Search results

The chapter examines school administrator responsibilities to special education students and their families from case scenarios based on conflicts between parents and districts regarding services provided by schools to special education students. From these case studies based on real case law, readers are exposed to situations intended to pose questions as to whether administrators met their responsibility to ensure the rights of the special education students. Principals, superintendents, and special education administrators committed to work together to make their school environment and optimal place for children to learn. An equally important role for school administrators is to create and maintain cultures where faculty understand their advocacy role for all children, but in particular, those children most in need of support. Effective administrators hold themselves and other professionals in their district to high standards related to knowledge of school law, particularly special education school law; communication with parents and other professionals; and collaborations based on the value of what is best for the student. This chapter concludes with a section on ethical leadership or the values underlying administrative actions affecting individualized education program students, their families, and all students who are different whether due to socioeconomic status, cultural differences, or race.

The standards movement, while new in the current NCLB iteration, has been a part of education for almost the last half century (Popham, 2001; Sirotnik, 2004). According to several researchers (e.g., DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003; Fullan, 2001; Lashley & Boscardin, 2003; Marsh, 2000; Villa & Thousand, 2000), there have been significant changes in the roles that school leaders must fulfill to implement a standards-based educational accountability system. The requirements of NCLB will not be a “passing fad” and so will affect the manner in which special education administrators conduct their work (Hochschild, 2003). As it stands, districts and schools are viewed as an amalgam of complex relationships (Harry, Sturges, & Klinger, 2005) that come together as learning communities to meet accountability targets for all students. The requirements for building a learning community involve the skills of collaboration and empowerment of others. Apparently, developing productive partnerships will exceed the previously defined narrow interpretation of collaboration with families and other professionals (Crockett, 2002). Standards-based accountability practices which disaggregate data based on specific subgroups, one of which is students with disabilities, are a result of the concern that exclusion of students from testing distorts the efficacy of educational reform efforts (Heubert & Hauser, 1999; McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997; Schulte & Villwock, 2004). However, concerns have also been raised regarding the validity of conclusions drawn from large-scale accountability data (Schulte & Villwock, 2004; Ysseldyke & Bielinski, 2002). Hargreaves (2003) concluded that “the rightful pursuit of higher standards has generated into a counter productive obsession with soulless standardization” (p. 82).

One of the most challenging issues facing building level administrators is the supervision of special education programs in their schools. This chapter outlines the role of the building administrator in overseeing the implementation of special education laws and policies from the initial process of referring students for special education services through the implementation and monitoring phases of service delivery at the building level. Detailed topics include dealing with parents, regular education staff, and student privacy issues. This text examines student discipline and due process complaints as well as strategies for dealing with outside agencies, such as child welfare departments and law enforcement officials. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the No Child Left Behind Act, and its impact on special education services at the building level.

Instructional leadership has taken center stage in recent years as the emphasis on school leaders’ role in improving instructional programs and impacting student learning has increased under the pressures of the accountability movement. While there is a growing literature that has highlighted the indirect impacts of effective instructional leadership on student learning, little is known about these effects in the area of special education. Because this direct involvement in instructional and curricular matters has typically fallen outside the traditional roles of principals and other school leaders, the need for purposeful focus on developing these skills is paramount in a climate that is calling for leaders who can facilitate growth and improvement in student learning, particularly in the area of special education. This chapter explores instructional leadership in the context of special education with a focus on small to mid-sized schools. We identify a set of factors that are critical to the effective implementation of instructional leadership in the area of special education which include, communication, teacher evaluation and supervision, staff development, instructional programing, and instructional design. The chapter goes on to discuss how school leaders can cultivate growth and improvement in special education programming through the use of coaching models and distributed leadership. Lastly we explore the implications for practice including discussions of reforming principal preparation programs and shared leadership.

Thirty-two qualitative research reports on co-teaching in inclusive classrooms, identified through a comprehensive literature search, are reviewed. Studies have included significant diversity in grade level, geographical location, setting, and took place in three different countries. Overall, teachers and administrators reported a high degree of satisfaction with co-teaching. However, a number of needs were also addressed, including administrative support, appropriate caseloads, planning time, student skill level, and co-teacher compatibility. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Special education administration in the 21st century is a challenging endeavor due to the roles and responsibilities that special education administrators face in today's world. Part of the challenge comes from federal legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004. These acts require more program accountability and innovative leadership by special education administrators. Challenges also arise from the changing demographics in American schools. For instance, special education administrators need to develop and administer programs to a growing diverse school population. Leadership is needed in this area to alter the disturbing disproportionate number of multicultural students that are placed in special education programs. Proactive leadership in preventing the misassessment, miscategorization, misidentification, and misplacement of multicultural students is critical.

This chapter offers an integrated framework for the design of educational leadership preparation programs that situate disability in the vision of social justice leadership (SJL) and equity for all students. We examine the extent to which current standards for building-level administrators inform their ability to implement programs for students with disabilities. Utilizing Theoharis’ (2007) definition of social justice leadership (SJL), we propose a broader framework for SJL that accounts for students with disabilities and present four key components upon which the broader framework of SJL rests. We align the updated standards for building-level leaders with the professional standards for special education administrators and describe how the skill sets for special education leaders complement and inform the design of leadership preparation programs to support candidates’ ability to create, sustain, and implement programs that meet the needs of all children. Finally, we argue for an integrated framework of professional standards that provides a more comprehensive set of skills necessary for meeting the needs of each and every student in the school, and we provide recommendations for leadership preparation programs to achieve this integration.

Notes that increased legislation promoting educational equity, court decisions favouring inclusion of special education students, and pressure to compete in a global economy provide a forum for intense debate among educational stakeholders such as administrators, special education parents, and parents of gifted children. Proposes to identify their attitudes regarding: the effectiveness of schools in providing intellectually challenging environments for a diverse population and the barriers equity might create in educating today’s students to become tomorrow’s high level, creative thinkers in a democratic society. Explores the macropolitical aspects of state‐mandated inclusion and the micropolitical barriers one superintendent faced when trying to establish equity for all students in a hostile environment where parents of special education and gifted children joined forces to campaign actively against inclusion. This unusual bonding propelled the study from a traditional research design to one which more closely resembled action research. Describes the tension existing among diverse educational stakeholders who viewed equity differently. Provides recommendations for improving educational leadership training to include strategies dealing with issues like those encountered during this research.

Recent changes in legislation have generated discussions among educators throughout the United States. The NCLB Act and IDEIA added new requirements for schools, and raised some questions regarding the intersection of the two laws as they impact special education. Following are discussions of these laws and what they mean to rural school systems.

In this chapter, the author reflects on nearly 40 years of professional experience in the field of special education. She offers personal perspectives and comments based on a variety of professional and personal experiences, including (1) teaching public school and college; (2) delivering professional development to school staff; and (3) coaching young adults who are creating independent adult lives after receiving special education during their school years. Her comments are also based on her personal experience as the parent of two young adults who needed special education services during their school years. Thus, the author writes with a unique perspective on special education. Among the current practices on which she comments are (1) variations on the process of response to intervention; (2) the role of the IEP; (3) the importance of curriculum and instruction; (4) the changing demographics of disability; (5) misunderstanding of the concept of least restrictive environment; and (6) the overwhelming volume of paperwork involved in the special education process. Special education practices between 1982 and 2010 are then contrasted with present-day implementation. Finally, the author proposes needed changes in special education and considers ways in which it might be improved in the future. This chapter provides a retrospective on special education through the years, offering both realistic criticisms and reasons for optimism.