NASSP Bulletin 2006 Wakeman 153 74

Principals’ Knowledgeof Fundamental and CurrentIssues in Special EducationShawnee Y. Wakeman, Diane M. Browder,Claudia Flowers, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell

The purpose of the study is to determine the comprehensive knowledgebase of national secondary principals related to special educationissues. Using a survey developed from the empirical and conceptualliterature for assessing fundamental and current issues in special edu-cation, data were collected from a national sample of secondary schoolprincipals. Overall, principals report being well informed in fundamentalissues. Although the relationship between demographics and knowledgeproduced mixed results, principal practices have a positive relationshipwith knowledge of special education issues.

Keywords: principal knowledge; special education; survey; secondary school principals

Principals have an increasingly complex role for providing leadership at theschool level that requires them to be more than operational managers. Shellard

(2003) stated that research from the past decade has suggested that effective princi-pals need to be instructional leaders as well as managers of the school. Principals areexpected to establish a climate that provides consistent and frequent opportunitiesfor the growth and development of all students.

Several studies (Cole-Henderson, 2000; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996;Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witzers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) have evaluated the rela-tionship between the principal and student achievement. Overall, these studies demon-strate that principals do have a direct and indirect effect on student achievement

153

Support for this research was funded in part by Grant No. H324C010040 of the U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Special Education Programs, awarded to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, andno official endorsement should be inferred.

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: [email protected].

NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 2, June 2006 153-174DOI: 10.1177/0192636506288858© 2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principalshttp://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bul.sagepub.com/

through the setting of expectations, the establishment of the school climate, and thedemonstration of leadership to stakeholders.

Not only does this research highlight the importance of the principal’s role, butspecial education legislation has also affected principal performance expectations.The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) mandated the inclu-sion of students in state and district assessments and provision of access to the gen-eral curriculum. This mandate was reinforced within the reauthorization of IDEA(2004). In the Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress (2002), the Office ofSpecial Education Programs reported that special education students are more like-ly to be educated in regular schools and regular classrooms as a result of IDEA. NoChild Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) required principals to analyze the performance ofspecial education students, teachers, and programs. Principals are held accountablefor the adequate yearly progress of all students within their schools including thosewith disabilities. It is critical that principals are knowledgeable about the needs ofspecial education students as more general education teachers will need guidanceand support for teaching all students. However, Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett (2003)found that 48% of the principals surveyed in 2001 and 2003 identified the require-ment to demonstrate adequate yearly progress with special education and Englishas a Second Language learners as unreasonable. As student annual performancescores are disaggregated by disability status, the impact of the performance ofstudents with disabilities may have serious consequences for students, schools, andadministrators.

The need for professional development for principals in special education hasbeen well established (Collins & White, 2001; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003;Goor, Schwenn, & Boyer, 1997; Lasky & Karge, 1995; Monteith, 2000; Sage &Burrello, 1994; Smith & Colon, 1998; Strahan, 1999; Valente, 2001; Valesky &Hirth, 1992). To be considered competent, principals should have fundamentalknowledge of special education as well as knowledge of current issues in specialeducation. Unfortunately, research has also demonstrated that many principals arereceiving little to no formal preservice or inservice training. Many states do notrequire any course work in special education to earn a principal’s license (Kaye,2002; Valesky & Hirth, 1992). In fact, Valesky and Hirth (1992) found that only fivestates had a specific course dedicated to special education as a part of their licensingprogram for administrators.

Survey research has also indicated that principals are aware of these deficits orgaps in their training related to special education. Monteith (1998) surveyed 120administrators in South Carolina and found that although 75% had no formal trainingin special education, 90% indicated that formal special education training was need-ed to be an effective leader. In a study of preservice principals in North Carolina,Davidson and Algozzine (2002) found that most respondents were not satisfied withtheir training in special education law. When DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003)

154 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from


surveyed principals in Virginia, more than 75% identified special education law andimplementation as a problem area.

Although these surveys provide some evidence of principals’ concern with theirknowledge in special education, there are limitations. First, the majority of studieshad small sample sizes and only included principals within one state. The studies alsolimited their focus on a single aspect of principal knowledge related to special edu-cation. For example, several studies focused on the principals’ knowledge of inclusion(Avissar, Reiter, & Leyser, 2003; Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Brotherson,Sheriff, Milburn, & Schertz, 2001; Praisner, 2003). Other studies focused on specialeducation law (Davidson & Algozzine 2002; Davidson & Gooden, 2001).

The purpose of the current study is to determine the comprehensive knowledgebase of national secondary principals related to special education issues and thefactors that are associated with that knowledge. The two research questions for thestudy are the following: (a) What level of understanding do secondary principalshave related to fundamental and current special education issues? and (b) What is therelationship between the principals’ level of understanding to demographics, experi-ence and training, school performance, and their beliefs and practices?

Conceptual Framework

The study focuses on special education knowledge in two domains—fundamentaland current issues. Fundamental knowledge is that knowledge that is core to thebasic understanding of the functioning and history of special education and thestudents it serves. The perspectives of Cochrane and Westling (1977), Council forExceptional Children (2002), and Monteith (1998) identified five common areas forprincipal knowledge: (a) professional practice, (b) all teachers teaching all students,(c) characteristics of disabilities, (d) legislation, and (e) learning differences.

