 s, in a response to Brown v. Board of Education the Pennsylvania
Association for Retarded Children (PARC) brought a class action law suit against the state of
Pennsylvania (Taylor, 2004). This group represented thirteen children with an intellectually
disability who had been excluded from Pennsylvania s public schools. These students were
considered to be uneducable and untrainable (Prager, 2014). Then, in the Mills v. Board of
Education, a class action lawsuit similar to PARC v. Pennsylvania brought action based on the
denial of public education to children who were classified as intellectually disabled, hyperactive,
or emotionally disturbed (Prager, 2014).
The PARC and Mills class action suits outcomes only were truly pertinent in
Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia, they were the catalysts to the desegregation of
students with disabilities in all public schools. Recognizing the need for legislation that protects
the right to education for children with disabilities, Congress enacted the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 also known as PL 94-142 (McGovern, 2004). This act was
the legislative law that set the stage for the implementation of the LRE consideration when
determining where to educate students with disabilities (Aquarian, 2013). According to PL 94142, students with disabilities from ages 5-21 are required to be educated with their peers
without disabilities to the maximum extent possible regardless of the nature and severity of their
disabilities. (Alquraini, 2013). PL 94-142 was designed to guarantee access to public education
by offering federal funding to states that established policies to assure that all children with
disabilities were given access to a free and appropriate public education, this term is also known
as FAPE. Furthermore, it required that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate
public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to fit the needs of each
individual student (McGovern, 2015).

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
23
In 1990, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act legislation was amended and
renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which is the federal law that governs the
provision of special education and related services to children with disabilities in the USA. The
key amendment changed the term mainstreaming of individuals with disabilities into the
general education environment to the term inclusion (Alquraini, 2013). In 2001, the United
States government enacted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The key provision of this act
was to expand the role of the federal government beyond just providing federal monies to states,
to also holding the states accountable by mandating standards and sanctions for states who do not
set the criteria (Prager, 2014). This act also reaffirmed that individuals with disabilities were also
expected to achieve and make progress according to their individual goals under FAPE. In 2015,
NCLB was replaced with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA contained many
of the same components of NCLB but focused on accountability plans and accountability goals
for all students (Yell, 2019). Finally, in 2017, a major supreme court decision changed language
regarding students with disabilities. In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Chief
Justice John Roberts wrote,
When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing merely
more than de minimis progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered
an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low
would be tantamount to sitting idly . . . awaiting the time they were old enough to drop
out. The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated
to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child s circumstances.
(Yell, 2019, p. 57)

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
24
Outline of Major Court Cases that Shaped Special Education Law
Over the last 70 years, individuals with disabilities have overcome many obstacles from
segregation to inclusion. These events and laws have developed and continue to take shape, as
recent as 2017 with Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. These impacts have given
students with disabilities more and more rights, especially when it comes to receiving their
education in the least restrictive environment. The following table outlines major milestones for
individuals with disabilities.
Table 2
Timeline of Events Impacting Special Education
Date

Milestones

Results impacting LRE

1954

Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka

Highlighted the importance of providing and
equal education to all students including
students with disabilities
(Prager, 2014)

1965

Elementary and Secondary
Education Act

Authorized funds for professional
development, instructional materials,
resources to support educational programs,
and the promotion of parental involvement
(Casalaspi, 2017)

1966

Title VI added to Elementary
and Secondary Education Act

Stated that no person in the United States
shall, on the ground of race, color, or nation
origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance
(Casalaspi, 2017)

1972

Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Children (PARC) v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

The first right to education suit in the country
and secured education for all students
(McGovern, 2015)

1972

Mills v. Board of Education

Ruled that no child eligible for a publicly
supported education in the District of
Columbia public schools shall be excluded

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
25
from a regular public-school assignment
unless adequate alternative educational
services suited to the child s needs and a
constitutionally adequate prior hearing and
periodic review of the child s status, progress,
and the adequacy of any educational
alternative are provided
(McGovern, 2015)
1973

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act

Stated that no otherwise qualified
handicapped individual in the United States
shall solely by reason of his handicap, be
excluded from the participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program receiving
Federal financial assistance
(Moore, 1979)

1975

Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975

-Guaranteed access to public education by
offering federal funding to states that
established policies to assure that all children
with disabilities were given access to a free
and appropriate public education
(McGovern, 2015)
-Stated that to the maximum extend
appropriate, children with
disabilities [should be] educated with
children who are not disabled, and that special
classes, separate schooling, or other removal
of children with disabilities from the regular
educational environment occurs only when
the nature or severity of the disability is such
that education in regular classes with the use
of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily
(Brock, 2018)

1982

Hendrick Hudson Central
School District v. Rowley

Defined appropriate education as
personali ed instruction with sufficient
support services to permit the child to benefit
educationally from that instruction
(McGovern, 2015)

1983

Roncker v. Walter

Developed a two-part test to determine
placement for students with disabilities

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
26
(Garrison-Wade, 2005)
1987

The Regular Education Initiative

Encouraged both regular and special
education personnel to work together more
effectively to provide the best education
possible for all children, by adapting the
regular education environment to better
accommodate the student s needs
(Whitworth, 1994)

1990

Public Law 94-142 is renamed
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act

Mandates that students with disabilities
should only be placed in separate classes or
schools when the nature or severity of their
disabilities is such that they could not receive
and appropriate level of education in a general
education classroom with supplementary
aides and services
Replaces the term mainstreaming with
inclusion
(Alquaraini, 2013)

1990

Americans with Disabilities
(ADA)

Civil rights law that prohibits discrimination
against individuals with disabilities in all
areas of public life, including jobs, schools,
transportation, and all public and private
places that are open to the general public
Its purpose is to make sure that people with
disabilities have the same rights and
opportunities as everyone else
(ADA National Network, 2020)

1991

Greer v. Rome City School
District

The court decided in favor of parents who
objected to the placement of their daughter in
a self-contained special education classroom
(Garrison-Wade, 2005)

1993

Oberti v. Clementon School
District

Changed from IDEA s mainstreaming
approach to the concept of inclusion
(Garrison-Wade, 2005)

1994

Sacramento City Unified School
District v. Holland

Challenged the district on placement of a
student and ruled when determining
placement, mainstreaming a student with
disabilities in regular education classes with

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
27
supplemental aids and services must first be
considered prior to placement in a special
education classroom
(Garrison-Wade, 2005)
2001

No Child Left Behind

Required that students with disabilities must
participate in all state and district-wide
assessments, have access to the general
education curriculum, and receive their
instruction from highly qualified special and
general education teachers
(Sumbera, Pazey & Lashley, 2014)

2004

Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act

Strongly emphasized a preference for
placement in general education classrooms,
stating that the education of children with
disabilities can be made more effective by
having high expectations for children and
ensuring their access to the general education
curriculum in the regular classroom, to the
maximum extent possible
(Brock, 2018)

2006

J.L. v. Mercer Island School
District

Clarified IDEA s main requirement of FAPE
by tying a student s IEP goals and subsequent
efforts to support such goals to the provision
of FAPE, stressing that school must provide a
meaningful education to students with
disabilities
Mandated that the students IEP must be
reasonably calculated to enable the child to
receive educational benefits
(Sumbera, Pazey & Lashley, 2014)

2007

Winkelman v. Parma

Mandated parental involvement in the
Individualized Education Program process
Guaranteed the rights of both children with
disabilities and their parents
Explained that parents must be involved in the
process of providing a student with a
disability FAPE
(Zagona, Miller, Kurth & Love, 2019)

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
28
2015

Every Student Succeeds Act
replaces No Child Left Behind

Call for quality teaching and encouragement
of inclusive education
(Alsarawi, 2019)

2017

Endrew F. v. Douglas County
School District

It requires an educational program reasonably
calculated to enable a child to make progress
appropriate in light of the child s
circumstances
(Yell, 2019)

Least Restrictive Environment
Since the late 1960s up through the early 1990s and even now, the concept of the least
restrictive environment (LRE) has guided the design of services for people with disabilities. The
LRE principle has been incorporated into federal and state policies and has been widely accepted
by professionals in the field (Taylor, 2004). By understanding and determining the best
placement of students with disabilities, the term sets the standard for ensuring that students are
educated in the best possible location with their non-disabled peers to the greatest extend
possible.
As the courts have redefined education from Brown v. Board to Endrew F. v. Douglas
County School District, the interpretation of LRE continues to be a very gray area that is set for
interpretation. LRE was defined in IDEA and reads:
Each public agency must ensure that

(i) [t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children

with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities,
are educated with children who are nondisabled; and (ii) [s]pecial classes, separate
schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily (Carson, 2015).

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
29
Often times, schools have to make decisions regarding the placement of individuals with
disabilities and make those decisions for the wrong reasons. Cramer (2015) explains that
placement decisions should not be based on severity of disability, disability label, availability of
educational or related services within a particular setting, availability of space, or administrative
suitability. These are all illegitimate reasons for choosing placement. As these decisions are all
considered illegitimate, there continues to be several interpretations of LRE and various guiding
decisions that are utilized when determining the best place to educate students. Finding and
utilizing a common tool for determining LRE continues to be a struggle.
The theoretical frameworks established through the Council for Exceptional Children
(2020) assisted in the development of the LRE/Achievement at a Glance tool. This tool consists
of nine educational domains. When used, this tool is considered to provide a picture of the
programs, services, and learner outcomes of students with disabilities at a particular school.
Cramer (2015) studied the use of this tool and as a result it was determined that when utilizing
the tool to make educational placement decisions there was a statistically significant increase in
both the inclusion rate and the average amount of time that students with disabilities spend with
their non-disabled peers.
Kurth et al. (2019), conducted a study that focused on the statements within students
IEPs that determined the educational placement decisions. The study coded out terms associated
with 88 students with disabilities. Its purpose was to understand what factors IEP teams
document when making LRE decisions, and to describe the general education classes or
activities in which students with disabilities participate. One of the key factors that resulted from
the study was that within IEPs, the teams identified many factors that justified a student s
removal from general education settings.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
30
How school districts determine the LRE for students continues to be very haphazard, and
often individuals such as principals have very limited knowledge of the laws. How these LRE
considerations factor into placement choices affects special education decision making (Carson,
2016). The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 makes principals responsible
for providing students with disabilities FAPE in the LRE, as delineated in the student s IEP
(Sumbera et al., 2014). The administrative representative of the LEA who is often the principal,
must be able and willing to allocate the resources necessary for the provision of FAPE and LRE
(Prager, 2014). How the principal constructs his or her interpretation of appropriate can have a
significant impact on the outcome of a child s IEP

a legal document that represents the

embodiment of a student s FAPE in the LRE (Sumbera et al., 2014). Many principals focus on
the technical mandates of IDEA versus how to provide instructional supports for students with
disabilities along with confusion on how to implement the mandates of the law.
Educational Leadership of Principals in Special Education
Since the onset of rights for students with disabilities, school principals had a limited role
in the education of students with disabilities. Principals ensured that special education was a
place for students with disabilities to be educated, but rarely engaged in the educational process
for these students. Over time principals have gained more and more responsibility as it pertains
to students with special needs. The NCLB Act of 2002 caused principals to inherit greater
responsibility for the education of all students. IDEA of 2004 expanded the role of the principal
to include special education leadership (Sumbera et al., 2014). In the past, principals served as
building managers and student disciplinarians, but today they play a key role in school
improvement and improving student outcomes (Hanley, 2015). With this expanded role, the
principal now has become the educational leader for all students and must comply with the laws

