Submitted to the Graduate Program in the School of Intervention Services of Bowling ... how leadership programs can better structure learning for future leaders.
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
OHIO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PREPARATION REGARDING SPECIAL EDUCATION TOPICS Michael Schaaf
A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Program in the School of Intervention Services of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER’S OF EDUCATION August 2011
Committee: Robert Williamson, Advisor Jeanne Novak Lessie L. Cochran
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Abstract Dr. Robert Williamson, Advisor A general approach to leadership in education includes curriculum, staff development and the ability to encourage student growth. This study surveyed the perceptions of 183 school leaders to determine how prepared they were for various aspects of special education in their schools. The results indicated a wide variance in levels of preparation, raising questions about how leadership programs can better structure learning for future leaders. Recommendations are made for how programs can be successfully structured in order to best prepare administrators for addressing special education topics in our schools.
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Acknowledgements Thank you to the faculty members of the School of Intervention Services at Bowling Green State University for all the support and feedback provided during this study. This support was essential to the development of ideas and concepts vital to understanding the issues of higher education and preparing school leaders. I would personally like to thank the participants who took the time to respond to this survey and provided me with the data needed to understand this issue. In addition to this, I want to extend my thanks to all administrators and teaching professionals for the important work that you are doing every day.
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES…………………….…………………………………………………………..ii CHAPTER 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature………………………………………………………..……...3 CHAPTER 3: Research Methods……………………………….………………………...…..…...8 CHAPTER 4: Results……………………………………………………………………………10 CHAPTER 5: Discussion, Limitations and Recommendation…………………………………..16 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...…...21 APPENDIX A: Demographic Information and Data…………………………………..……...…29 APPENDIX B: Human Subject Review Board Approval…………………………………….…32
i
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION List of Tables TABLE 1. Universities Attended by Participants………………………………………………..24 TABLE 2. Administrative Positions of Participants……………………………………………..25 TABLE 3. Additional Demographic Data……………………………………………………….26 TABLE 4. Level of Preparedness Reported by Participants……………………………………..27 TABLE 5. Additional Areas of Desired Preparation in Leadership Program……………..…….28
ii
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHAPTER 1 Introduction The preparation of the future leaders of schools is essential to the success of the education system. Effective leaders have an impact on everything in the day-to-day operations of a school from the instructional methodologies through staff development. Therefore, it is of vital importance that educational leaders get the tools they need to succeed in positions they hold at the helm of schools and school districts. The purpose of the present study is to explore the perceptions of Ohio public school administrators in regards to issues of special education and their own graduate level preparation programs. The current reality of education is a scenario where special education requirements can be draining to a district (Fratt, 2004), therefore a consideration of the important skills necessary to succeed as school administration is warranted. To more closely examine how administrators perceive their preparation for positions as future educational leaders and to determine what types of reforms may be necessary, this survey reached out 1,012 administrators who were randomly polled throughout Ohio. This provided a better idea of the perceptions and preparation they received during their studies in colleges and universities. Though the greatest strengths in educational structure are clearly visible in a school’s leadership, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link and in the case preparation of school leaders, areas of needed improvement are clearly special education training. Often the leaders of schools receive praise for successes and blame for failures. The job that school administration does is difficult and rapidly changing and so should the way in which these leaders receive educational training in order to keep up. With the utmost respect for the job that our school leaders are doing, this is essential to maintaining a high standard and continuing to
-1-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION adapt. Recommendations for further research and improvements in college preparation programs are included.