Professional practice includes principal use of collaboration and reflection. Thesecond area, all teachers teaching all students, concerns the historical considerationof the responsibility of general education teachers to teach students with exception-alities, especially as separate educational systems are no longer appropriate forstudents with disabilities. The third common area of principal knowledge, charac-teristics of disabilities, requires an understanding of the perspectives and indicatorsof disabilities as described in the foundational development of special education.The implications of historical legislative acts as well as recent legislative initiativesdefine legislative fundamental knowledge. Finally, the influence of diversity andassessment establish the meaning of learning differences.

The second knowledge domain of the study is current issues. Current issues arethose that drive the development of research, the writing of policy, and the practicesin special education. This type of knowledge for principals is usually preceded byinnovations that are supported in recent reform movements, research initiatives, andlegislation. Many of these issues began as remedies to deficits in how students were

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 155 at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from


being served. For example, the issue of positive behavior support began in responseto the belief that some atypical behavior of individuals with severe disabilities may berelated to communication. Donnellan, Mirenda, Mesaros, and Fassbender (1984) pro-posed that it was important as professionals to assess the function of those unusualbehaviors as a means of communication. From that proposal, positive behavioral sup-port grew to its current form that is used with students with and without disabilitiesto help address the function of behaviors and create constructive ways to change mal-adaptive behavior patterns (Sugai & Horner, 2002).

Analyses of expert organizations’ newsletters (Council for ExceptionalChildren, 2001-2003) and reports (Berdine, 2003) have identified several recurringcurrent issues that principals should understand. A combined consideration of thisinformation provides three prevailing themes of current issues in special education.These are (a) the issues of accountability, (b) effective and early interventions, and(c) access to the general curriculum.

The theme of accountability includes ideas related to outcomes for individualswith disabilities. Effective interventions define what is currently considered as bestpractice in teaching strategies for students with disabilities. Early interventionexplores the process of identification and proactive remediation and support provid-ed to young children at risk for having a disability. Finally, access to the general cur-riculum examines the use of effective curriculum design and tracks changes in theadopted curriculum for students with moderate and significant disabilities.

Method

Participants

The participants were current secondary school principals in the United Stateswho are members of the National Association of Secondary School Principals(NASSP) and on the 2004 mailing list of this organization. Secondary principalswere selected as participants because the 12- to 17-year-old student age-groupdemonstrated the greatest growth (40.5%) of students identified as exceptionalchildren from 1991-1992 to 2000-2001 (Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress,2002).

To obtain a representative sample of principals, a systematic sampling method(Creswell, 2005; Fowler, 1993) was used to select participants from the samplingframe. The sampling frame included the 2004 mailing list of principals from NASSPof approximately 15,286 principals from across the nation. Using the Krejcie andMorgan (1970) sample size table, an acceptable sample size for the study was 375.Typical response rates to mail surveys have been estimated at one third of the sam-ple (Fowler, 1993), so a random sample of 1,000 participants was selected from thesampling frame. The sample included principals from all 50 states and the Districtof Columbia.



Design

The study used survey methodology and descriptive and inferential statistics tosummarize the findings. A mail survey created from the conceptual framework wasused to elicit responses from principals about their level of knowledge of fundamentaland current special education issues.

Instrumentation

The instructions of the survey were written in italics, and questions were writtenin standard type as recommended by Fowler (1993). The survey had four sections.The first section comprised 8 questions regarding personal and school demographicinformation. Responses were either a fill-in-the-blank type (i.e., age, number ofstudents with disabilities served) or a closed-ended forced choice (i.e., gender). Thesecond section had 6 questions related to the principals’ training and experiences (i.e.,number of higher education classes or trainings attended related to special education).The third section had 7 questions about beliefs and 7 about practices. The principalswere asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements using a scale ofagree, disagree, and no opinion. The fourth section had 14 questions about funda-mental knowledge and 12 questions about current-issue knowledge. In this section,principals were asked to indicate their level of knowledge using a 3-point scale where1 = limited, 2 = basic, and 3 = comprehensive.

To ensure alignment between the items in the survey and the conceptual frame-work from the literature, the researchers compared the definitions of each indicatoror element to the questions about fundamental and current-issue knowledge. Thecontent of the survey was externally evaluated by several groups. A pilot of the sur-vey was conducted using seven certified principals who were not participants in thestudy to determine the clarity of questions and ease of completion of the survey.Each item on the survey was also analyzed for content validity by one expert inspecial education and one expert in educational leadership. This analysis includedthe relevance of questions and the accuracy with which it was presented. Finally, thesurvey was analyzed for clarity and word selection by a research coordinator. Allthree groups were asked for suggestions for further development. As a result of theexaminations, one forced-choice response was altered for clarity. No items wereeliminated.

Procedures

The survey procedures followed the Tailored Design model (Dillman, 2000). Thesurvey instrument comprised three pages, primarily consisting of closed-ended ques-tions, and did not take longer than 10 minutes to complete. The cover letter, survey, areturn self-addressed stamped envelope, and the token of appreciation (a bookmark)were mailed on January 3, 2005. A return date of January 19, 2005, was provided.



Follow-up postcards were mailed to all participants on January 7, 2005. All responsesreceived by January 26, 2005, were included in the analysis.