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
31
surrounding special education services for those students identified with disabilities. The
question that arises for this new role centers around the amount of training that principals have
received in order to perform the daunting task of supervision of special education.
A study conducted by Davis (2001), focused on 345 elementary and secondary principals
and their training in the area of special education. The study showed that 77% of principals
received no or some training in the area of special education. With only 4.8% (16) of the 345
respondents reporting having high or very high exposure to children with disabilities in their
formal collegiate coursework. With this limited exposure, the leadership for individuals with
disabilities is in jeopardy. Principals lacking the background knowledge in special education
leadership struggle to lead this unique area. Their lack of a fundamental background causes the
true meaning and goals of special education to be carried out.
School leaders play a central role in creating the conditions necessary for changes to
occur by determining what initiatives are undertaken and, ultimately, how inclusively a school
functions (Salisbury, 2006). Significant findings revealed the principals who feel unprepared in
special education do not always develop an inclusionary culture, or understand its benefits to
student learning (Hofreiter, 2017). The school principal must have the knowledge and skills to
advocate for appropriate placement and services of all students enrolled in their schools as
mandated by federal and state legislation (Roberts & Guerra, 2017). The responsibilities of the
principal, in relation to special education, have increased over the years while the required
training has remained the same. While being underprepared, it is still widely accepted that the
role of the principal is paramount in facilitating and sustaining inclusive practices. Case studies
involving successful inclusive schools report that: (a) principals have a clear commitment to
inclusion that is non-negotiable, and (b) they employ a range of key practices and activities as

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
32
they lead and participate in the change process (Lyons, 2016). These effective principals model
positive attitudes towards acceptance of all children, visit special education classrooms, spend
time with students with disabilities, tour the building daily, and become involved with the
concerns of all students and programs (Garrison-Wade, 2005).
Due to the lack of a fundamental understanding in special education, a complete and
cohesive program may struggle to exist. Principals work with staff to: (a) identify professional
development needs and preferences, (b) facilitate access teacher-centered professional
development opportunities, and (c) create schedules and school structures to enable teachers to
work together to plan, implement, and evaluate inclusive practices (Lyons, 2016). While
professional development and school structures are key, the lack of the fundamental
understanding of special education can significantly impact one s ability to successfully create
the opportunities needed for professional development because principals themselves need the
professional development in the area of special education.
P inci al Role in Mainstreaming/Inclusion
Including students with disabilities in the regular education environment has taken
dramatic changes since the onset of Brown v. Board of Education. The rights of students with
disabilities have been impacted by several key cases and laws. These cases and laws have given
them the rights to be educated with their peers. Just 70 years ago many individuals with
disabilities were segregated in separate schools. The movement of normalization and
deinstitutionalization were introduced in the middle of the 1960s, which advocated removing
these students from institutions, and integrating them with their families and local communities
(Alquraini, 2013). In 1975, the United States Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
33
Children Act (EHA), mandating that all public school provide education services to children and
youth with disabilities (Brock, 2018).
In 1990, Public Law 94-142 was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). With the renaming of the law, there were several changes that occurred. Inclusion of
students with disabilities was a key change in IDEA. Facilitating an inclusionary culture comes
from the key leader within the institution. Principals who are actively engaged in developing
inclusive schools can offer the field authentic perspectives about both the process of changing
school cultures and practices and the challenges that others encounter (Salisbury, 2006).
In a study conducted by Salisbury and McGregor (2002), the researchers found that when
principals shared similar practices where diversity, collaboration, and equality were valued, the
inclusive culture existed. The principals in this study shared common personal attributes as
leaders. They shared decision-making power with their staff, led by example, extended the core
values around inclusiveness and quality to initiatives throughout their buildings, and actively
promoted learning communities.
The leadership practices that are set by the principal sets the stage for a culture of
inclusiveness. Bateman and Bateman (2002) state that it is up to the principal to prepare the
school and the staff for inclusion and to provide the backing. They give eight key steps to ensure
that the culture for inclusionary practices is set and is maintained. Those steps are:
1. Ensure that staff is aware of the legal requirements and terms
2. Make sure staff and teacher know that most students with disabilities are already
educated in general education classrooms most of the time and are included in
almost all of the noncurricular activities
3. Reassure teachers that while they need to make changes in their instructional methods

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
34
and materials, support will be provided
4. Explain that students with disabilities often do better in structured activities
5. Ensure staff understand that decisions made regarding children with disabilities are
individualized decisions
6. Explain that large numbers of students with disabilities will not be assigned to any one
teacher
7. Time is needed for planning, meetings, professional development and conferences
8. Professional development will be planned around what teachers say the need to learn
about students with disabilities (Bateman & Bateman, 2002)
Developing a Systematic Program that Covers a Continuum of Services
In Pennsylvania, each school district is required to provide a continuum of services that
meets the needs of all students. The IDEA requires that all students with disabilities must be
educated in the LRE (McLeskey et al., 2011). This LRE must be met through the continuum of
services. It is assumed that every person with a disability can be located somewhere along this
continuum based on their individual needs (Taylor, 2004). The graphic in Figure 1 from
Lightner (2020) illustrates the continuum of services that school districts must consider when
determining a student s LRE.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
35

Figure 1 Lightner, L. (2020, June 04). Least restrictive environment in special education {A beginner's guide to LRE}. Retrieved June 25, 2020,
from https://adayinourshoes.com/iep-lre-least-restrictive-environment/

Furthermore, in Pennsylvania, schools must be able to provide a continuum of support
services to meet the needs of all students with disabilities. The Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network (2018 pp. 10-11) describes these services as follows:
Learning Support

for children whose greatest need of support is in the areas of reading,

writing, math, or speaking or listening related to academics.
Autistic Support

for children who require services in the areas of communication, social

skills, or behavior.
Emotional Support

for children whose greatest need is for social, emotional, and

behavioral help.
Life Skills Support

for children whose greatest need is to learn academic, functional, or

vocational skills that will enable them to live and work independently.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
36
Blind and Visually Impaired Support

for children who require services related to visual

impairment or blindness. The IEP for these students must address the extent to which
Braille will be taught and used.
Deaf and Hearing Impaired Support

for children who require services related to

deafness or hearing impairment. The IEP for these students must include a
communication plan to address language and communication needs.
Multiple Disabilities Support

for children with more than one disability, the

combination of which results in severe impairment, and who require services in
academic, functional, or vocational skills.
Physical Support

for children who have a physical disability and require services in

functional motor skill development.
Speech and Language Support

for children who have speech and language impairments

and require services to develop communication skills.

All of these areas of support also need to be able to be accessed through a level of support
according to the student s needs. In Pennsylvania, the amount of time that a student receives
special education services is divided out into three categories:
Itinerant

special Education support provided for 20% or less each day

Supplemental

special education supports provided for more than 20% of the day but

less than 80% of the day
Full-Time special education support provided for 80% or more of the day

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
37
(Roth, 2014, p. 43)
It is the responsibility of the IEP team to ensure that the amount of time is calculated to
meet the individual needs of each student placed in special education. The LEA must be able to
ensure that the continuum of services in all areas are in place to meet the unique needs of all the
students in the district. The principal and lead district administrators are often in charge of
ensuring this is in place. Often principals struggle to ensure that the inclusive cohesiveness
exists within the walls of their school. Principals have identified systematic factors such as time
constraints and size of school as impacting their ability to fulfill their responsibilities for leading
special education (Sumbera et al., 2014).
Least restrictive data for the seven school districts included in the study was taken from
the Pennsylvania Department of Education website for the year 2019-2020. The data shows the
percentage of students included in regular education more than 80% of their day, less than 40%
of their day, and students that educated in other settings. Where PDE is not displaying LEA data
in the table, it is due to a small group size.
Table 3
Educational Environments (Ages 6-21, Age 5 in Grade K/1)
School District

SE inside reg.
class <40%

District A

SE inside
Reg. class
80% or more
59.6%

SE other
settings

-----

9.3%

District B

61.4%

11.8%

-----

District C

86.5%

-----

-----

District D

69.9%

14.6%

-----

District E

67.4%

16.7%

-----

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
38
District F

76.3%

-----

-----

District G

72.1%

-----

-----

District H

61.6%

12.0%

-----

Principals Leading Special Education
In a recent study conducted regarding principal s perspective on inclusive schools found
three major findings that impact a principal and their views on inclusive education:
1. Schools considered by others and themselves to be inclusive varied markedly in their
reported level of implementation
2. Partially inclusive school reflected stronger administrative support and commitment
and reported service more students with wider ranges of support needs in general
education for a greater percentage of time.
3. Schools evolving in their inclusive practices were similar in their use of collaborative
governance structures, their efforts to promote the engagement and support of parents,
the core values that characterized the cultural context of these schools, and the
challenges reported by principals as they worked to developed inclusive education.
(Salisbury, 2006, p. 79)
Often, when principals lead special education they focus on the concern for compliance
with the law. Pushing principals beyond concern for compliance toward the desire to understand
the needs of students with disabilities, instructional strategies that work, and the social
development of students are crucial to meeting the goal of high performance for all students
(Sumbera et al., 2014) When school leaders focus on fundamental instructional issues and
provide ongoing collaborative professional learning, academic outcomes for students with

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
39
disabilities and others at risk improve (Schechter & Feldman, 2019). These collaborative
practices with both regular and special educators promote an academic rich learning environment
for all students.
In a recent study conducted by Roberts & Guerra (2017), the researchers focused on the
needs of principals regarding their training in special education and their ability to lead special
education within their schools. Through the findings of the study, it was apparent that school
leadership preparation programs need to increase the requirements in the area of special
education. The results showed three significant findings:
1. The lowest level of knowledge was in designing curriculum for students with
disabilities
2. Lack of knowledge in special education laws, Section 504, and RtI
3. Lack of multicultural education
School principal preparation programs lack the emphasis on special education, but they
are moving in a direction of involving more special education coursework and experiences in
their programs. In 2006, more than a third of respondents in a study stated that they had no
direct experience with children with disabilities as part of their credentialing coursework to
become principals. In 2015 the study revealed that percentage had dropped to 18 percent.
Nearly 4 out of 5 of the respondents in the 2015 study said they only had once course (Samuels,
2018). The requirements for special education coursework and experiences surrounding special
education continue to not be a priority within these principal preparation programs.
Bateman, Wysocki, et. al. (2017) discuss in great detail the need for additional training in
the area of special education in order for principals to be able to effectively lead special
education within their schools. They identified 30 key areas that principals must be fluent in