-2-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature An understanding of how leadership roles in public schools have changed over time is central to structuring preparation programs that fully equip school administrators to provide effective leadership in today’s schools. The modern definition of educational leadership has widened to include a greater number of skills and responsibilities for those in charge of our schools. This is most likely a direct result of the changing landscape of education that includes changes in curriculum and accountability. The need to assess the skills required for successful school leaders should be considered. In fact, over the past quarter century an emphasis on the importance of effective educational leadership is a continuing theme in literature on the subject (Leithwood, 1990; CCSSO, 1996; Gates, Ross & Brewer, 2001). Because of changing roles, it is likely that issues requiring more of our school administrators’ time and attention are receiving less importance in preparation programs. In fact, research has suggested that deficits may exist in administrator accreditation programs in regards to diverse learners, exceptionality and disability (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Furthermore, most principals lack the course work and field experience needed to emphasize academic success for all students (DiPaolo & TschannenMoran, 2003). This lack of course work and field experiences during preparation programs, fails to foster learning environments which emphasize academic success for students with disabilities. Consequently, principals identified special education issues as an important topic in terms of need for professional development (DiPaolo & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Special education and administrator preparation as a greater issue, therefore, has a sweeping impact on public education. High attrition rates are common among special education teachers who cited disagreement with special education policies/practices, wide divergence in student needs and a
-3-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION general lack of support from administration as significant reasons for leaving their jobs (DeMik, 2008). This in part can be attributed to the realities administrators face in terms of addressing special education issues in the schools. The fact of the matter is that special education decisions are made outside the schools in the form of legislation and then introduced. This makes accommodation a compliance issue and school administrators operate in a reactive manner rather than a proactive one (Burrello, Schrup, & Barnett, 1992). When taking into consideration the impacts of inadequate educational leadership accreditation programs in regards to special education, it seems reasonable to take a hard look at what can be done. A clear understanding that the principal plays an important symbolic role in the inclusion of special education students should be seen through classroom visits, spending time with students with disabilities, and providing as much leadership to special education teachers as is done with general education teachers (Burrello et al. 1992). This provides a clear sense of belonging for everyone from general education students and teachers to special education students and teachers. This transitions us into the second point of past and current issues with the preparation of school leaders. With a real need for qualified administrators, institutions of Higher Learning have varied the required curriculum for school administrator preparation. At the time when the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed new standards for school leaders, graduate studies in school administration changed to meet the students needs (Murphy, 2003). Some criticisms of the standards that were taught were that they lacked empirical basis and were supported by research that was biased against low income or diverse areas (Murphy, 2003). Misrepresenting or under-representing certain demographic groups when establishing leadership standards can have a negative effect on those groups. This one problem can have a systemic
-4-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION effect on the larger structure of educational philosophy. Due to concerns, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) periodically modify the Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership. The goal of the newly revised standards was to address the changing conditions in education, including but not limited to, demographic changes, changes in expectations, and social and family modifications. According to the consortium an important underlying assumption of the standards is that “preparation programs should focus primarily on developing school leaders … through bridging experiences and clinical practice” (NPBEA, 2002). As a policy, the main focus of educational leadership preparation programs is experience and clinical practice, yet many programs require few hours aimed at special education issues. In fact, the training that principals typically receive in university programs and from their own districts does not do nearly enough to prepare them for their roles as leaders of learning (DarlingHammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007). In a study by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute entitled School Leadership Study: Preparing school leaders for a changing world, nearly 75% of administrators polled claimed that leadership training in schools of education was out of touch with current demands in the classroom. The need to provide vital leadership in order to improve the outcomes and cultivate a culture of learning within the school is a key to success. One study found that building-level support from principals and general educators had a strong effect on all critical aspects of special education and an impact on the attrition rate of special education teachers, which only emphasizes the important role of administrators in special education (Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff & Harniss, 2001). Instructional leadership is sometimes expressed as a vision within the school (SREB, 2010). The notion that this is a common objective aligned with school policies and resources aimed at keeping pace with educational goals is noteworthy. And the idea that “effective leaders must have the same