Results

Description of Respondents

One thousand surveys and reminder postcards were sent to the sample partici-pants. Of those 1,000 surveys, 362 were returned, resulting in a 36% return rate.Although the response rate for the survey is lower than what is recommended forsurvey design (Dillman, 2000; Fowler, 1993), this rate is comparable to many sur-vey studies in special education (Mitchell & Arnold, 2004) and with principals(DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; McCray, Wright, & Beachum, 2004). Themajority of the respondents (75.1%) were male. Most respondents also indicatedtheir age range to be 51 to 60 years (45.0%) or 41 to 50 years (29.7%). The majori-ty of principals (92.3%) indicated serving students with high-incidence disabilitiesat their school site, and 69.6% of principals reported serving students with low-incidence disabilities. Many principals (70.7%) reported that they worked in schoolsthat had met their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals, but more than half of therespondents (51.2%) indicated that they did not have a subcategory for students withdisabilities in relation to NCLB. The most frequent work experience was at the highschool (74.7%) and middle school (54.8%) levels. The most frequent percentageranges of enrollment of students with disabilities at their school were either 11 to 15(33.2%) or 6 to 10 (29.2%).

Principals described their training and experiences with students with disabili-ties. Most principals (92.0%) reported not having a special education teachinglicense or certification. The most frequent number of higher special education classescompleted by respondents was zero (57.1%) or one (16.9%) at the undergraduatelevel, zero (45.9%) or one (27.8%) in their administrator training program, and zero(66.4%) or one (12.5%) in other graduate training. Principals also noted that theyreceived a little (47.8%) or some (37.6%) information about special education intheir principal licensing program. In addition, principals reported that they had par-ticipated in two (23.5%), zero (19.7%), or one (16.2%) trainings or workshops aboutspecial education in the past 2 years. Principals most often reported using resourcesrelated to special education within their system or district (73.9%) or school(59.1%). Finally, almost half of the respondents (49.0%) identified having personalexperience with a person with a disability. Those respondents who indicated havinga relationship with an individual with a disability most frequently identified the rela-tionship of an extended family member (41.0%).

Principals were asked to indicate their beliefs about special education issuesgiven the current diversity of students in schools and accountability levels. Principalsoverwhelmingly agreed that all students are the responsibility of the principal



(98.6%) and all teachers (94.9%), are welcomed regardless of diversity (94.3%), haveaccess to the general curriculum (92.9%), are held to high expectations (92.3%), andhave access to instruction in a general education classroom (81.5%). Most principalsdid not agree, however, with the statement that all students’ assessment scores shouldcount in school accountability scores; only 30.8% agreed with this statement.

Finally, principals were asked to indicate their practices with regard to specialeducation programs and students with disabilities at their schools. Results can beseen in Table 1. The level of agreement for all items ranged from 74.6% to 92.2%,indicating high levels of agreement with all the practices. Principals denoted thepractice of promoting a culture of inclusion most often (92.2%) and the practice ofbeing a risk taker (74.6%) least often.

Question 1: What is the level of understanding by principals of special educationissues? The first research question inquired about the level of knowledge principalsreported related to fundamental and current special education issues. An exploratoryfactor analysis with an orthogonal rotation (varimax) was performed to assist in theinterpretation of the principals’ knowledge. The 26 knowledge items, means, ranks,and results of the exploratory factor analysis are reported in Table 2. The scree test(Cattell, 1966) was employed and indicated that five factors should be extracted,which accounted for 59.36% of the variance. Items with factor coefficients greaterthan .4 were selected for inclusion in each of the five factors. In cases where an itemloaded on more than one factor (for two items), the item was included in the factorfor which it had the highest standardized coefficient.

Factor 1 was labeled Daily Routine as the items were related to activities that prin-cipals engage in on a daily basis during the year, such as discipline, collaboration,

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 159

Table 1. Percentage of Level of Agreement With Practices by Principals (N = 362)

Practice Agree Disagree No Opinion

Consistently promote a culture of inclusion 92.2 4.6 3.2

Provide resources for instructional practices 87.1 8.6 4.3

for inclusive teachers

Reflect on my actions and decisions at least once a week. 84.0 11.2 4.9

Regularly (once a month or more) meet with program 81.9 16.4 1.7

teachers and staff.

Participate regularly (once a month or more) 81.1 15.8 3.2

in program decisions.

Participate regularly in student IEP meetings. 76.7 20.7 2.6

Consider myself a risk taker. 74.6 17.1 8.3

Note: IEP = Individualized Education Program.



160 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 2. Mean, Rank, and Factor Loading of Knowledge Items (N = 362)

Factor

Item Mean Rank 1 2 3 4 5

10 Collaboration with teacher 2.82 1 .82

9 Collaboration with parents 2.78 2 .80

11 Advocate 2.65 5 .64

18 Discipline 2.75 3 .60

13 Referral process 2.57 6 .51

21 Transition 2.07 20 .76

20 FBA 1.92 25 .76

22 Self-determination 1.78 26 .67

23 Nondiscriminatory evaluation 2.15 18 .61

26 Inclusion in general education 2.20 15 .57

25 Curricular modifications 2.32 10 .53

and accommodations

19 PBS 2.38 7 .44

24 Data-based instruction 2.24 14 .44

7 Curriculum-based measure 2.00 23 .78

4 Best instructional practice 2.18 17 .69

8 Program evaluation 2.13 19 .64

3 Universal designed lesson 1.96 24 .60

6 Alternate assessment 2.03 21 .60

17 Types of inclusion programs 2.02 22 .54

16 Impact of NCLB teachers 2.35 9 .88

15 Impact of NCLB students 2.32 11 .88

14 IDEA principles 2.37 8 .53

1 Characteristics of disability 2.19 16 .69

2 Key legislation 2.27 12 .58

5 Inclusive climate 2.68 4 .47

12 Communicate special 2.24 13 .45

education issue

Eigenvalue 3.69 3.63 3.63 2.44 2.04

Percentage of variance accounted 14.20 13.97 13.94 9.41 7.83

Note: FBA = functional behavioral assessment; PBS = positive behavior support; NCLB = No Child