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
40
relation to special education in order to be an effective special education leader. Those 30
competencies are as follows:
1. Describe the six major parts of the IDEA and their purposes
2. Describe the child find requirement, and what is meant by an affirmative duty
3. Describe a nondiscriminatory evaluation and its components
4. Describe an independent educational evaluation and what should be done when one is
either requested or received
5. Describe the age requirements of students served by the IDEA
6. Describe a multidisciplinary team and its members
7. Describe school district responsibilities with respect to Free and appropriate public
education
8. Describe the purpose of the IEP and how it relates to communication, management,
accountability, compliance and monitoring, and evaluation
9. Describe the persons required to attend an IEP meeting
10. Describe the purpose of measurable annual goals
11. Describe progress monitoring and its importance in the IEP process
12. Describe the steps a school district should take to ensure parental involvement in the
IEP process
13. Describe the purpose of Section 504
14. Describe differences between the IDEA and Section 504
15. Describe major life activities as defined by Section 504
16. Describe a manifestation determination and its purpose
17. Describe a behavior intervention plan and what should be included

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
41
18. Describe the purpose of a functional behavioral assessment and when it should be
conducted
19. Describe rules and factors considered in determining whether a series of suspensions
would constitute a pattern of exclusions
20. Describe related services, including when they should be provided, and limitations on
their service
21. Describe the factors an IEP team should consider in determining placement
22. Describe and explain the continuum of alternative placements
23. Describe how the general curriculum should be part of placement decisions
24. Describe supplementary aids or services that may be used to help a student to be
educated in the least restrictive environment
25. Describe the purpose and expectations of the transition requirements (part C to B and
from secondary to postsecondary) for a student with an IEP
26. Describe the information IDEA requires be supplied to parents of students with
disabilities regarding student records
27. Describe how a student can be no longer eligible for special education and related
services
28. Describe the IDEA s general procedural requirements
29. Describe the stay-put provision
30. Describe how school districts can ensure that they do not discriminate against
students with disabilities

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
42
Understanding each of the key areas in special education is not only vital in ensuring the laws are
maintained, but rather the overall needs of the student with disabilities are being met. Through
each of the 30 attributes that are described, the principal can be considered well versed in leading
special education. While there is not one of the elements that supersedes another, the importance
of each factor to ensure that a successful special education program that is rooted in theory and
law is conducted within their school.
In a study conducted by Templeton (2017), he researched how the varying levels of
knowledge and skill in special education affect the school-level leadership of special education
programs. The results of the study showed that when principals are knowledgeable and skilled in
special education they place a high value on special education. By providing students, with
varying levels of disabilities, opportunities to acquire both functional and academic skills
through authentic experiences within the natural environment the leaders with fundamental
knowledge are much more successful.
Summary
Being knowledgeable of special education laws and processes is not a simple task.
Leading special education is a responsibility that many principals in rural school districts are
required to perform. As the laws continue to take shape, meeting the needs of students should be
in the forefront. The basic knowledge of the special education laws and rights of students with
disabilities is essential in meeting the needs of the students that principals serve. From how the
disability affects learning and socialization, to the rights to FAPE, principals must be the driver
of successful integration of students with disabilities into their respective schools.
Being educated in the LRE is every child s right under the law. Ensuring that each
student with a disability be given this right is the job of the local education agency. By

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
43
establishing a continuum of services and promoting inclusion, the school principal can be sure
that each child is given every opportunity to be educated with their non-disabled peers. By
placing the needs of the students with disabilities at the forefront, principals can develop
programs, scheduling, and resources to ensure that to the maximum extent possible the students
with disabilities are educated in their LRE.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
44
CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY
Action Plan: Intervention
This research study utilizes qualitative analysis to determine the perspectives that
principals have in regards to determining the LRE for students with disabilities in rural
Northwestern Pennsylvania schools. Proposed within the methodology are the instrumentation
utilized along with the overall data analyses that will be used throughout the study. Data
collection methods aligned to statistical references are essential to determine the outcomes of the
study. The chapter outlines all of the data collection methods along with the in-depth analysis of
the procedures used to interpret the data. Limitations will be outlined along with an overall
summary of the methodology to be utilized in this research study.
In this study, the research will be used to determine the attitudes and determining factors
that principals utilize when determining the least restrictive placement for students with
disabilities. A qualitative analysis will be utilized to develop this study. There will be no
variables within the study that will be manipulated, rather a data gathering along with
informational interviews. This study will utilize a convenience sample of research subjects to
survey all of the elementary, middle, and high school principals along with assistant principals in
school districts in Northwestern Pennsylvania. All of the principals and assistant principals
assist the special education departments in making educational placements within the schools by
acting as the LEA.
Each of the school districts are from Clarion, Venango and Forest counties in
northwestern Pennsylvania. Data received from the Pennsylvania Department of Education s
database entitled Data at a Glance, 2019-2020 reports show that the student population of each
of the schools within the study are as follows:

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
45

Table 3
Student Population for Selected Schools in Research Study
School Name

Student Population

District A

651

District B

1151

District C

399

District D

1893

District E

736

District F

597

District G

579

District H

835

The schools that were selected for this study were determined based on a total student enrollment
under 2000 students. Furthermore, the special education population in 2019-2020 for each of the
schools is as follows:

Table 4
Special Education Population for Schools Selected in Research Study
School Name

District A

Total Number of
Students Identified as
Receiving Special
Education
117

Percent of total
population
identified as
receiving special
education services
18%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
46
District B

227

19.7%

District C

96

24.1%

District D

313

16.5%

District E

131

17.8%

District F

93

15.6%

District G

122

21.1%

District H

124

14.9%

Within each of the school districts there are various numbers of principals that will be
utilized as research subjects in this study. The following table shows the number of principals
and assistant principals in each of the school districts that will be asked to participate in the
research study.
Table 5
N mbe

f P i ci al i Each f he Selec ed Sch

School Name

l i

he Re ea ch S d

Elementary
Principals

Elementary
Assistant
Principals

Middle/High Middle/High
School
School
Principals
Assistant
Principals
1
0

District A

1

0

District B

1

1

1

1

District C

1

0

1

0

District D

3

1

2

1

District E

1

0

1

0

District F

1

0

1

0

District G

1

0

1

0

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
47
District H

1

0

1

0

Totals

10

2

9

2

Total Available Participants

23

Data Collection
Survey Monkey will be utilized to create the survey that will expose three separate
sections. Those sections include: demographics, attitudes toward inclusion, and hypothetical
questions in determining LRE. Once created, the researcher will attend the local intermediate
unit s principals meeting that is held monthly at the intermediate unit to describe the study and
give an overview of the survey.
Surveys will be distributed electronically via email along with a paper copy for return
upon completion. Upon receipt of the surveys the researcher will also schedule a face to face
interview to gather further information related to the results of the survey. These interviews will
be transcribed for information relating to determining LRE. Interviews are guided-question
conversations, or an inter-change of views between two persons conversing about a theme of
mutual interest (Tracy, 2013). Individuals completing the survey s will be required to list their
names, title, and district in which they work. During the analyzation phase of the research these
will become coded as corresponding numbers.
Timeline
The timeline of implementation of the research will be upon approval from the
institutional review board with an approval on or before April 30, 2021. Once approved,
research is expected to begin on or before May 1, 2021. Attendance at the principal s meeting
will be in May 2021. At this meeting the explanation of the proposed study and the overview of

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
48
the survey and interview will take place. Survey s will be given to all 21 principals and assistant
principals at that time. Following the meeting, an email explanation will occur and be sent
electronically to all individuals.
Survey s will have a two-week window for completion. There will be two reminder
emails sent to all participants for completion of the survey. Upon receipt of the survey, the
researcher will schedule an individual interview to take place. These interviews will be
conducted and the total research gathering phase of the project is expected to be completed by
June 15, 2021.
Data Analysis
The information gathered from the survey will be gathered and analyzed to determine any
common themes that emerge through the qualitative study. To analyze the questions related to
the survey, descriptive statistics will be used. Distribution frequencies of the responses will be
utilized for all responses including the demographic information. A correlation analysis will be
used to evaluate the relationship between subjects. A correlation analysis is a statistical method
used to evaluate the strength of relationship between two quantitative variables. This
comparison will look at elementary principals versus middle and high school principals along
with principals versus assistant principals. This will be utilized to determine whether their views
differ.
Presentation of Results
Once analyzed, a summary of the results will be written fully describing the findings. A
copy of the results will be distributed to all participants in the survey. Interviews to discuss the
results of the findings will be scheduled upon request. Also, a presentation of the findings will
be conducted at the local intermediate unit principals meeting in August 2021. At this time, a

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
49
copy of the results and the presentation will take place. This will allow for distribution of the
findings to all stakeholders in the field. Also, another presentation will take place at the monthly
contact meeting. This meeting is for all special education leaders in the entire intermediate unit.
Limitations
With any investigation there are limitations. With this particular study there are
limitations surrounding the sample size of the participants. The sample size is limited to 23
potential respondents. The geographical area is also a limitation of the study. Although the area
could be broadened, the study would need to extend the limitation of the total student population
size beyond 2,000 students. By keeping the selected schools under the 2000 population mark,
the research can analyze the rural schools in northwestern Pennsylvania.
Summary
Overall, the use of a survey both electronically and in written form of the same questions
will be utilized to determine the perspectives of principals and assistant principals in Clarion,
Venango and Forest counties in northwestern Pennsylvania. The methods utilized will be able to
statistically analyze the results to determine the correlation of the perspectives that principals and
assistant principals utilize when making decisions regarding where the students LRE best fits
their needs and how those determinations are made.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
50
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives that principals in the
Northwestern part of Pennsylvania have when determining the least restrictive environment for
students with disabilities. This study utilized school districts in three counties in Northwestern
Pennsylvania to examine the perspectives from the principals and assistant principals. This study
utilized consent for participants to complete the research from the building administrator(s) in
each of the participating school districts. Each individual participant gave consent to participate
in the study. In the chosen school districts, there was a total participant pool of 23 principals and
assistant principals that could partake in the research study. There was a total of 10 elementary
principals, two assistant elementary principals, nine high school principals, and two assistant
high school principals.
The data gathering portion of the study utilized an online survey that examined questions
surrounding least restrictive environment along with inclusionary questions to gain insight of
their perspectives. Following the survey, individual interviews were conducted to examine
further perspectives of the principals in relation to least restrictive environment. Participant
interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately 10 minutes each.
The research pool of 23 participants included 15 participants that completed the entire
research. There were 13 principals and 2 assistant principals that engaged in the research. This
provides a 71.4% participation rate for participants who completed the entire research. There
were 16 participants that completed the survey portion of the research. This represents 76.1% of
the participant pool that completed the first portion of the research. One participant chose to not
partake in the interview portion of the research.
Demographics

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
51
The participants in the study were tasked with answering 10 questions surrounding their
own demographic information during the initial part of the online survey. This personal
information allowed for the respondents to provide information regarding the following:
1. gender
2. age
3. years in education
4. position
5. years as a principal/assistant principal
6. teaching certifications
7. number of college courses in special education
8. number of in-service hours focusing on inclusion or LRE
9. number of special education students in their respective building(s)
10. number of IEP meetings per year that the respondents are considered the LEA