-5-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION traits they expect in teachers” (Lashway, 2002) raises the bar for all who contribute to the learning environment. Although many preparation programs do focus on instructional leadership, it is questionable how much in-depth core knowledge based on teaching and learning is provided. Research indicates that effective preparation involves case studies and problem-based learning that provide lifelike simulations to sharpen students thinking about complex issues (Lashway, 2002). In the same study, cohort programs are praised as meaningful to developing collaborative leadership skills. It is without question that the roles of instructional leaders have changed dramatically. In a climate of rapid fluctuation school leaders are expected to do more with less, serve a more diverse population, show improvements more quickly and supervise all while leading and learning at the same time (King, 2002). With such stringent demands to succeed in all aspects of the job, inappropriate educational leadership accreditation programs are a disservice to the future of our children and our schools. In the calls for reform of administration preparation programs, content standards and curriculum are often cited as areas in need of change. The fact is, however, that the mission of educational leadership programs has been unclear since the earliest days and there is a divide between the needs of the leaders and institutes of higher learning (Levine, 2005). This gap between the learning needs of future leaders and the program requirements of institutes of higher learning needs to be addressed. Criticisms of university programs include low admission standards, awards of inappropriate degrees, and students more interested in credentials than attaining the knowledge important for success in their field (Levine, 2005). In 2007 the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) task force determined reform recommendations including, among other factors clear standards for program content, more substantive internships and clearly defined goals of instructional leadership (Petzko, 2008). A
-6-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION retooling of the content standards used to evaluate effective administrators and an emphasis placed on internship depth and breadth can provide a promising starting point. Through these examples it is clear that some critical revisions are necessary. One study that included a national sample of 31 programs (with considerable consistency between programs) cites evidence that preparation programs have not kept pace with the changes in the larger world of school administration (Hess & Kelly, 2007). Because of significant recent changes, the demands on school administration in consideration of special education issues and the efficacy of university preparation programs are called into question. When it comes to the administration of special programs and student services, polled administrators ranked this topic near the top in importance but in the bottom quartile in regards to preparation (Petzko, 2008). It appears that school administrators are spending more time and effort on something they received less training and coursework in. Though many districts stress professional development as an effective way to address challenges unique to their locale, higher education needs to be responsive to the demands of the job and the needs of future school leaders. This has led to the conclusion that it is important to see how school leaders feel about their leadership preparation programs. Examining how current administrators feel about their university programs will add to the body of knowledge on program strengths and weaknesses to better prepare future leaders of schools and begin a dialog about what accreditation programs may include in the future.
-7-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHAPTER 3 Methods Participants Participants of this study included 183 individuals in administrative roles in 117 public Pre K-12 schools across the state of Ohio. Emails to solicit participants were sent to 1,013 administrators whose contact information was attained through school websites open to the public. In addition to the original solicitation email, participants were asked to forward the link to the survey to other district colleagues who may be willing to take a few minutes to participate. Follow up emails that included thanks for participating and reminders to those who had not were sent prior to the conclusion of the data collection phase of this study. Instrument The survey, a 17-item questionnaire, was developed to assemble self-reported feedback on administrators’ perceptions of (a) the amount of preparation administrative accreditation programs provided in regards to special education topics, (b) how important participants feel special education is in the current public education atmosphere, (c) how well current leaders feel their preparation programs actually prepared them for working with students with exceptionalities, and (d) general open-ended feedback concerning leadership preparation programs and special education issues. Of the items included in the survey, nine questions assisted in constructing a picture of the administrator and his or her district; eight questions were aimed at understanding the perceptions of these administrators in regards to their individual preparation and licensure programs using a Likert five point scale. The responses came in as a selection of which best describes each participant’s situation or a ranking of how well prepared [not at all, somewhat, undecided, adequately, or very well prepared] each individual felt they
-8-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION were for the administrative duties of their position. Participants were able to include additional qualitative information in the form of specific comments for each of the questions if they felt the need to add any clarifying information (see Appendix A). Procedure The population of administrators in Ohio was identified using public information found on each school’s website. An individual solicitation email was sent to each administrator, which included a link to an on-line survey provided through Survey Monkey®. The solicitation email introduced the lead researcher and purpose of the study. When clicking on the link to go to the survey, the first page provided an informed consent statement addressing federal requirements for the protection of human subjects in research, a confidentiality statement and a statement requesting participation in the study. The solicitation emails were sent over the course of approximately five weeks from January 8, 2011 through February 10, 2011. Survey questions (see Appendix A) began by gathering data on administrators’ education levels, location, demographic of school, perspectives of levels of preparedness for administrative roles and generally related qualitative feedback.