Left Behind; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.



and advocacy (α = .81). Factor 2 was labeled Current Issues as these items relatedto many of the current topics identified in the literature, such as transition, positivebehavior supports, and inclusion (α = .88). Factor 3 was labeled Evaluation as theseitems related to best-practice instructional strategies, program evaluation, and uni-versally designed lessons (α = .84). Factor 4 was labeled Legislation as these itemsrelated to NCLB and IDEA (α = .86). Factor 5 was labeled Fundamental Knowledgeand included items such as characteristics of disabilities and inclusive school climate(α = .62).

All three items had a mean at or above 2.0, suggesting that, on average, butrespondents reported a “basic” level of knowledge for 23 of the 26 items. The threehighest rated items were collaborating with teachers (Item 10), collaborating withparents (Item 9), and discipline (Item 18). The three lowest rated items were trainteachers (a) to develop universally designed lessons (Item 3), (b) to conduct function-al behavioral assessments (Item 20), and (c) how to include self-determination prac-tices in instruction (Item 22). The five items related to the daily routine (Factor 1) hadthe highest ranked items (ranked 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6). Knowledge of legislation (Factor 4)had the next highest ranked items (ranked 8, 9, and 11). The items related to evalua-tion (Factor 3) had the lowest ranked items (ranked 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24).

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006 161

Table 3. Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Information and Knowledge Factors

(N = 362)

DailyRoutine Current Evaluation Legislation Fundamental

Gender .02 .08 .03 .06 .02

Age −.12* .01 −.05 −.04 .02

Years of experience .06 −.06 .02 .04 −.10

Percentage of students .15** .16** .08 .11* .13*

with disabilities

Elementary experience −.02 −.08 .00 −.01 −.03

Middle experience .11* .16** .07 .07 .08

High experience −.10 −.08 −.06 −.11* −.06

NCLB adequate yearly −.10 .05 .05 .06 −.02

progress status

Special education certification .11* .18** .14** .15** .18**

Personal experience .15** .14** .07 .13** .14**

Note: NCLB = No Child Left Behind.

*p < .05. **p < .01.



Question 2: What is the relationship between principal demographics, training andexperiences, school performance, and beliefs and practices and the five factors ofprincipal knowledge of special education? The scores of the knowledge items thatloaded on each factor in the previous factor analysis were averaged for further ana-lytic purposes. Demographic information such as gender, level of experience, AYPstatus, special education certification, and personal experiences was analyzed for arelationship with the knowledge factors using a biserial correlation. A Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated for demographic information including age andpercentage of students with disabilities.

Table 3 shows the correlation results for knowledge and demographics. Threedemographic items (percentage of students with disabilities, special education certi-fication, and personal experience) had statistically significant positive correlation

162 NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 4. Correlation Coefficients for Beliefs and Practices With Knowledge Factors

(N = 362)

Item Beliefs and Practices Routine Current Evaluation Legislation Fundamental

1 Access to general .02 .07 .14** .05 .11*

curriculum

2 Access to general −.05 .02 .09 −.06 .06

education instruction

3 High expectation −.02 .03 .04 .04 .04

4 Responsibility of .09 .05 .03 .09 .05

all teachers

5 Principal responsible .00 .10 .09 .04 .12*

6 Diversity welcomed .06 .03 −.03 .04 .08

7 All scores count −.06 .02 .00 −.01 .00

8 Regularly meet .15** .20** .23** .14** .15**

teachers

9 Reflect on actions .26** .30** .25** .19** .20**

10 Promote inclusion −.05 .13* .03 −.01 .02

11 IEP meetings .09** .06** .05** .13* .07

12 Program decisions .19** .26** .22** .18** .17**

13 Provide resources .11* .17** .20** .19** .11*

14 Risk taker .13* .22** .23** .11 .22**

Note: IEP = Individualized Education Program.

*p < .05. **p < .01.



coefficients with at least four factors. The percentage of students with disabilities ina principal’s school was related to daily routine (r = .15), current issues (r = .16),knowledge of legislation (r = .11), and fundamental knowledge (r = .13). Specialeducation certification was related to daily routine (r = .11), current issues (r = .18),evaluation (r = .14), knowledge of legislation (r = .15), and fundamental knowledge(r = .18). Personal experience of a principal with an individual with a disability wasrelated to daily routine (r = .15), current issues (r = .14), knowledge of legislation(r = .13), and fundamental knowledge (r = .14). A negative significant correlationwas found for age and the daily routine factor. However, all significant correlationswere categorized as weak, with a range of r = .11 to .18.

Statistical analysis of principal beliefs (Items 1-7) about special education andtheir knowledge resulted in only three significant outcomes (see Table 4). Thebelief of access to the general curriculum had a significant relationship with the fac-tors Evaluation (r = .14, p < .01) and Fundamental Knowledge (r = .11, p < .05).The belief that the principal was responsible for the education of all students wasalso found to have a significant relationship with fundamental knowledge (r = .12,p < .05).