The participants first question was to list their gender. Table 6 outlines the frequency
distribution of the responses.
Table 6
Distribution of Gender Responses
Gender

Frequency

Percent

Male

10

62.50%

Female

6

37.50%

Totals

100%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
52
In reviewing the data shown in Table 6, there were n=10 (62.50%) male participants
along with n=6 (37.50%) female administrators. The number of participants that engaged in this
portion of the research was n=16 (100%). The National Center for Education Statistics shows
that the overall distribution of gender for public school principals are 46% male and 54% female
(2021). The male participants within this study are 16.5% higher than the national average
compared to the female participants who represent a 16.5% lower participation rate to the
national average. The average in the researched geographic area is comparable to the national
average for gender for public school principals.
The participants second question was to identify their current age. Table 7 outlines the
frequency distribution of the responses.
Table 7
Distribution of Ages of Participants
Age Range

Frequency

Percent

25-34

0

0%

35-44

7

43.75%

45-54

5

31.25%

55-64

4

25%

65+

0

0%

Totals

100%

Table 7 displays the overall distribution of the ages of the participants including ages 2534, n=0 (0%), ages 35-44, n=7 (43.75%), ages 45-54, n=5 (31.25%), ages 55-64, n=4 (25%),
ages 65+, n=0 (0%). The data shows that the concentration of the participants fall in the age
ranges of 35-64. The data shows that all the participants started their careers well after the

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
53
reauthorization of IDEA of 1990, while 43.75% of the participants began their administrative
careers after NCLB was enacted in 2001.
The participants third question was to identify the number of years they have been in the
educational field. Table 8 outlines the frequency distribution of the responses.
Table 8
Distribution of Participants Years in Education
Number of Years in

Frequency

Percent

<1-5

0

0%

6-10

0

0%

11-15

2

12.50%

16-20

8

50%

21-25

1

6.25%

26-30

4

25%

31+

1

6.25%

Education

Totals

100%
The data distributed in Table 8 displays the principal and assistant principal s years in the

educational field. The data represents a wide range of experience from <1-31+ years of
education by the principals and assistant principals in the profession of education. The specific
data shows, <1-5 years n=2 (12.5%), 16-20 years n=8, (50%), 21-25 years, n=1 (6.25%), 26-30
years n=4 (25%), 31+ years n=1 (6.25%). The highest percentage of participants have between
16-20 years of educational experience. In the United States, the national average tenure of
principals in their schools was four years as of 2016-2017. This number masks considerable

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
54
variation, with 35 percent of principals being at their school for less than two years, and only 11
percent of principals being at their school for 10 or more years (Levin & Bradley, 2019). The
participants within this study show a significant difference in comparison with 87.5% of the
participants having more than 16 years of educational experience.
The participants fourth question was to identify their current position within the school
district. Table 9 outlines the frequency distribution of each of the participants responses.
Table 9
Distribution of Current Administrative Position
Position

Frequency

Percent

Principal

14

87.50%

Assistant Principal

2

12.50%

Totals

100%

Table 9 shows the total number of participants represented in the research study and their
current role as principal or assistant principal. The data shows that of the participants, n=14
(87.50%) held the role of the principal. Furthermore, just n=2 (12.50%) of the participants
claimed the title of the assistant principal within their districts. Being in a very rural area of
Pennsylvania, many of the schools represent a very low number of total students, therefore the
use of multiple principals in particular buildings is rare.
The participants fifth question was to identify the number of years each participant has
served in the role of principal or assistant principal. Table 10 reflects the frequency distribution
of the participants responses.
Table 10

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
55
Distribution of Participants Years as a Principal/Assistant Principal
Number of Years

Frequency

Percent

<1-5

4

25%

6-10

7

43.75%

11-15

3

18.75%

16-20

2

12.50%

21-25

0

0%

26-30

0

0%

More than 30

0

0%

Totals

100%

The participant data in Table 10 shows that n=11 (68.75%) had less than 10 years as a
principal or an assistant principal. This compared to n=5 (31.25%) of the participants having 1020 years of experience as a principal. There were n=0 participants who had more than 20 years
of experience as a principal or assistant principal. The National Center for Education Statistics
shows that the national average experience for principals are 37% have 3 or fewer years of
experience, 36% have 4-9 years of experience, 24% have 10-19 years of experience and just 4%
have more than 20 years of experience (2021). The data gathered in Table 10 is commensurate
with the national statistics with each year span only differing by minimal percentage points.
The sixth question was to identify the current certifications of the participants. This
question asked four specific questions in relation to the participants certification area(s). The
participant was able to identify whether they have a general education certification, special

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
56
education certification, both certifications, or an alternate certificate. Table 11 outlines the
frequency distribution of the responses.
Table 11
Distribution of Participants Teaching Certification(s)
Teaching Certification

Frequency

Percent

General Education

12

75%

Special Education

2

12.50%

Both

1

6.25%

Other

1

6.25%

Totals

100%

Table 11 outlines the certification areas of the participants within the study. The data
shows that of the 16 participants n=12 (75%) hold only a general education certification, while
n=3 (18.75%) hold special education certifications. There was n=1 (6.25%) participant who
held a certification that was not a general education or special education certification.
Question seven was to identify the approximate number of collegiate courses that the
participants have had in relation to special education. Table 12 outlines the frequency
distribution of the responses of the participants.
Table 12
Distribution of Participants College Courses in Special Education
Number of Courses

Frequency

Percent

0

0

0%

1-3

10

62.50%

4-9

2

12.50%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
57
10+

4

Totals

25%
100%

That data in Table 12 outlines and shows that more than half (62.50%) of the participants
have had no more than three college courses in the identified area of special education. There
were n=6 (37.5%) participants that stated they have four or more collegiate courses in the area of
special education. When comparing the data within Table 12 to the data within Table 11 it can
be concluded that n=1 participant who had general education certification or an alternate
certification has had more than 10 courses in special education. There were n=3 participants that
had special education certifications leading to the increase in the number of collegiate courses in
the area of special education.
The eighth question in the survey identified the number of in-service hours that the
participants have had in relation to inclusive practices within schools over the course of their
career. Table 13 represents the frequency distribution of the responses to the question.
Table 13
Distribution of Participants Number of In-Service Hours in Inclusive Practices or LRE
Number of Hours

Frequency

Percent

0

0

0%

1-5

3

18.75%

6-10

2

12.50%

11-15

3

18.75%

16-20

3

18.75%

20+

5

31.25%

Totals

100%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
58
When examining the data from the distribution of the self-reported in-service hours that
the participants received, it is noted there is no concentration and the number of in-service hours
were spread from 1-20+ hours evenly. The highest number of participants received 20+ hours of
in-service in the area of inclusive practices or LRE with n=5 (31.25%). The overall comparison
shows that n=11 (68.75%) of the participants have received more than 11 hours of in-service in
inclusive practices.
The ninth question was to determine the number of students identified as receiving
special education within each of the participants individual schools. Table 14 outlines the
frequency distribution of the self-reported responses.
Table 14
Distribution of the Number of Special Education Students in Participant s Building(s)
Number of Students

Frequency

Percent

0-50

7

43.75%

51-100

4

25%

101-150

5

31.25%

151-200

0

0%

201-250

0

0%

250+

0

0%

Totals

100%

Table 14 shows the distribution of the total number of special education students in each
of the principals respective building(s). The data shows that there was n=0 principals that serve
as the LEA for more than 150 special education students. The school districts within this study
were identified as rural schools with a lower population. The data indicates n=7 (43.75%) of the

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
59
participants only oversee no more than 50 special education students within the building in
which they serve as principal. While n=9 (56.25%) oversee between 51-150 students who
require special education services.
The tenth and final question of the first part of the survey was to identify the total number
of IEP meetings that principals and assistant principals participate in throughout the current
school year. Table 15 shows the self-reported frequency distribution of the participants
responses.
Table 15
Distribution of the Number of IEP Meetings Per Year in which the Participant is the LEA
Percentage of Meetings

Frequency

Percent

Less than 10%

10

62.50%

10%-25%

3

18.75%

26%-50%

0

0%

51%-75%

1

6.25%

76%-100%

2

12.50%

Totals

100%

The data within Table 15 shows that n=13 (81.25%) of the principals and assistant
principals within the study only served as the LEA for less than 25% of the IEP meetings for the
special education students within the district. While n=0 participants indicated that they provide
LEA services between 25% and 50%, the final n=3 (18.75%) served in the role of LEA for 51%100% of the IEP meetings within the district. Participants noted that the Director of Special
Education also serves as the LEA for IEP meetings within the districts. This data is important

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
60
when comparing the determining factors for students with the district when placing students in
the least restrictive environment.
Attitudes Toward Inclusion
The second part of the research focused on the attitudes that principals had toward the
inclusion of students with disabilities within the general education classroom. Each of the
statements asked the participants to rate statements. The statements within this part of the survey
used a Likert scale comprised of the following: completely disagree (CD), somewhat disagree
(SD), neutral (N), somewhat agree (SA), completely disagree (CD). The survey was comprised
of 10 statements as indicated in Table 16 below.
The participation rate of the responses for each of the sections below show a total of n=16
participation rate. All participants answered 100% of the questions by utilizing the rating scales
provided. Table 16 displays the frequency distribution of the responses for each of the 10
questions.
Table 16
Distribution of Responses to Attitudes toward Inclusion
Question

CD

SD

N

SA

CA

General education teachers
have the background
knowledge to provide
sufficient educational services
to students with disabilities

0

2

1

12

1

My school makeup is
designed to meet the needs of
all students with disabilities

0

2

0

12

2

My school has the resources
in place to meet the needs of
all students

0

1

1

11

3

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
61
At times, students with
disabilities distract students
without disabilities from the
learning process

0

2

7

5

2

My district provides adequate
time for training on inclusion
of students with disabilities

0

3

2

9

2

Students without disabilities
can benefit from contact with
disabilities
An inclusive classroom
lowers the expectations for
general education students

1

0

0

3

12

7

5

3

1

0

In general, students with
disabilities should be placed
in special education classes to
better meet their individual
needs

7

6

2

1

0

General education curriculum
and programs should be
adapted to meet the needs of
all students including students
with disabilities

0

0

2

3

11

Students with intellectual
disabilities (generally IQ
below 70) should not be
included in core content
general education classrooms.
Their instruction should take
place in the special education
classes to better meet their
ability levels

3

6

7

0

0

Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the data within each of the responses from
the participants. A Cronbach s Alpha test was applied to the survey results. Cronbach s Alpha
is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. To
accurately conduct a Cronbach s Alpha to determine the reliability of the survey, the responses

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
62
to questions 17 and 18 were reverse coded due to the negative nature of each of the questions.
Reverse coding is utilized to increase the validity of a questionnaire in particular when some
items will result with positive responses and other items will result in negative responses. The
reverse coding in this study was utilized to reverse two items due to their anticipated negative
responses. Once each of the two statements were reverse coded, the Cronbach s Alpha reliability
was

= .558.
Next, each of the responses were individually analyzed to determine overall factors that

could be determined. The mean, median, mode and standard deviation were determined for each
question. Table 16 summarizes the statistical analyzations for each of the 10 questions.
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics for the 10 Questions Utilizing the Likert Scale
Question

Mean

Median

Mode

1

3.75

4

4

Standard
Deviation
0.75

2

3.875

4

4

0.78

3

4

4

4

0.70

4

3.4375

3

3

0.86

5

3.625

4

4

0.93

6

4.5625

5

5

0.99

7

2

1.5

1

1.12

8

1.8125

2

1

0.88

9

4.5625

5

5

0.70

10

2.25

2

3

0.75

Total

3.3875

---

---

0.85

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
63

The data summarized above show that out of the 10 questions answered, the mode for
6/10 of the questions resulted in a positive response rate. There were 2/10 questions where the
most occurring response was equal to neutral (3). The two questions that resulted in the mode
being a 1 or 2 can be explained as the two questions that were reverse coded due to the negative
anticipated response based on the formation of the question.
The total mean score for the survey was equal to 3.3875 which shows a neutral average to
the responses to all of the questions. There were 3/10 questions where the mean of the responses
was positive. Furthermore, the results of three questions showed a negative mean and the
remaining questions resulted in a neutral mean.
The overall standard deviation for the survey resulted in n=0.85. The individual standard
deviation from each of the questions, places all but one question below the 1.0 standard deviation
threshold. Analyzation of the standard deviation in reference to the mean, median and modes of
the individual questions and the overall survey show that the results of the survey are neutral or
somewhat positive.