-9-
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHAPTER 4
Results The demographic data indicated that participants had a high level of education with nearly all respondent having earned a master’s degree or higher. Of the respondents, 81.7 % (143) have earned a master’s degree, 5.1 % (9) have earned a Ph.D., 5.7 % (10) have earned an Ed.D., and 7.4 % (13) have earned an Ed.S. Most of the remaining participants indicated that they are currently working towards a Doctoral degree of some sort, with anything from a few credits to a full semester or more remaining. The participants identified that their most recent degrees were earned at a number of universities in Ohio and the Midwest. Without compiling a complete list, some of the institutes of higher learning appearing in no specific order were: University of Dayton, University of Toledo, Cleveland State University, Bowling Green State University, University of Cincinnati, University of Akron, Ohio State University, Regent University, Youngstown State University, University of Findlay, Ashland University, Kent State University, Franciscan University, Wright State University, Miami University of Ohio, Xavier, and the University of Cincinnati (see Table 1). The following schools had only one respondent complete the survey and do not appear in Table 1: Nova Southeastern University, Northern Kentucky University, Northcentral University, Muskingum University, Marygrove University, Marian College of Fond du Lac, Indiana University, College of Mount Saint Joseph, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, University of Kentucky, University of Rio Grand, University of South Carolina, University of Tennessee, and West Virginia University. The participants also identified the geographic area of Ohio in which their school district is located in with 23.9 % (42) located in the Northwest region of Ohio, 30.1 % (53) located in the Northeast region of Ohio, 19.3 % (34) located in Central Ohio, 21.0 % (37) located in the Southwest region of Ohio,
- 10 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION and 5.7 % (10) located in the Southeast region of Ohio. When asked to describe the type of district in which they work 4.6 % (8) responded that they work in an Urban district, 49.7 % (87) responded that they work in a Suburban district, and 45.7 % (80) responded that they work in a Rural district. The number of years each respondent had been at their current position is as follows: 39.8 % (70) have been in their current position for 0-3 years, 36.4 % (64) have been in their current position for 4-8 years, 14.2 % (25) have been in their current position for 9-13 years, 8.0 % (14) have been in their current position for 14-20 years, and only 1.7 % (3) participants have been in their current position for 21 years or more. Responding participants included administrators in the roles of superintendent (n=22), assistant superintendent (n=6), principal (n=98), assistant-principal (n=32), special education director (n=6), director of curriculum and instruction (n=4), technology curriculum coordinator (n=2), and various other administrative postings (n=11) (see Table 2). Out of 1,021 solicitation emails sent, a total of 183 participants completed online questionnaires, representing a return rate of nearly 18%. Of those who completed the survey, 43 were employed in an elementary school representing 27.9% of the sample, 27 were employed in a middle school representing 17.5% of the sample, 50 were employed in a high school representing 32.5% of the sample, 34 were employed in an administrative building representing 22.1% of the sample, and 17 were employed in various other buildings throughout the districts representing 10.7% of the sample. When these administrators were asked what percentage of students in their building are identified as having an exceptionality; 7.6 % or 13 administrators responded that less than 5 % were identified, 31.4 % or 54 administrators responded that 6-10 % of the student body were identified, 31.4 % or 54 administrators responded that 11-15 % of the student body were identified, 23.8 % or 41 administrators recorded that 16-25 % of their students were identified
- 11 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION and 5.8 % or 10 administrators identified that more than 25 % of their students were identified as students with exceptionalities. When asked about the percentage of students who receive a free or reduced lunch, 28 respondents (16%) stated that 0-10 % of the students in their building received free/reduced lunches, 29 respondents (16.6%) stated that 11-20 % of their students received free/reduced lunches, 67 respondents (38.3%) stated that 21-40 % of their students received free/reduced lunches and 51 respondents (28.1%) stated that 40 % or more of their students received free/reduced lunches (see Table 3). Research Question One A primary purpose of this survey was to determine the amount and quality of training school administrators felt they received in regards to special education issues. In order to answer this question, the respondents ranked how well prepared they felt they were for various administrative duties ‘upon exiting an educational leadership preparation program’. The scaled responses included; 1) not at all, 2) somewhat, 3) undecided, 4) adequately, 5) very well prepared, or 6) not applicable (see Table 4). Nearly half of the participants responded that they were somewhat or not at all prepared to address special education legal issues, (48.7% or 77/158). When asked about how well prepared they felt they were for participating in Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, 48.8% (or 77/158) responded not at all or somewhat. Similar numbers responded that they were either not at all or somewhat prepared for addressing behavioral issues presented by students with exceptionalities. When it came to issues of instructional methodologies more than 70.4% of the participants (or 110/155) stated they felt they were adequately or very well prepared for assisting general education teachers, but 52.5% (or 83/158) felt they were either not at all prepared or only somewhat prepared for assisting special education teachers with instructional methodologies. In terms of scheduling for students