Finally, statistical analysis of the seven principal practices related to special edu-cation and their knowledge (Items 8 to 14) resulted in 26 significant findings with arange of r = .11 to .30 (see Table 4). Four of the seven practices had significant find-ings for all five knowledge factors. One additional factor had significant findings forfour of the five knowledge factors. The practice of reflection had the highest correla-tion scores (r = .19 to .30). The practices of being involved in special educationprogram decisions (r = .17 to .26) and regularly meeting with teachers (r = .14 to .23)also had moderate correlations.

Discussion

This study investigated principal knowledge of special education and the vari-ables that were associated with that knowledge. Through the use of statistical analysesincluding descriptive information about the participants, factor analyses of surveyitems, and information about the relationship (i.e., correlation) between principaldemographics, beliefs, and practices and their knowledge, reliable information canbe gleaned from the results to reveal several points of interest. First, secondary prin-cipals report being well informed, in general, of special education issues. There wasa difference, however, between levels of understanding of fundamental and current-issue knowledge. Next, relationships were found between the principals’ knowledgeand some of the demographic characteristics, training, and practices. The third pointof interest addressed what principals believe about special education and howknowledge may influence those beliefs. Finally, an understanding of why principals’knowledge and beliefs matter is related to the principals’ practices.



Principals Report Having Knowledge of Special Education

As one purpose of this study was to determine the level of knowledge principalshave about special education, the construct of knowledge was split into fundamentaland current issues. Overall, principals reported being well informed in fundamentalissues. This outcome supports Patterson, Marshall, and Bowling (2000), who rec-ommended that principals have a basic understanding of special education servicesand laws to meet the diverse needs of all students in their schools.

One area that some principals did acknowledge limited understanding was currentissues such as self-determination practices, functional behavioral assessments, and uni-versally designed lessons. This outcome supports DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran’s(2003) presumption that although principals should be aware of the latest research onlearning and effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities, many principalsneed professional development in learning how to use research for educational improve-ment. Principals who are unaware of the importance of self-determination practices andtransition at the secondary level can do little to support teachers and students in this crit-ical area (Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002; Hughes et al., 1997). Although principalsreported a clear understanding of discipline requirements in IDEA, their lack of knowl-edge about functional behavioral assessments underlines the need for principals tounderstand tools supported by research that have potential to aid in addressing thebehavior of all students with positive outcomes (Horner, 2000; March & Horner, 2002).Although principals indicated their lack of agreement with the inclusion of studentscores in accountability, they also identified alternate assessments as one of the top fiveareas of limited knowledge. As almost 70% of the principals indicated working withstudents in a low-incidence disability category, the lack of knowledge about alternateassessment is of concern. Finally, at the same time as most principals agreed that allstudents should have access to the general curriculum and instruction in a general edu-cation classroom, more than 30% of the principals indicated having only limited knowl-edge of, or not being familiar at all with, universally designed lessons. As universaldesign is an important way to make the general education curriculum accessible, prin-cipal support for its use is critical (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). As principals have recognizedtheir own need for professional development in special education (Davidson & Gooden,2001; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Monteith, 1998), these current issues canprovide a springboard to higher understanding and knowledge.

Why Some Principals Have More Knowledge

Another purpose of the study was to examine what variables are associated withthe level of knowledge principals reported. Personal and school demographics of theprincipals produced mixed results. There were limited relationships between the groupsfor age and no relationship for years of experience and gender. These outcomes havefound support in related research (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Praisner, 2003;



Rude & Rubadeau, 1992). As most principals were between the ages of 40 and 60 andhad 20 years or less of principal experience, participants have either been trained or hadpersonal experience with the development of special education in its current form.

No relationship was found between principal knowledge and the AYP status orlevel of the school. This, too, is not surprising given that more than half of the prin-cipals indicated that their schools did not have a subcategory of students with dis-abilities for NCLB and more than 70% had met their AYP goals the previous year.Although there is no literature to support these findings, it was interesting that moreknowledge items did not link to school demographics.

Although personal and school characteristics did not relate to principals’ knowl-edge, personal and professional activities did relate to their knowledge. Personal expe-rience with an individual with a disability had a clear relationship with knowledge.Principals who had personal experiences indicated an ability to understand the referralprocess for special education and an ability to advocate for individuals with disabili-ties. They also understood the laws as they pertain to stakeholders of individuals withdisabilities. In the current study, principals, regardless of the type of relationship orpersonal experience, realized an increase in knowledge as a result of the relationship.

Having a special education license was related to knowledge. Principals whohad a special education license indicated having more knowledge for all five factorsthan those without a license. Principals who did not have licensure, or who had notparticipated in classes, addressed their learning needs in special education in otherways. As most principals reported receiving only a little information about specialeducation in their administration licensing program, it is unlikely that what princi-pals learned about special education occurred there.

What Principals Believe About Special Education

Principals reported strong beliefs about special education. Of the seven beliefsstatements, more than 90% of the principals agreed with five of these statements. Oneinteresting finding was that although most principals believed that all students haveaccess to the general curriculum, fewer principals believed that the students were get-ting that access in general education classrooms. This difference may speak to the dif-ficulty in defining inclusion (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; King-Sears, 1997; Luster& Ouder, 1994) or the lack of training and, therefore, use of inclusive practices andresources (Bull, Overton, & Montgomery, 2000; Ford, Pugach, & Otis-Wilborn, 2001).