Hypothetical Questions in Determining Least Restrictive Environment
The third section of the survey explored four hypothetical questions to the participants.
The responses to the questions were used to find any common knowledge that the principal and
assistant principals have in regards to situations that may arise with students with disabilities.
These questions explored four different approaches to determining the LRE for students with
disabilities. Each of the participants responded in narrative form with their explanation to each
of the questions.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
64
In question one participants were asked, After completing a reevaluation, the school
psychologist determined that the student met criteria for a student with an intellectual disability.
The LEA made the recommendation to the parents that due to the determination of an
i ellec al di abili

he be ed ca i

al laceme

ld be i

he i e media e

i

Life

Skills classroom. Did the school district offer FAPE in the LRE? Please explain your answer.
The results of the narrative responses show that n=2 participants answered yes to the question.
These responses explained that based upon the evaluation the services that were being offered,
were in fact offered in the least restrictive environment and were appropriate for the child. There
were n=10 respondents who answered no with explanations as to why the district did not offer
FAPE. The results also showed that n=1 respondent was not sure of the answer and n=3 needed
more information within the question in order to make an informed decision.
In question 2 the participants were asked to respond to the following question, A student
enrolled over the summer with a history of a learning disability. At the enrollment meeting the
parent requested a reevaluation to occur. The principal informed the parent that the
reevaluation could not be initiated until the start of the new school year. Was the principal
correct in his statement? Please explain your answer. The results of the narrative responses
show that n=9 participants answered the question with a yes result. The respondents
narratives centered around the timeline for evaluations to occur and that the 60-day timeline does
not apply when summer break is involved. There were n=5 participants who stated that the
principal was not correct, and the reevaluation would need to begin in the summer. Respondents
stated that special education work continues over the summer, while others indicated that it
would all be dependent upon psychologist availability over the summer break. From the
respondents, n=2 were unsure of the answer to the question and stated that they would follow up

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
65
with either the school psychologist or the supervisor of special education to determine the
appropriate next steps in the process.
Question 3 embodied the respondent to answer the question, Due to safety concerns an
elementary building was closed and the students were moved from one elementary school to
another. Parents of a student with an intellectual disability demanded that they have a meeting.
They are stating that there was an educational placement change with their child and they will
be filing a due process complaint. Were the parents correct? Please explain why you chose
your answer.

The results of the narrative responses show n=2 participants stated that the

parents were correct. There were n=13 participants who stated and explained that the parents
were incorrect and that a complete building move would not be a change of placement for their
child with disabilities. A total of n=1 participant indicated that they were not sure of the answer
to the question but stated that they believed the overall safety of the student supersedes
educational placement for students.
The final hypothetical question asked, At a recent IEP meeting the IEP discussed the
least restrictive environment for their child and determined that the student could remain in
eg la ed ca i

a l

g a he child ecei ed a e

a 20 mi

e

f Ti le I

3

e

week. A revision was conducted placing the Title I support in the IEP. Two nine weeks have
passed and due to scheduling conflicts, the Title I support was unable to happen. The parent
contacted the principal who stated that since Title I does not coincide with Chapter 14
eg la i

he e h

Wa he

i ci al c

ld

be a

ec i hi

c

ce

a eme

eed

make

? Plea e e lai

h eh
h

ch

ha
e

e e mi ed.
a

e.

The

results show that n=1 participant stated that the principal was correct because Title I support is
not specially designed instruction and should not have been placed into the IEP. There were

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
66
n=15 participants that stated that the principal was incorrect in his statement and that the hours
that were not provided would need to be made up since the service was part of the specially
designed instruction within the embodied IEP. There were n=0 participants who were unsure of
the answer to this particular question.
Interview Questions
The second phase of the research required the participants to engage in a virtual
interview. Only participants that completed the survey portion of the research were included.
There were n=16 participants who completed the survey portion of the research. Only n=15
participants completed the interview portion of the research. There was n=1 participant who
withdrew from the research between the survey and the interview phases.
During this phase, the research focused on attitudes of principals surrounding
inclusionary practices. Participants were asked a total of nine questions surrounding their
challenges and successes pertaining to inclusion within the individual school building in which
they serve as the principal or the assistant principal. The virtual interview took place over the
zoom platform and each of the interviews were recorded. Each of the nine questions were asked
with no follow up questions.
Upon completion of the interviews, they were transcribed into Microsoft word. The
responses from all of the participants were then separated out to individual question responses.
Once all of the responses for the individual questions was separated, a word frequency analysis
was conducted to determine common language that was utilized from each of the principals and
assistant principals. Beyond the most frequent word analysis, the responses were analyzed to
determine individual themes or reoccurring ideas from each of the respondents. These themes
were also identified within each of the individual questions and their transcribed responses.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
67
Question one asked the participants to respond to the following questions, Wha d
find as the most challenging aspect of determining the least restrictive environment for the
child e i

b ildi g? First, the word frequency analysis was determined that the wording

from the transcribed interviews shows a total of n=7 times the word different was utili ed.
The second most frequent relevant word to be used by the participants was the word needs.
This word was found to have a total of n=6.
Second, there were n=2 common phrases and themes that were utilized by the
respondents. In the first phase, n=4 participants stated that getting everyone on the same page
when it comes to the overall needs of the students is the most challenging aspect of determining
the least restrictive environment. Second, there were n=3 participants who stated having enough
staffing to ensure that all of the services that a student needs can be implemented in the least
restrictive environment.
The second question required the participants to answer the following question, Wha d
fi d a he m
e i

me

challe gi g a ec

f im leme i g IEP i

he lea

e

ic i e

The word frequency analysis for the second questions shows that the word staff

was utilized n=11 times throughout the responses. While there were n=8 times that the
respondents stated education in the interview. There were n=7 times that the word teacher
was utilized and n=6 times that the phrase IEP was utili ed.
In the common phrases and themes within this question, there were n=4 participants that
stated the resources and staffing to meet the overall needs of the kids are very finite and the
districts lack these resources which is a struggle when meeting the individual needs of all the
children, especially in a very rural school district with a lower population of students. There
were n=4 respondents who dictated that implementing the SDI s in the general education

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
68
environment was difficult due to the lack of background knowledge that the regular education
teachers have. They also stated, that understanding each of the SDI s and how to use the
accommodations and modifications specifically to their own content area was very challenging.
The next question in the interview asked, Wha a e he la ge h dle ha

eed

overcome with the general education teacher in order to provide an excellent inclusionary
g am? The word analysis for the question showed that the word education was utili ed a
total of n=9 times in the respondent s answers. The word needs was utilized by the
participants a total of n=8 times in the transcription.
The common themes within this section focused around two general ideas. There were
n=8 participants that responded around the theme of differentiating the instruction for the
students with special needs in the classroom. The respondents reported that general education
teachers do not know how to differentiate the instruction to meet the unique individual needs of
the students. Second, there were n=5 participants who replied that their hurdles centered around
general education teachers not thinking that students with disabilities and that have an IEP are
their responsibility. They stated that often, general education teachers say that the student is the
responsibility of the special education teacher and that they are their students.
Next, participants were asked, H

ha

b ildi g a f med

a d i cl i

since your tenure in he b ildi g? The word analysis for this question showed that the term
kids was utili ed a total of n=13 times by the respondents. The term support was utili ed
n=8 times in the respondent s answers.
In the general themes part of this question, there were n=6 participants that stated within
their tenure as the principal or assistant principal that they have drastically increased their
inclusionary numbers to better service the students in the general education environment. They

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
69
summarize that utilization of the co-taught model to support the inclusionary numbers has
assisted in the development of the program to decrease the amount of time that the students are
pulled from the regular education environment.
Second, there were n=4 participants who stated that they work with the individual student
to ensure that they are included as much as possible. They further state that a slow transition
from a self-contained classroom to the general education setting is necessary to ensure that the
student is ready and able to be included in the environment in order to be successful.
The fifth question discussed the following question, Wha a e he h le c
g am i

ela i

idi g ed ca i

i

he lea

e

ic i e e i

e l i

me ? The word

analysis for question five showed that the most reoccurring words included time, staffing and cotaught. The word time was mentioned by participants a total of n=12 times. The word
staffing was stated n=6 times. Finally, the word co-taught was expressed n=5 times.
The general themes that arose for this question centered around two centralized topics.
The principals and assistant principals commonly referred to the lack of time for the students to
fully participate in the program in a successful manner. They stated that to capture all of the
requirements by the standards and provide interventions to the students in the least restrictive
environment is very difficult with the limited time the students are in the school. The lack of
staffing to meet the needs of the students was the second theme that principals and assistant
principal referred to. They mentioned that there are so many different needs by the students and
very limited staff to meet those needs. The participants stated that not having the ability to fill
positions along with budgetary constraints have led to these holes in the program.
Participants were asked, Wha
least restrictive e i

me

f

a

de

ce

d e

ch

l f ll

he de e mi i g he

i h a di abili ? in the sixth question. The word

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
70
analysis shows that the term IEP was identified by the participants a total of n=13 times. The
term needs was utili ed n=8 times by the respondents. Also, another noted term in this
question was the word team. The participants stated team a total of n=6 times.
For the general themes for this question was centered around the IEP team making the
decisions for the LRE for the students in their programs. There were n=7 participants that
alluded to the final determination for determining the students LRE was linked directly to the
IEP team s decision and moving forward with the IEP team s recommendation. There were n=3
participants that stated that the lack of success in the general education environment is the first
determining factor to move a kid to a more restrictive environment.
For the seventh question in the interview, participants were asked, Wha a e he
challenges you face with your special education staff in accordance with providing services in
he lea