- 12 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION in special education programs 51.9% (or 82/158) stated they sensed they were either not at all or only somewhat prepared for this duty. Of the participating administrators polled, 54.7% (87/159) stated they felt they were not at all or only somewhat prepared for facilitating inclusive schedules for students with mild disabilities. For curriculum oversight of students with more intensive disabilities, 66.6% (106/159) of administrators felt they were either not at all prepared or only somewhat prepared. When asked about data collection techniques of special education teachers 64.5% (102/158) of administrators stated they felt they were either not at all or only somewhat prepared. Only 24% (38/159) of administrators felt they were adequately prepared or very well prepared for oversight of alternate mandatory state-wide assessments. When asked about managing the budgets regarding students with exceptionalities 59.8% (95/159) marked that they felt they were either not at all prepared or only somewhat prepared. Of the responding administrators, 37.1% (59/159) felt they were either not at all or only somewhat familiar with due process procedures. When asked about their familiarity with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act known as IDEA, 33.4% (53/159) of those polled marked that they felt they were unfamiliar or only somewhat familiar with the legislation. Finally, in regards to Section 504/Rehabilitation Act, 46.8% (73/156) felt they were not at all familiar or only somewhat familiar with this legislation. Included in the survey, respondents were asked about their experience in the classroom as a teacher. The majority of administrators were licensed to teach in a general education capacity only. Of the respondents, 77.5 % (131) reported that they were licensed to teach only general education students while 22.5 % (38) reported that they were licensed to deliver instruction to students in special education or students in both special education and/or general education. Research Question Two
- 13 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION The second goal of this survey was to determine to what extent school administrators felt preparation programs prepared them for addressing special education topics. When asked if they had been given the opportunity to work with children with exceptional needs ‘during student teaching, practicum or classroom teaching, 70.2% of respondents affirmed that they had worked with students with mild disabilities. Only 28.5% responded that they had worked with students with intensive disabilities, while 34.8% recorded a response that they had worked with gifted students. Lastly, a full 20.9% responded that they had not worked with any students with exceptionalities. When asked, “Within your leadership preparation program, would you have benefited from additional coursework regarding students with exceptionalities?”, a majority (72.2%) responded that they would have benefited. When asked if “continuing education in the form of in-service training was helpful regarding their knowledge of issues surrounding students with exceptionalities?”, almost all (97.5%) responded that it was helpful. When administrators were asked if they could have learned more regarding students with exceptionalities, and given the opportunity to select any areas that they felt additional training in their leadership preparation programs would have been beneficial (see Table 4), the results indicated that exactly 50% (79/158) indicated IDEA and legal issues of Special Education would have been useful. A full 57% (90/158) of administrators stated that methods of instruction for exceptional students were areas of weakness. The assessment of exceptional students was selected as an area that needed improvement based on the response of 50.6% (80/158). Behavior modification techniques were chosen as an area that needed to be strengthened by a majority of participants, or 63.9% (101/158). Only 9.5% (15/158) stated that their college preparation level was sufficient. This data presents information pointing to possible answers to the research questions about the
- 14 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION effectiveness of current leadership preparation programs and possible shortcomings of these programs to fill the needs of school leaders in Ohio’s public schools (see Table 3).
- 15 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION CHAPTER 5
Discussion An understanding of how leadership positions in public schools has changed over time is integral to structuring accreditation programs that prepare school administrators. In many cases, it appears that the quality of educational administration programs at institutes of higher education range from inadequate to appalling relative to special education training (Levine, 2005). The goals and actions of administrators should be proactive rather than reactive to the needs of schools (Cash, 2008). The current body of research indicates some serious deficiencies in the area of administrator preparation. In one study, nearly 70 % of all principals reported that the “typical leadership programs in graduate schools of education are out of touch with what it takes to run today’s school districts” (Farakas et al., 2003). These findings are clearly inline with the findings presented in this study, as fully half of all participants responded that they were unprepared or only somewhat prepared for dealing with special education legal issues, participation in IEP meetings, for addressing behavioral problems for students with exceptionalities, and for assisting special education teachers with instructional methodologies. Though many participants voiced the opinion that special education is simply one piece of what makes an effective administrator, 20% of respondents stated they spend at least 30% percent to 50% (plus) of their time on special education issues. If a fifth of school administrators are allocating such a large percentage of their time on one aspect of their job, that should be considered a priority within educational leadership programs. Consistently participants stated that successful mentorship programs that are essentially on-the-job training and service learning hours were able to fill areas of weakness. However, a more practical application of embedded work experience during college preparation is meaningful.