Principals also believed that all students were being held to high expectations. Thisis a change from historical expectations for students with disabilities (Thurlow, 2002;Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003) and addresses one concern of low-ered expectations for students as a result of high-stakes testing (Thurlow & Johnson,2000). As legislation has mandated a change in inclusive efforts for instruction andassessment, a positive impact of those changes may be evidenced in these expectations.



Principals reported that the education of all students was ultimately theirresponsibility and that teaching all students was the responsibility of all teachers. Asaccountability and standards-based reform have forced principals to rethink how allstudents are taught, one benefit of these movements has been the inclusion ofstudents with disabilities (Thurlow, 2002). This acceptance of responsibility maybenefit students through high expectations and improved instruction.

Most principals agreed that they had accepted responsibility for the educationof all students, but they did not believe that all students’ assessment scores shouldcount in school accountability scores. This may be due to potential unintended con-sequences of high-stakes testing for students. For example, Thurlow and Johnson(2000) identified several unintended consequences including lower expectations,off-target teaching, and the denial of responsibility for students who do poorly onhigh-stakes testing. As principals ask their teachers to teach all students usingaligned content standards, the principals may be concerned that the inclusion of theassessment scores of students with disabilities that are automatically included inaccountability systems as below standard will undermine the instructional effortsand morale of both teachers and students.

What Influences Principals’ Beliefs About Special Education

The principal’s beliefs about school climate and instruction may have a significantinfluence on the culture of the school and individual classrooms (Hall & George,1999). Because the principal’s beliefs about access and inclusion may be especiallycritical to a school’s climate, the relationship between knowledge and beliefs is impor-tant. Principals’ knowledge of instructional procedures seems to be related to theirbeliefs about inclusion. Principals who reported more knowledge about fundamentalinformation, including an inclusive school climate, also reported higher beliefs aboutcreating access to general education instruction. This could be interpreted to mean thatprincipals who supported a community of learners for all students also believedstudents with disabilities should be taught using the general curriculum.

Finally, a supporting finding was that principals who believed all studentsshould have access to the general curriculum also understood how to provide thataccess through appropriate instruction including the use of universally designedlessons. Unfortunately, less than 28% of the principals had a comprehensive under-standing of universal design. One explanation for this outcome could be thatalthough most principals believe in providing access, they may not support the ideaof access equating to a full-inclusion placement. Barnett and Monda-Amaya (1998)found that although principals indicated their support for some form of inclusion forstudents with disabilities, they also indicated a lack of support for full inclusion in ageneral education classroom for all students. Another possible explanation of thefinding is that principals may not be aware of current information as how to promoteinclusion using universal design for general curriculum access.



Why Principals’ Knowledge and Beliefs Matter

One of the most important findings of the study was the relationship betweenprincipals’ knowledge and their practices. Outcomes support the proposition thatprincipals who indicated having more knowledge are involved in more aspects ofspecial education programs. In other words, principals who reported knowing morealso reported doing more.

The first practice that had a noteworthy relationship was that of reflection. Oneinterpretation of the results is that principals who were knowledgeable about specialeducation reflected on those situations that arose in their school and continued toglean knowledge from those experiences. As results of this study overwhelminglyidentified the importance of this practice with the special education knowledge ofprincipals, support can be found for its use within all areas of principal performance.The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 1996) created itsStandards for School Leaders, a commonly accepted set of expectations for admin-istrators. The practice of reflection can be found embedded within these standardsfrom promoting lifelong learning of self and others to acting with integrity, fairness,and in an ethical manner.

Another practice that was notable was the routine of regularly meeting withteachers. Principals who reported more knowledge of each of the five knowledgefactors also reported regularly meeting with special education teachers. Fullan(2001) considered the process of relationship building as one of the most importanttasks of effective leaders. As principals understand the distinctive features of the dif-ferent disabilities and the most successful ways to teach students with disabilities,the relationship between principals and teachers is critical for effective instruction.

The third practice linked to knowledge was the provision of resources for effec-tive instructional practice. Principals who more readily understood the laws and theneeds of students with disabilities also supported special education teachers withresources. One reason for this may be that principals who understand what teachersneed to teach and why they need it are more apt to provide resources to meet theinstructional needs of the students.

Participation in program decisions is another practice that had significant affili-ation with principal knowledge. The more knowledge principals indicated, the moreinvolved principals were with teachers about the programs and services provided tostudents with disabilities. Principals indicated their firm belief in providing access tothe general curriculum for students with disabilities and their own responsibility forthe education of all students. These beliefs were affirmed through the participationof principals in special education program decisions.

The final practice associated with principal knowledge of special education was thatof being a risk taker. A clear link to knowledge was established on four of the factorsby principals who indicated their willingness to take risks. An interesting point to make,however, is that the one knowledge factor not associated with the practice of risk taking



was legislation. Although principals indicated they were knowledgeable and willing totake risks in several areas, they were not willing to take risks with regard to the law.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study must be noted. First, the response rate for the sur-vey (36%) was be lower than expected. As principals have been identified as an “elu-sive group of subjects” (Cohen & Manion, 2000), a higher response rate may havebeen achieved by other avenues. Other studies have achieved higher return rates bymaking telephone calls to identified nonresponders (Bouck, 2004; Eignebrood, 2005)or including a second or even third round of mailings (Barnett & Monda-Amaya,1998; Bouck, 2004; Jacobson, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1992; Praisner, 2003).