e

ic i e e i

me ? In this question, participants utili ed the term teachers a

total of n=10 times in the word analysis of the responses. The term support was utili ed a total
of n=6 times when referring to the challenges that face the special education staff with providing
services in the LRE.
The general themes that arose during the responses for this question were centered
around time and management of the special education staff. There were n=4 participants that
stated time in reference to ensuring that the students needs are all met in the LRE. They stated
that there is not enough time for planning and managing the students and ensuring all of the
needs are being met in all the different environments that the students are in during the school
day. Staffing was also mentioned n=5 times referring to ensuring there is enough staff to meet
all the unique needs of the students.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
71
The eighth questions asked, I ge e al, ha a e

ae

a i de

ad

students in the general education placement? For the word analysis of the responses in this
question there were three terms that arose as often stated words. The terms parents, wants, and
education arose as the common spoken words. The term parents was utilized n=12 times,
while the term wants was utilized n=8 times. Education was spoken n=8 times as well.
For this question, there were n=6 participants that stated there have not been any issues to
arise and the parents attitudes towards students participating in the general education
environment were positive. These individuals also stated that generally parents want their
children in the general education placement as much as possible and that other parents do not
have any issues with students with special needs being included in the general education
environment.
The final question in the research asked participants, Wha d
f

ch

l a d hei abili

e ice i di id al

feel i he be a ec

i h di abili ie ? The word analysis

shows that school was utili ed n=7 times by the respondents. The term students was utili ed
n=7 times during the responses. The term needs was also utili ed n=7 times when the
respondents answered the question.
The general theme responses indicated that the teachers and staff all want the best for all
the students that they service, including regular education teachers servicing students with
disabilities. There were n=8 respondents that referenced teachers doing what is best for kids.
Also, the respondents stated their teachers willingness to adapt, be flexible and accept every
student for their individual differences to meet their individual needs. There were n=9
respondents that utilized these themes in their responses.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
72
An overall word analysis was conducted on all the responses from all nine questions by
all 16 participants to determine the terms that were utilized the most by participants when
answering questions relating to inclusion and determining the LRE for students with disabilities.
Table 17 summarizes the frequently utilized words in the responses.
Table 17
Frequency of Terms Utilized in the Interview Portion of the Research
Term

Frequency

Education

63

Students

52

Staff

41

Needs

39

IEP

32

Support

30

Totals

Summary
This chapter presented the analysis and results of all of the data that were collected as
part of the study. The first section included the demographic results summarized in table form to
show all participants and their relationship with education. The second section showed how
principals and assistant principals view inclusionary practices within their individual school
buildings. The analysis of the interview portion of the research utilized word analysis and
general themes within each of the responses to display commonly spoken terms. These terms

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
73
were in response to particular questions surrounding the LRE and inclusionary practices within
each of the principal and assistant principals schools.
The Cronbach s Alpha test for the survey showed a low reliability score when performed.
The lower reliability score could be indicated by the overall participants ability to coalesce
around how special education services are provided in the LRE s. A large number of principals
also lack the fundamental background knowledge in the area of special education which could
also lead to a lower reliability score for the survey.
Utilizing the data analysis from this chapter will address the two research
questions of:
1. What are the determining factors that principals utilize when making least restrictive
environment determinations for students with disabilities?
2. What are the attitudes of principals and assistant principals towards inclusion of
students with disabilities in the regular education classroom?
These results and discussions associated with the overall study will be interpreted and discussed
in Chapter 5. Also, Chapter 5 will conclude with limitations and recommendations for future
studies in the area of determining the least restrictive environment for rural Pennsylvania
schools.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
74
CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This research study was to determine the perspectives of principals in determining the
least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. The participants within the study
were from eight school districts that would be considered in the rural part of Northwestern
Pennsylvania. The superintendents from all eight schools provided written permission for the
principal and assistant principals to participate in the research study. There were 16 total
participants that completed the entire research for the study. There was one participant that
dropped from the study after completing half of the research. All eight of the school districts
provided at least one participant to be part of the research study. The various experiences,
previous knowledge, and overall perspectives were analyzed as a two-part research study.
During the first phase of the research, participants were given a three-part electronic
survey utilizing surveymonkey.com. For the first section of the survey, participants were asked
to provide background demographic data as part of the research. This data included basic
demographic data along with more focused data such as years as a principal or an assistant
principal, special education collegiate history, teaching certifications, building special education
demographic data and specific special education experiences as a principal or assistant principal.
The second part of the survey focused on attitudes that principals had towards inclusion of
special education students in the classroom. For this section, respondents utilized a Likert scale
to rate 10 statements regarding inclusion of special education students in the regular education
classroom. Participants rated each statement based on five categories: completely disagree,
somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat agree, completely agree. Finally, the third section of the
survey the participants were given four hypothetical scenarios relating to decisions that were
made by principals in relations to determining the LRE for students with disabilities.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
75
Participants were asked to provide a written response to the statement and answer the
corresponding question as it relates to each of the four statements that were provided.
For the second part of the research study, each of the principals and assistant principals
that took part in the electronic survey were then scheduled for a virtual meeting with the
researcher. During each of the interviews, participants were all asked the same nine questions in
relation to determining the LRE for students with disabilities in their individual schools that they
are the principal or the assistant principal. Each of the interviews were recorded for future
transcription. Upon completion of the interviews, the researcher transcribed each of the
interviews and then word coding and analysis was conducted to determine common themes and
statements as they related to the individual questions. The responses for each of the nine
questions were separated and analyzed. Also, all responses were coded and analyzed as a whole.
This chapter will provide a summary of the findings from the data analysis. Also, a
summary of major findings from the interviews will be provided. Limitations to the study along
with recommendations for future research studies in the area of determining the LRE for students
with disabilities will also be provided.
Summary of Findings
In the survey portion of this research, the demographic data overall shows that there are
several deficiencies in the leadership attributes in the principal and assistant principals when it
comes to leading special education. Of the 16 participants within the study only three of the 16
principals and assistant principals have a teaching certification within the area of special
education. Furthermore, there were only six principals or assistant principals that noted having
more than three college courses in the area of special education. This data shows that the
participants within the study lacked the background knowledge in the area of special education.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
76
While the collegiate coursework and certifications lack the background in special education,
there was a larger discrepancy with the number of in-service hours that that leaders noted in the
area of special education. There were 10 participants that noted 11 or more in-service hours in
the area of inclusive practices. Inclusive practice is an area that principals must possess, but does
not indicate a gaining of the fundamentals of special education and understanding how to
effectively and efficiently determine the least restrictive environment for students with
disabilities. This deficiency could lead to misunderstandings and interpretations of special
education laws and regulations.
This background data from the research suggests that principals and assistant principals
lack the fundamental background knowledge to effectively lead the area of special education
within their particular districts. Basic special education knowledge is essential to ensure that
students are educated in the correct placement. These results can assist local education agencies
in developing professional development opportunities for their building administrators. These
professional development opportunities should focus around the fundamental special education
laws and procedures necessary for effective leadership in the area of special education. Few
courses and limited hours of in-services would not effectively prepare principals for making
crucial decisions relating to special education laws and services. It would be suggested that
intensive on-going education in the area of special education would be suggested to fill the
crucial gap in background knowledge and leadership in the area of special education for both
principals and assistant principals.
These results also indicate that collegiate principal preparatory programs do not fulfill or
address the area of special education effectively. These formal educational programs need to
ensure that principals have the basic fundamental knowledge to lead special education within

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
77
their area of certification. Increasing the number of required undergraduate or graduate level
courses required for certification in the area of special education would be highly effective in
building the knowledge base to lead special education when candidates become school leaders.
While the research within the study shows a lack of background knowledge in special
education, it also indicated that the principals and assistant principals are not the leaders making
special education related decisions within their own school building. The results show that only
three principals indicated that they are the LEA who essentially determines the least restrictive
environment for the students within their buildings. There was 62.50% of participants that stated
they only serve as the LEA in less than 10% of the IEP meetings that are held within their
particular buildings. While these results are indicative of other special education leadership
within the building, the principals and assistant principals are at the top of the leadership
hierarchy within the buildings and must ensure that the IEPs are implemented with fidelity for
the students with disabilities within their school. This is true even when another individual
serves in the LEA capacity.
As was suggested before, the use of the building principals to serve in the role of LEA
could assist districts in budgetary constraints, but the background knowledge needs to be
increased. If the principals had the necessary training and knowledge in special education, that
training and knowledge could potentially help the district maintain compliance within the law
and ensure that individuals with disabilities are serviced in the least restrictive environment and
that their individual needs are being met according to their IEP. The results of the survey show
that while the principals and assistant principals do not overwhelmingly serve as the role as the
LEA, they also do not have the background to do so effectively.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
78
The second part of the survey focused on the principals and assistant principals attitudes
toward inclusion of students with disabilities within the regular classroom. It was also indicative
of their own attitudes toward inclusion as the leader within their individual buildings. Overall,
the results of this section of the survey indicated a positive attitude to inclusionary practices
within the buildings in which they serve. Within the 10 questions, there were two questions that
needed to be reverse coded due to the negative nature of the question. Upon completion of the
reverse coding there were two questions that did not indicate a positive response rather these
questions indicated a neutral response from the participants.
For the first question, participants were asked, At times, students with disabilities
di

ac

de

ih

di abili ie f m he lea i g

ce , there were seven participants

that responded neither disagree or agree, they responded with a neutral response. This data
indicates that principals connect the distractions that students with disabilities pose to general
education peers as a negative impact on these general education peers. Connecting this to
previous data on teachers background knowledge in the area of special education, there were 12
participants that stated they somewhat agree the general education teachers have the background
knowledge to provide sufficient educational services to students with disabilities. Also, in the
interview portion of the research, several principals indicated that students with emotional
disturbance or behavioral issues are the main concern when it comes to distractibility within the
general education classroom.
These results indicate that further training in the area of inclusionary practices and
general teachings skills for individuals with disabilities should be provided to general education
teachers. Many teachers have limited background knowledge in the area of behavior and
struggle to maintain a learning environment that is free of distractions for any student, especially

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
79
a student with an emotional disturbance as their primary disability category. These trainings
should focus on the use of functional behavioral assessments along with development and
implementation of individual positive behavioral support plans in the general education
environment. This professional development should be utilized to address students who distract
from the overall learning environment for those without disabilities in the regular education
environment.
The second statement that indicated a neutral response from the participants asked,
S de

i h i ellec al di abili ie (ge e all IQ bel

70) h

ld

be i cl ded i c e

content general education classrooms. Their instruction should take place in the special
ed ca i

cla e

be e mee hei abili le el .