- 16 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION One solution to this may be requiring a longer minimum teaching experience before administration licensure could be obtained in order to build on successful classroom experiences. While it seems clear that preparation programs do their best to give administrators the tools they will need and use on a daily basis, the most helpful type of learning as shown by this study seems to be hands on learning. While many administrators voiced that there are real areas of weakness when it comes to levels of preparedness, these same individuals also indicated that they had gained situational knowledge from working with teachers, counselors, psychologists and students on the job. Limitations Structuring the research study in such a way as to balance the important goals with certain challenges can be an exercise in give and take. While it is the goal of this research to address some very big questions, some limitations are present. One very clear limitation can be viewed in the disparity between the changing goals and roles of educational leaders and how, over time, educational preparation programs have changed. Because nearly 15% of participants have at least 15 or more years at their current position, doubts were raised about how applicable some questionnaire items were. Some respondents may have marked that they received insufficient preparation in regards to something that has since changed in the field of educational leadership. This may have been resolved by eliminating certain questions or choices based on responses that indicate each administrator’s experience by years of service. An example of a question that possibly resulted in erroneous results can be the level of preparedness in regards to the oversight of mandatory statewide assessments and any administrator that graduated prior to 2002 was certainly not prepared in college for this duty. In addition, the phrasing of questions that sought to elicit responses about the areas of desired preparation in leadership training
- 17 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION programs may have been confusing. As viewed in Table 5, a large percentage of respondents reported they did desire additional coursework though it was recorded under the response of “I did not need additional coursework”. While these are some limitations to the results of this study, the study was meant to obtain an overview of school leaders who are currently in charge of a school or district. Though this may not be useful in demonstrating that specific programs are lacking in some areas, the results still highlight that current administrators remain unprepared to the extent that they responded as such and may account for some of the concerns in the introduction surrounding special education student and teacher issues. Other limitations to the accuracy of the data collected may include the underrepresentation of urban school districts. While an attempt to send equal numbers to rural areas, suburban and urban areas was made, a disproportionate number of individuals representing urban school district responded. Only 4% identified their school district as urban and though there is some margin of error attributable to subjective response and one’s own views of the difference between suburban and urban, a greater effort to enroll participants from cities of Toledo, Cleveland, Akron, Columbus, and Cincinnati may have provided more balance. In addition to this factor, limiting the survey simply to the state of Ohio may only provide part of a larger snapshot of public education. Finally, understanding the real breakdown of University credit hours per class in a program would speak directly to how thoroughly the standards are both taught and learned. This would directly address both critics and supporters of accreditation programs in a quantitative way and provide data on the efficacy of such programs. Credit hour breakdown of educational leadership programs is both a limitation of this study and an area recommended for further research.
- 18 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Recommendations for Further Research It would be interesting to expand this research to include other states and larger geographic regions. While the results do seem to indicate that many administrators feel that there are areas of weakness in their college preparation programs, aside from the opinions and perceptions of current administrators little research was done to determine effective solutions to these shortcomings. The realities of education are changing at such a fast pace; it appears that higher education can do little to keep up. With this in mind, many participants indicated the value of experience and professional development. A study focused on the effect that learning on the job has on administrators’ preparation would provide relevant data to understanding the importance of getting this right. Structuring higher education in a way that produces both experienced and effective administrators would improve the results of students. When asked to provide an opinion on how to better prepare administrators, participants made statements that “they relied on their Intervention Specialists and school Psychologists to provide on-the-job training”, that there was “a good mentorship program in place which made all the difference”, and that “experience has been the best teacher”. Some suggested longer minimum teaching experience to connect the classroom with leadership role. Of the research cited here, it seems that there is an emphasis placed on student experience within an internship that is most valuable. This is an important point, since academic research AND administrators’ perceptions both call for a more encompassing program experience. In the end however, it appears that Universities and accreditation programs are doing what they can with an important and vital duty. While they can not teach every future administrator every important thing they need to know to be successful on the job, they can prepare them with the skills and adaptability that is necessary to improve over time. This being said, there are defined areas that need improvement. It is suggested, that college
- 19 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION preparation programs consider the value of practical work experience over simply completing a number of credit hours that have relevance but lack in application of skills in a problem solving manner. The most important lessons are learned from experience. Experiences afford us as learners to enjoy successes and learn from mistakes, something that is much more valuable than simply completing credits.