As the survey was a self-report, potential for unintentional bias may occur. As aself-report is one’s perception, the data may not be an accurate representation of theprincipals’ actual knowledge (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). For example, principalsmay have known more about issues such as self-determination and functional behav-ioral assessments but were not familiar with the terms. Despite these limitations, thestudy provides a critical foundation for principal knowledge of special education.

Recommendations for Practice and PolicyThe current reality for secondary principals is that they have an adequate under-

standing of fundamental issues in special education. Principals, by their own account,need support in learning about several current issues such as self-determination,functional behavioral assessments, universal design, and curriculum-based measure-ments. Considering the minimal information most principals are experiencing intheir administrator training and professional development and the strong associationbetween practices and knowledge, it seems evident that secondary principals arelearning about special education on the job. Given this reality, the following recom-mendations are offered for practice and policy:

1. U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)−funded

technical assistance centers need to target principals in dissemination of informa-

tion. Several of the areas of information for which principals had the least knowl-

edge are currently the focus of OSEP-funded technical assistance centers including

the Center for Access to the General Curriculum (http://www.centerforuniversalde-

signforlearning.com), the National Center on Education Outcomes (http://education

.umn.edu/NCEO), the National Center on Alternate Assessment (http://www

.naacpartners.org), the National Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Sup-

ports (http://www.pbis.org), and the National Center on Transition (http://www

.ncset.org). In disseminating evidence-based practice on these topics to principals,

the information should be focused on the types of decisions school leaders must make

and answers to frequently asked questions (e.g., Why are students with disabilities



included in school accountability? What is universally designed curriculum, and

how does it benefit all students?).

2. Principals who have special education backgrounds or family connections to indi-

viduals with disabilities are important stakeholders in policy decisions about indi-

viduals with disabilities at the state and federal level. In the current survey, princi-

pals who were licensed in special education, or who had family members with dis-

abilities, were distinct from other respondents in their knowledge of the issues.

Principals who understand both the challenges of school leadership and the needs

of individuals with disabilities have a unique perspective in planning policy related

to the education of students with disabilities.

3. Special educators need opportunities to interact with their school leaders on an ongo-

ing basis. Principals who meet with special education teachers are better prepared to

meet their needs. Special educators need opportunities to share their successes, to iden-

tify their challenges, and to receive support as full members of the school community.

4. Principals may benefit from training on being reflective leaders of programs for

students with disabilities. Although reflective leadership can generally increase the

effectiveness of principals, knowing how to consider the quality of the special edu-

cation services can be especially important. This article mentions several areas that

principals might consider in reflecting on their schools’ services. For example, to

what extent do all students have access to the general curriculum? Are all teachers

trained in universal design of curriculum? What opportunities are students with dis-

abilities receiving to learn self-determination skills? Are teachers using functional

behavior assessment to plan for complex behavior problems?

5. Licensing programs for administrators may need to reevaluate program require-

ments to include information in special education. As an overwhelming amount of

principals indicated receiving little or no training in special education in their course

work in higher education, principals may begin their career at a deficit for informa-

tion. As this study identified, there was a distinct difference between the funda-

mental knowledge and current-issues knowledge of principals. It is important that

principals receive accurate and current information to best comply with the intent

of legislative efforts as well as to be able to provide support for the learning of

students with disabilities to both teachers and students.

6. Future research is needed to determine the impact of principals’ practices on AYP

for students with disabilities. Because this research was correlational (versus

causal) and because most respondents were in schools that did not differentiate AYP

for students with disabilities, the relationship between principals’ knowledge and

practices and student achievement was unclear. Future experimental research is

needed on the impact of training principals in special education on AYP. For

example, does providing technical assistance to principals on access to the general

curriculum for students with disabilities result in increased teacher use of these

strategies and in increases in students’ AYP scores?



In summary, principals are learning about special education through their ownexperiences, both personal and professional. Principals who use effective practicesfor their schools do so at the benefit of special education students. As almost 99% ofprincipals agreed that the principal is responsible for the education of all students inthe school, principals are taking that responsibility seriously. Principals seem to betaking advantage of their experiences and learning about special education from thestakeholders themselves.

References

Avissar, G., Reiter, S., & Leyser, Y. (2003). Principals’ views and practices regard-ing inclusion: The case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journalof Special Needs Education, 18(3), 355-369.

Barnett, C., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998). Principals’ knowledge of and atti-tudes toward inclusion. Remedial & Special Education, 19(3), 181-192.

Berdine, W. H. (2003). The President’s Commission on Excellence in SpecialEducation: Implications for the special education practitioner. PreventingSchool Failure, 47(2), 92-95.

Bouck, E. C. (2004). Exploring secondary special education for mild mentalimpairment: A program in search of its place. Remedial & Special Education,25(6), 367-382.

Brotherson, M. J., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P., & Schertz, M. (2001). Elementary schoolprincipals and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programs.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 31-45.

Bull, K. S., Overton, R., & Montgomery, D. (2000). Strategies from instructionaleffectiveness applicable to training regular teachers for inclusion. Proceedingsof the Capitalizing on Leadership in Rural Special Education conference,Alexandria, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439885)

Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 1(2), 140-161.