There were nine participants that

completely disagreed or somewhat disagreed with this statement. This left seven participants
that had a neutral response to this statement. A neutral response to this statement indicates that
principals and assistant principals shows a discrepancy in determining LRE for students with
disabilities and also indicates that the general education teachers do not possess the background
knowledge in differentiation of instruction to meet the in individual needs of the students, even
in the event of a student with a lower IQ.
Principal s historically have placed individuals with intellectual disabilities in
environments outside of the general education classroom without first trying to adapt, modify
and provide reasonable accommodations for these students. In Gaskin v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs claimed defendants failed to identify disabled students, develop
individual education programs or plans, and provide a free appropriate public education in the
LRE to the maximum extent reasonably possible. Also, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants
excluded disabled students solely because of their disability from participating in or from

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
80
receiving the benefits of any program that received federal funding (2010). This neutral
response from 43.75% of the participants within this study, shows that the concerns raised by
Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania still exist 21 years later.
During the interview portion of the research, participants utilized the term differentiation
throughout several of the responses. Differentiation of instruction links directly to the lack of
knowledge in having individuals with lower IQ included in the general education environment.
Professional development should be provided to the leaders within the schools to focus on how
to train the teachers in differentiating instruction for students with disabilities. Specifically,
teachers do a great job at adapting materials to meet the needs of the students, but struggle to
differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of the students.
The third section of the survey utilized hypothetical questions to better understand
principals knowledge of determining the LRE for students with disabilities. The first question
extended the final question in the second part of the survey by asking, After completing a
reevaluation, the school psychologist determined that the student met criteria for a student with
an intellectual disability. The LEA made the recommendation to the parents that due to the
determination of an intellectual disability the best educational placement would be in the
i e media e

i

Life Skill cla

m. Did he chool district offer FAPE in the LRE?

With

three individuals indicating that yes, the district offered FAPE in the LRE, this indicates at least
half of the individuals that rated the statement previously stated as neutral, also believe that just
because a student is identified as a student with an intellectual disability, they automatically
should be placed in a Life Skills classroom. This fundamental lack of understanding LRE and
the process for the principals and assistant principals that provided the responses, links back to

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
81
professional development that is needed in the area of determining the LRE for students with
complex needs.
The results of the second hypothetical question in the survey raised further concerns
regarding fundamental special education knowledge in regards to special education timelines for
evaluation and revaluations. The participants were asked, A student enrolled over the summer
with a history of a learning disability. At the enrollment meeting the parent requested a
reevaluation to occur. The principal informed the parent that the reevaluation could not be
initiated until the start of the new school year. Was the principal correct in his statement?
Please explain your answer. There were seven out of 16 participants that were either unsure of
the answer to this question or stated that the principal was incorrect. Timelines for evaluations
and reevaluations stop during the summer break and do not need to be completed until school
resumes following summer. This large percentage of responses that do not match Chapter 14
regulations continues to show a concern for the lack of fundamental special education knowledge
and the need for additional training in this area.
Questions three and four of the hypothetical section reviewed educational placement for
when a school building closes and providing services to students based upon their IEP. For each
of these questions, principals had a firm understanding that when a building closes it has no
impact on educational placement for students with disabilities as long as their educational
program in the new building matches that of the building that was closing. The principals and
assistant principals also had a firm understand that if there is a service listed in the IEP, that the
district is responsible for providing that service.
The second part of the research required the principals and assistant principals to take
part in an interview focused on attitudes on inclusionary practices. The results indicated that the

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
82
participants all had a fairly concrete understanding of inclusionary practices and continue to
build the capacity within each of their individual buildings. Results also indicate that staffing
was one of the main issues that schools felt was their weakness. The lack of staffing to
implement an inclusionary culture to meet all the individual needs of the students was the largest
hurdle that needed to be overcome.
Participants also discussed the need for additional training in the area of differentiating of
instruction to meet the individual needs of the students. Many of the participants referenced
differentiating as a specific area that the general education teachers struggle with when
implementing IEPs in the general education environment. The implementation of various
initiatives such as the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), have aided in building the
capacity for differentiation; but for meeting the needs of individuals with complex needs this
continues to be an area of weakness for the participants and the teachers that they service.
Professional development in the area and aspects of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) would
be beneficial for the teachers to engage in. The UDL guidelines are a tool used in the
implementation of UDL. The guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied
to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful,
challenging learning opportunities (CAST, 2021). While the participants responses to the
interview questions resulted in a strong connection between general education teachers teaching
their content to general education students, their responses indicated that these teachers found it
very challenging to utilize the principals for UDL to teach individuals with disabilities.
This study focused on two particular research questions. Question one was: What are the
determining factors that principals utilize when making least restrictive environment
determinations for students with disabilities? Through the results of the investigation, it was

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
83
clear that that the principals and assistant principals were able to utilize the components of
Chapter 14 and the laws and guidelines that surround it to determine the LRE for students with
disabilities. While many of the participants were unsure of these laws and guidelines
comprehensively, they were able to reference them when asked explicit questions relating to
determining the LRE. Overall, the participants focused on identifying the individual needs of the
students and then connecting those needs design an individual program to meet the needs of the
student. This fundamental understanding of determining the LRE is the first step in meeting the
individual needs of the student. Often, individuals in the LEA role focus on the educational
placement for the student before they determine the individualized program to meet the needs of
the student.
Extending the determining factors beyond focusing on needs, participants within the
study were unable to articulate the factors that they utilized when determining the LRE for
individuals with disabilities within their districts. The research was inconclusive to state the
final determining factors that participants utilized.
Question two centered around: What are the attitudes of principals and assistant
principals towards inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular education classroom?
The research towards inclusion of students focused on how principals and assistant principals
view inclusion within the confines of their individual buildings. The research showed an overall
positive attitude towards including individuals with disabilities in the regular education
classroom to the maximum extent possible. Research participants all indicated that inclusionary
practices were occurring in all of their buildings. While the participants did indicate inclusionary
practices, it was determined that its implementation is implemented in very different capacities
with various barriers to successful implementation. All principals and assistant principals

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
84
positive attitudes gave indication that all schools within the research are on track for
implementation of inclusion within their schools.
Limitations
With any research there are limitations within the study. This particular study was no
different. The one limitation was the few numbers of participants that could be included in the
study. Within the districts that were involved in the study the total participant number was a
sample size of 23 available participants. From the participant pool there were only 15
participants that completed the entire research. This represented 71.4% of the pool of
participants.
Another limiting factor related to the participant pool was when the research was
conducted. The research was conducted in April and May of the 2021 school year. Following
the chaotic year of education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many principals and assistant
principals were involved in the overall leadership and management of their respective school
buildings. There were two potential participants that declined participation due to the study
being conducted during the state mandated testing that required the principals and assistant
principals to be the building level administrators for test implementation. They stated they
lacked the time to commit to being a vital participant in the study.
Limiting the geographical area within the parameters of the study was also another
limitation placed on the research. This study was conducted in the very rural part of
Northwestern Pennsylvania, where most of the local school districts employ a limited number of
principals and assistant principals. There were only two school districts out of the eight, within
the participant pool, that employed assistant principals. This limited the study by having limited
number of available participants.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
85
Within the confines of the research survey and interview, there was one limitation that
could be noted. Question 8 within the interview portion of the study appeared to confuse many
of the participants. The question stated, I ge e al, ha a e
de

i

he ge e al ed ca i

laceme ?

ae

a i de

ad

The confusion within this question was whether

the question was discussing parents of special education students attitudes towards special
education students begin included in the general education placement, or parents attitudes of
regular education students towards special education students being included in the regular
education classroom. Participants answered this question in various responses which limited the
outcomes of the data relating to the attitudes of parents.
Finally, another limitation to this particular study was that 81.25% of participants stated
that they were identified as the LEA in less than 25% of IEP meetings. The district participants
have dedicated individuals who are specifically assigned to be the LEA for students with
disabilities and have certification in the area of Supervisor of Special Education. This limits the
participants role in determining the LRE for students with disabilities.
Recommendations for Future Studies
There is a vast area of expansion in relation to future studies in the area of determining
the LRE for students with disabilities. Specifically, from this study, further research would need
to dive into the particulars surrounding how principals and the LRE is determined once the
student s IEP is created and how that decision is made. It was determined that principals and
assistant principals focus on the needs of the students but lack the ability to articulate how the
determination is made once the needs of the student are developed into the student s IEP. This
research could set the stage for development of an educational placement rubric or a determining
factors tool to be used in making educational placements for students. While this placement is

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
86
the IEP team s decision, the LEA bears the responsibility to ensure that the overall needs of the
student can be met in that placement.
A second recommendation for future studies in this area is to determine what background
knowledge is required for individuals in the role of principal or assistant principal to possess in
the area of special education to be an effective leader. Leaders in the school must have overall
knowledge in all areas to be an effective leader. The area of special education is no different.
Within the state of Pennsylvania, principals and assistant principals can fulfill the role of LEA,
but from this particular study the data reflects a lack of fundamental knowledge in the area. This
future research could lead to change in principal preparatory programs at the collegiate level.
Also, the research could lead to enhanced requirement for individuals to receive principal
certification. Within this research, a component of the PA Inspired Leadership (PIL) Program
should be examined to give recommendations for professional development opportunities and
enhancements within the program to better assist principals and assistant principals in meeting
the demands of special education.
A third recommendation for future research would be to determine the needed staffing to
run an effective inclusionary program for individuals with disabilities. This research showed
staffing as being one of the main barriers that principals stated as hindering their abilities to have
a successful inclusionary program. Researching effective inclusionary programs and
determining the needed staffing would help guide school districts in ensuring that students with
disabilities are educated in the LRE. With no parameters connected to the number of students
served in general education classes, school districts make educated guesses on staffing which
most likely doesn t meet the overall needs of the students due to budgetary constraints

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
87
implemented from the district level. Data suggesting how successful inclusionary programs
could help guide these decisions and ultimately better meet the needs of the students in the LRE.
A final recommendation for future studies would be to compare attitudes of general
education teachers in school districts where they have successfully implemented inclusion
against general education teachers who currently do not have inclusionary programs
implemented. This research could provide guidance on how the overall attitudes of general
education teachers impact the successful implementation of inclusion within schools and how it
directly relates to determining the LRE for students with disabilities.
Conclusion
The final results of the study indicate an overwhelming need to increase the professional
development in the area of special education for leaders of schools. The basic fundamental
special education knowledge is the key factor in determining an effective special education
leader in any school capacity. By implementing effective, in-depth special education
professional development for leaders, the capacity to then lead change within their buildings
would be effective. When leaders lack the fundamental capacity to fully understand special
education and its implications, leading change within their facilities is often met with challenges
and barriers that these leaders do not fully understand, therefore change is resisted. Furthermore,
professional development in the area of implementing inclusionary practices is necessary to
ensure that principals and assistant principals have the capacity to lead initiatives such as
inclusion with their individual buildings.
Determining the LRE for any student with disabilities is the key factor in determining the
success of that student during their school career. The need to build capacity for all educators in
the area of special education is at a pivotal moment in education. When school districts are