- 20 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Reference Burrello, L. C., Schrup, M. G., & Barnett, B. G. (1992). The principal as special education instructional leader. CASE Research Committee, Indiana University, School of Education, Smith Research Center-100A. ED 358 641. Cash, J. (2008). First to worst to first, Association of California School Administrators report on Learning and Teaching Task Force. Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO]. (1996). Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., & Orr, M. T., (2007). School leadership study: Preparing school leaders for a changing world. (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, Stanford University. DiPaola, M. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Doi: 10.1177/019263650308763404 DeMik, S. A. (2008). Experiencing attrition of special education teachers through narrative inquiry. High School Journal, 92(1), 22-32. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Doi: 10.1353/hsj.0.0009 Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffet, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. New York: Public Agenda. Fratt, L. (2005). SOLUTIONS in Special Education. District Administration, 41(6), 60-64. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Gates, S., Ross, K., & Brewer, D. (2001). Leading to reform: Educational leadership for the 21st century. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
- 21 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Gersten, R., Keating, T., Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. K. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67, 549-553. Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation programs. Teachers College Record. 109(1), 244-274. King, D. (2002). The changing shape of educational leadership. Educational Leadership. 59(8), 61-63. Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from http://www.eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest160.html Leithwood, K. A. (1990). The principal’s role in teacher development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Levin, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. (New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project). Murphy, J. (2003). Reculturing educational leadership: The ISLLC Standards ten years out. Paper prepared for the National Policy Board for Educational Administration. National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA] (2002). Standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/ELCCStandards%20_5-02.pdf. Petzko, V. (2008). The perceptions of new principals regarding the knowledge and skills important to their initial success. NASSP Bulletin, 92(3) p. 224-250. doi: 10.1177/0192636508322824
- 22 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Southern Regional Education Board [SREB] (2010). The three essentials: Improving schools required district vision, district and state support and principal leadership. Wallace Foundation.
- 23 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Table 1 Universities Attended by Participants
School
Number of Respondents
Ashland University
20
Bowling Green State University
21
Cleveland State University
8
Franciscan University
4
Kent State University
7
Miami University
9
Ohio State University
12
Ohio University
8
Regent University
3
The University of Akron
9
University of Cincinnati
3
University of Dayton
19
University of Findlay
3
University of Toledo
7
Ursuline College
6
Wright State University
5
Xavier University
8
Youngstown State University
8
Other
7
*Total 174 Note. *Nine participants opted-out of this question
- 24 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Table 2 Administrative Positions of Participants Administrative Positions
Number of Respondents
Superintendent
22
Assistant Superintendent
6
Principal
98
Assistant Principal
32
Special Education Director
6
Director of Curriculum and Instruction
4
Technology Curriculum Coordinator
2
Other Administrative Posting
12
- 25 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Table 3 Additional Demographic Data Results Question
Number
Percentage
% of students identified as having a disability < than 5%
13
7.6%
% of students identified as having a disability is 6-10%
54
31.4%
% of students identified as having a disability is 11-15%
54
31.4%
% of students identified as having a disability is 16-25%
41
23.8%
% of students identified as having a disability is > 25%
10
5.8%
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch is < 10%
28
16%
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch is 11-20%
29
16.6%
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch is 21-40%
67
38.3%
% of students receiving free or reduced lunch is > 40%
51
28.1%
- 26 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Table 4 Level of Preparation Received in Leadership Training Program Questions