Cochrane, P. V., & Westling, D. L. (1977). The principal and mainstreaming: Tensuggestions for success. Educational Leadership, 34(7), 506-510.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education. New York:Routledge.

Cole-Henderson, B. (2000). Organizational characteristics of schools that suc-cessfully serve low-income urban African American students. Journal ofEducation for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1-2), 77.

Collins, L., & White, G. P. (2001, April). Leading inclusive programs for all specialeducation students: A pre-service training program for principals. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456604)



Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices insecondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 169-179.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2001-2003). CEC Today, 8-10.Council for Exceptional Children. (2002). Professional standards. Retrieved May

16, 2004, from http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/ps-entry.htmlCreswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evalu-

ating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Davidson, D. N., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Administrators’ perceptions of specialeducation law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15 (2), 43-48.

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

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.New York: John Wiley.

DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads:A study of the condition and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634),43-67.

DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education:The critical role of school leaders (COPPSE Document No. IB-7). Gainesville:University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Donnellan, A. M., Mirenda, P. L., Mesaros, R. A., & Fassbender, L. L. (1984).Analyzing the communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of theAssociation for the Severely Handicapped, 9(3), 201-212.

Eignebrood, R. (2005). A survey comparing special education services for studentswith disabilities in rural faith-based and public school settings. Remedial &Special Education, 26(1), 16-24.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superin-tendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. PublicAgenda. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=9

Ford, A., Pugach, M. C., & Otis-Wilborn, A. (2001). Preparing general educatorsto work well with students who have disabilities: What’s reasonable to the pre-service level? Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 275-285.

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Goor, M. B., Schwenn, J. O., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership

in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 133-141.Hall, G. E., & George, A. A. (1999). The impact of principal change facilita-

tor style on school and classroom culture. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School



climate: Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning environments(pp. 165-185). Philadelphia: Falmer.

Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contributionto school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and SchoolImprovement, 9(2), 157-191.

Horner, R. H. (2000). Positive behavior supports. Focus on Autism & OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, 15(2), 97-105.

Hughes, C., Eisenman, L. T., Hwang, B., Kim, J., Killian, D. J., & Scott, S. V.(1997). Transition from secondary special education to adult life: A review andanalysis of empirical measures. Education and Training in Mental Retardationand Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 85-104.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.§1400 et seq.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. No. 108-446,20 U.S.C. section 611-614.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996). Standards for schoolleaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. RetrievedJanuary 13, 2005, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf

Jacobson, J., Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1992). Reading instruction:Perceptions of elementary school principals. Journal of Educational Research,85(6), 370-379.

Kaye, E. K. (Ed.). (2002). Requirements for certification of teachers, counselors,librarians, administrators for elementary and secondary schools: Sixty-seventh edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

King-Sears, M. E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms.Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(7), 1-22.

Krejcie, R. L., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for researchactivities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (1995). How principals can help the beginning specialeducation teacher. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 1-13.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design ineducational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Luster, J. N., & Ouder, C. (1994, November). Special educators’ language: Dowe understand each other? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-SouthEducation Research Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. 386898)

March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Feasibility and contributions of function-al behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional & BehavioralDisorders, 10(3), 158-170.



McCray, C. R., Wright, J. V., & Beachum, F. D. (2004). An analysis of secondaryschool principals’ perceptions of multicultural education. Education, 125(1),111-120.

Mitchell, A., & Arnold, M. (2004). Behavior management skills as predictors ofretention among South Texas special educators. Journal of InstructionalPsychology, 31(3), 214-219.

Monteith, D. S. (1998). Special education administration training for rural minor-ity school leaders: A funded proposal. In Coming together: Preparing for ruralspecial education in the 21st century. Conference proceedings of the AmericanCouncil on Rural Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. 471918)

Monteith, D. S. (2000). Professional development for administrators in specialeducation: Evaluation of a program for underrepresented personnel. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 23(4), 281-289.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).Patterson, J., Marshall, C., & Bowling, D. (2000). Are principals prepared to

manage special education dilemmas? NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 9-20.Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start. Remedial & Special

Education, 22(4), 197-203.Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclu-

sion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.Rude, H. A., & Rubadeau, R. J. (1992). Priorities for principals as special educa-

tion leaders. The Special Education Leadership Review, 1(1), 55-61.Sage, D. D., & Burrello, L. C. (1994). Leadership in educational reform: An admin-

istrator’s guide to changes in special education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Shellard, E. (2003). Defining the principalship. Principal, 82(4), 56-60.Smith, J. O., & Colon, R. J. (1998). Legal responsibilities towards students with

disabilities: What every administrator should know. NASSP Bulletin, 82(594),40-54.

Strahan, R. D. (1999). Building leadership and legal strategies. In L. W. Hughes(Ed.), The principal as leader (2nd ed., pp. 291-322). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-widepositive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 23-50.

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial &Special Education, 23(4), 195-202.

Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students withdisabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 305-314.

Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress. (2002). Executive summary.Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2002/execsumm.html



Valente, W. D. (2001). Law in the schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1992). Survey of the states: Special educationknowledge requirements for school administrators. Exceptional Children, 58(5),399-406.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Accessto the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation.Remedial & Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.

Witzers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership andstudent achievement: The elusive search for an association. EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-424.



NASSP Bulletin 2006 Wakeman 153 74

Documents

Transcript of NASSP Bulletin 2006 Wakeman 153 74