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
88
being overwhelmed with due process cases and challenges to special education placement, the
time is now to build great leaders of districts in the area of special education.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
89
References
About Universal Design for Learning. CAST. (2021, April 20).
https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl
ADA National Network. (2020, June 24). Retrieved June 24, 2020, from https://adata.org/
Alquraini, T. A. (2013). An analysis of legal issues relating to the least restrictive environment
standards. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(2), 152 158. doi:
10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01220.x
Alsarawi, A. (2019). A process, framework, and set of tools for facilitating co-planning among
co-teacher. International Journal of Whole Schooling. 15(2), 1-23.
Bateman, D. & Bateman, F. (2002). The principals impact on the implementation of inclusion.
Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ED473828)
Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. F. (2014). A principal's guide to special education. Arlington, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Bateman, D., Wysocki, T.A., Gervais, A. & Cline, J.L. (2017). Special education competencies
for principals. Journal of Special Education Leadership. 30(1). 48-56.
Brock, M. (2018). Trends in the education placement of students with intellectual disability in
the United States over the past 40 years. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 123, 305-314
Carson, C. (2015). Rethinking special education's least restrictive environment
requirement. Michigan Law Review, 113, 1397 1426.
Casalaspi, D. (2017). The making of a legislative miracle : The elementary and secondary
education act of 1965. History of Education Quarterly. 57(2), 247-277.
doi:10.1017/heq.2017.4

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
90
Council for Exceptional Children. (2020). Retrieved June 23, 2020, from
https://www.cec.sped.org/
Cramer, E. (2015). Shifting least restrictive environments in a large urban school district.
Journal of Urban Learning Teaching and Research, 11, 40 49.
Davis, W. (2001). An analysis of principals formal training in special education. Project
Innovation, 101, 89-94
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). H. Rept. 114-354 (Conference Report). Retrieved from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
Franzese, M., & Luliano, A. (2019). Correlation analysis. Retrieved July 03, 2020, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/correlation-analysis
Garrison-Wade, D.F. (2005). Principals training or lack of training in special education: A
literature review [Review].
Hanley, T. (2015). P i ci al e e ie ce

ih

ecial ed ca i

[Unpublished doctoral

dissertation]. Northeastern University
Hofreiter, D. (2017). Principal preparation in special education: building an inclusive culture
(Publication No. 10285190) [Doctoral Dissertation, Mount Saint Mary s College].
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Klein, A. (2020, April 02). No Child Left Behind Overview: Definitions, Requirements,
Criticisms, and More. Retrieved July 15, 2020, from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overviewdefinitionsummary.html
Kurth, J. A., Ruppar, A. L., Toews, S. G., Mccabe, K. M., Mcqueston, J. A., & Johnston, R.
(2019). Considerations in placement decisions for students with extensive support needs:

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
91
an analysis of LRE statements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 44(1), 3 19. doi: 10.1177/1540796918825479
Law Insider. (n.d.). Retrieved November 05, 2020, from
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/educational-placement
Levin, S., & Bradley, K. (2019, May 19). Understanding and addressing principal turnover: A
review of the research. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/nassp-understanding-addressing-principalturnover-review-research-report.
Lightner, L. (2020, June 04). Least restrictive environment in special education {A beginner's
guide to LRE}. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from
https://adayinourshoes.com/iep-lre-least-restrictive-environment/
McGovern, M. (2015). Least restrictive environment: fulfilling the promises of IDEA. Widner
Law Review, 21, 117 137.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P. (2011). Learning disabilities and the LRE
mandate: An examination of national and state trends. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 26(2), 60-66
Moore, J.E. (1979). Impact of the 504 regulations. Journal of Rehabilitation, 45(2), 81-84
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, part of the U.S. Department of
Education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a part of the U.S.
Department of Education. (2021). https://nces.ed.gov/.
Parker, D. (n.d.). Role of LEA representative in IEP meetings: Supporting CCR IEPs.
Association of Wisconsin School Administrators.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2001, July 1). Placement Options for Special Education

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
92
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2020). Retrieved November 5, 2020.
www.education.pa.gov
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018, October). Parent Guide to
Special Education
Prager, S. (2014). An "IDEA" to consider: adopting a uniform test to evaluate compliance with
the IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate. New York School Law Review, 59,
653 678.
Professional Development Definition. (2013, August 29). Retrieved November 05, 2020, from
https://www.edglossary.org/professional-development/
Profiles of USA Public Schools. (2020). Retrieved July 16, 2020, from
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/
Roberts, M.B. & Guerra, F.R. (2017,). Principals perceptions of their knowledge in special
education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1)
Roth, H. (2014). The right to special education in Pennsylvania: A guide for parents and
advocates. Education Law Center
Salisbury, C. (2006). Principals perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research &
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 70-82
Salisbury, C.L., & McGregor, G. (2002). The administrative climate and context of inclusive
elementary schools. Exceptional Children, 68(2). 259-274
Samuels, C. (2018). The important role principals play in special education. Education Week.
38(9). 26-28.
Schechter, C. & Feldman, N. (2019). The principal s role in professional learning community in
a special education school servicing pupils with autism. Journal of Special Education

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
93
Leadership, 32(1), 17-28
Sec. 300.114 LRE requirements. (2017, May 03). Retrieved July 16, 2020, from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.114
Sumbera, M. J., Pazey, B. L., & Lashley, C. (2014). How building principals made sense of
free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 13(3), 297 333. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2014.922995
Taylor, S. J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: a critical analysis of the principle of the least
restrictive environment. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4),
218-230.
Templeton, R.R. (2017). Special education leadership at the elementary school level: How does
knowledge influence leadership?. Journal of Special Education Leadership. 30(1). 19-30
Thompson, C. (2015). The principals impact on the implementation of inclusion. Journal of the
American Academy of Special Education. 136-141
Tracy, S.J. (2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,
communicating impact. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Retrieved November 05, 2020, from
https://www.ed.gov/race-top/district-competition/definitions
US Legal, I. (2019). Mainstreaming [Education] Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved July 16,
2020, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mainstreaming-education/
Webster, J. (2019, February 16). General education: the education everyone should be provided.
Retrieved November 05, 2020, from
https://www.thoughtco.com/general-education-glossary-term-3110863
What is Inclusion? An Introduction from Special Education Guide. (2013, August 10). Retrieved

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
94
July 16, 2020, from https://www.specialeducationguide.com/pre-k-12/inclusion/
What is the definition of disability under the ADA? (2020, October 30). Retrieved November 05,
2020, from https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-ada
Whitworth, J. (1994). The regular education initiative: A blueprint for success. Henderson, TN:
Freed-Hardeman University. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED370327)
Your Dictionary. (2020). Retrieved July 16, 2020, from https://www.yourdictionary.com/
Zagona, A., Miller, A., Kurth, J., & Love, H. (2019). Parent perspectives on special education
services: How do schools implement team decisions? School Community Journal, 29(2),
105-128.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
95
APPENDIX A
Research Questionnaire
Section 1 - Demographics
1. Gender
o Male
o Female

6. Teaching Certification(s)
o General Education
o Special Education
o Both
o Other

2. Age
o
o
o
o
o

7. Approximate number of college courses in
special education
o 0
o 1-3
o 4-9
o 10+

25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
64+

3. Years in Education
o <1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 16-20
o 21-25
o 26-30
o 30+

8. Approximate number of in-service hours
focused on inclusive practices or general least
restrictive environment
o 0
o 1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 16-20
o 20+

4. Position
o Principal
o Assistant Principal

9. Number of Special Education students in your
building(s)
o 0-50
o 51-100
o 101-150
o 151-200
o 201-250
o 250+

5. Years as a Principal/Assistant Principal
o <1-5
o 6-10
o 11-15
o 16-20

10. Approximate number of IEP meetings per
year in which you are the LEA in the meeting.
o
o

Less than 10%
10%-25%

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
96
o 21-25
o 26-30
o 30+
Section 2 – Attitudes toward inclusion
11. General education teachers have the
background knowledge to provide sufficient
educational services to students with disabilities
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

12. My school makeup is designed to meet the
needs of all students with disabilities
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

13. My school has the resources in place to meet
the needs of all students
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

14. At times, students with disabilities distract
students without disabilities from the learning
process
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

o
o
o

26%-50%
51%-75%
76%-100%

16. Students without disabilities can benefit
from contact with disabilities.
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

17. An inclusive classroom lowers the
expectations for general education students
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

18. In general, students with disabilities should
be placed in special education classes to better
meet their individual needs
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

19. General education curriculum and
programs should be adapted to meet the needs
of all students including students with
disabilities
o
o
o
o
o

Completely Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Completely Agree

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
97

15. My district provides adequate time for training 20. Students with intellectual disabilities
on inclusion of students with disabilities
(generally IQ below 70) should not be included
in core content general education classrooms.
o Completely Disagree
Their instruction should take place in the
o Somewhat Disagree
special education classes to better meet their
o Neutral
ability levels.
o Somewhat Agree
o Completely Agree
o Completely Disagree
o Somewhat Disagree
o Neutral
o Somewhat Agree
o Completely Agree

Section 3 – Hypothetical questions in determining least restrictive environment
21. After completing a reevaluation, the school psychologist determined that the student met criteria
for a student with an intellectual disability. The LEA made the recommendation to the parents that
due to the determination of an intellectual disability the best educational placement would be in the
intermediate unit s Life Skills classroom Did the school district offer FAPE in the LRE Please e plain
your answer.
o

YES - _____________________________________________________________________

o

NO - _____________________________________________________________________

22. A student enrolled over the summer with a history of a learning disability. At the enrollment
meeting the parent requested a reevaluation to occur. The principal informed the parent that the
reevaluation could not be initiated until the start of the new school year. Was the principal correct in
his statement? Please explain your answer.
o

YES - _____________________________________________________________________

o

NO - _____________________________________________________________________

23. Due to safety concerns an elementary building was closed and the students were moved from
one elementary school to another. Parents of a student with an intellectual disability demanded that
they have a meeting. They are stating that there was an educational placement change with their
child and they will be filing a due process complaint. Were the parents correct? Please explain why
you chose your answer.

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
98
o

YES - _____________________________________________________________________

o

NO - _____________________________________________________________________

24. At a recent IEP meeting the IEP discussed the least restrictive environment for their child and
determined that the student could remain in regular education as long as the child received an extra
minutes of Title I support
s per week A revision was conducted placing the Title I support in
the IEP. Two nine weeks have passed and due to scheduling conflicts, the Title I support was unable
to happen The parent contacted the principal who stated that since Title I doesn t coincide with
Chapter regulations there shouldn t be an concern or need to make up those hours that were
missed. Was the principal correct in his statements? Please explain why you choose your answer.
o

YES - _____________________________________________________________________

o

NO - _____________________________________________________________________

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
99
APPENDIX B
Interview Questionnaire
Questions
Responses/Anecdotal Notes
1. What do you find as the most challenging
aspect of determining the least restrictive
environment for the children in your building?

2.What do you find as the most challenging
aspect of implementing IEPs in the least
restrictive environment?

What are the largest hurdles that you need to
overcome with the general education teachers in
order to provide an excellent inclusionary
program?

How has your building transformed toward
inclusion since your tenure in the building?

What are the holes currently in your program in
relation to providing education in the least
restrictive environment?

What process does your school follow when
determining the least restrictive environment for
a student with a disability?

What are the challenges you face with your
special education staff in accordance with

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
100
providing services in the least restrictive
environment?

In general what are our parents attitudes
towards students in the general education
placement?

What do you feel is the best aspect of your
school and their ability to service individuals with
disabilities?

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
101
APPENDIX C

PRINCIPALS PERSPECTIVES IN DETERMINING LRE
102