Not at All n(%)
Somewhat n(%)
Adequate n(%)
Well Prepared n(%)
9 (5.7)
68(43)
55 (34.8)
24(15.2)
For participating in IEP meetings
23(14.6)
54(34.2)
53(33.5)
24(15.2)
Addressing behaviors for SPED
15(9.5)
63(39.9)
59(37.3)
13(8.2)
Assisting Gen. Ed. Teachers with
5(3.2)
34(29.9)
71(45.8)
39(25.2)
29(18.4)
61(38.6)
48(30.4)
20(12.7)
Scheduling for students in SPED
29(18.4)
53(33.5)
52(32.9)
9(5.7)
Facilitating inclusive settings for
30(18.9)
57(35.8)
52(32.7)
9(5.7)
49(30.8)
57(35.8)
38(23.9)
2(1.3)
Data collection techniques for SPED
46(29.1)
56(35.4)
29(18.4)
13(8.2)
Oversight of alternate assessments
62(39.0)
42(26.4)
33(20.8)
5(3.1)
Managing budgets for students with
41(25.8)
54(34.0)
35(22.0)
7(4.4)
Participation w/ parents and IEP process
17(10.8)
55(35.0)
51(32.5)
27(17.2)
Familiarity with due process
13(8.2)
46(28.9)
65(40.9)
28(17.6)
Familiarity with IDEA
9(5.7)
44(27.7)
66(41.5)
33(20.8)
Familiarity with ADA
15(9.5)
55(34.8)
55(34.8)
23(14.6)
504/Rehabilitation Act
23(14.7)
50(32.1)
57(36.5)
21(13.5)
For first job as an administrator
instructional methodologies Assisting SPED teachers with instructional methodologies
students with mild disabilities Curriculum oversight of students with intensive disabilities
exceptionalities
Note. Figures in Bold typeface indicate selection by largest number of respondents
- 27 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Table 5 Subject
Desired additional coursework
IDEA and legal aspect of Special Education
50.0%
Methods of instruction of exceptional children
57.0%
Assessment of exceptional children
50.6%
Behavior modification techniques
63.9%
Teaching students with mild to moderate
28.5%
disabilities Teaching students with moderate to severe
34.8%
disabilities I did not need additional preparation with
90.5%
special education issues
- 28 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION APPENDIX A Ohio School Administrators’ Perceptions and Preparation Regarding Special Education Topics Demographic information and data 1. Select the last degree completed. [M.Ed., Ed.S Ph.D, or Ed.D. Other (please specify)] 2. What was the year completed and school or institute attended? 3. What is the current administrative position that you hold? 4. What best describes the building in which you work? [Elementary, Middle, High School, Administrative Building, Other (Please Specify)] 5. Number of years at current position. 6. What geographic area of Ohio is your school district? [NW, NE, Central, SW, SE] 7. What best describes you district? [Urban, Suburban, Rural] 8. When serving as a teacher, you were licensed to teach… [General education, Special education, both] 9. Approximately what percentage of your students receives free or reduced lunch? 10. Approximately what percentage of students in your building/s has been identified as having exceptionality? 11. How much of your overall time is dedicated to issues of special education? 12. Upon exiting your education leadership preparation program, how prepared were you for: First job as an administrator, Special education legal issues, IEP meetings, Addressing behavior issues presented by students with exceptionalities, Gen. Ed. teacher instructional methodologies,
- 29 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION Special Ed. teacher instructional methodologies, General education/Special education teacher evaluations, Scheduling, Facilitating inclusive schedules, Curriculum oversight, Statewide assessments, Managing budgets, Participation with parents and IEP process, Familiarity with due process, Familiarity with IDEA/ADA/Section 504/Rehabilitation Act. 13. During your course of study in a leadership preparation program, did regular educators, special educators or both, teach classes? 14. During student teaching, practicum, or classroom teaching did you have the opportunity to work with children with exceptionalities? 15. Within your leadership preparation program, would you have benefited from additional coursework regarding students with exceptionalities? 16. Is continuing education in the form of in-service training helpful regarding your knowledge of issues surrounding students with exceptionalities? 17. If you could have learned more regarding the administration and leadership of students with exceptionalities in your leadership preparation program, what areas of additional training would you have wanted most?
- 30 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION 18. Please include any additional thoughts regarding university leadership preparation programs and how they prepare school leaders to work with students with exceptionalities.
- 31 -
Running Header: OHIO ADMINISTRATORS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION APPENDIX B Human Subject Research Board Approval
- 32 -
