Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Administrators’ role on systems for students with exceptionalities
(USC Thesis Other)
Administrators’ role on systems for students with exceptionalities
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Administrators’ Role on Systems for Students With Exceptionalities
A. Eryn Yoshida
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by A. Eryn Yoshida 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for A. Eryn Yoshida certifies the approval of this Dissertation
David Cash
Bradley Ermeling
Cathy Krop, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
The study was applied in the context of scholarly literature guided by the framework of social
cognitive theory (SCT) to examine the role of urban elementary school administrators in school
programming to support students with exceptionalities. The purpose of this study was to examine
the role of an administrator in a teacher’s ability to support students with exceptionalities in a
Southern California urban elementary school. It examined the viewpoints and perspectives of
both the administrators and teachers to examine how they perceived the school administrators
built the teachers’ capacity through systems and support for teachers. Three school
administrators and five teachers participated in this qualitative study in one-on-one interviews.
Further exploration and analysis of the data utilizing coding systems to transmit the participants’
experiences into abstract and thematic concepts led to findings. Findings from this study
indicated that school administrators’ design for special education programming is crucial in the
school culture. This study illuminates the need to prioritize shifts in the systems and policies to
include more asset-based approaches and inclusivity to reframe the deficit framework that has
been historically embedded within and throughout California’s education systems.
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the unwavering support and care
from my family and close friends, who have been steadfast in their love throughout my life
journey. The countless hours and, most of all, efforts that have been poured into standing
alongside me have allowed me to transform into the human being that I am today! My journey as
an educational leader and my path through this doctoral program was another testament to your
outpour of grace, comfort, and encouragement that holds a special place in my heart.
I would like to share appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Cathy Krop, and my
committee members, Dr. David Cash and Dr. Bradley Ermeling, who have been truly
instrumental in my journey as a Trojan. Dr. Krop, thank you for the many hours together
working through the intricacies of this dissertation with your positive spirit. Thank you for
choosing to be a part of this special project with me! Dr. Cash, you have been a mentor to me
since I first enrolled in the master’s program at USC, and I am grateful for the wisdom you’ve
shared along the way in my journey as an educational leader. Thank you for continuing to help
me transform into an equity-centered leader in schools! Dr. Ermeling, I will always remember
your gentle push model from my first day in your class that has continued to be a source of
inspiration to do better every day. Thank you for all of the ways that you unknowingly helped me
discover another side to my voice to speak my truth!
To each of my student leaders out there and the many future generations to come, this
dissertation is for you! My hope is that this dissertation, along with the work of many others, will
help to shed light on the importance of reframing to ensure that we are doing better in our
education systems for each of you who are a part of it.
To each of you who have been a part of my journey, thank you for being my champion!
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Organization Context and Mission ......................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions.....................................................................7
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................8
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology .....................................................8
Definitions............................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................11
Overview of Special Education Programming in Schools.................................................11
The Role of School Administrators in Special Education Programming in Urban
Elementary Schools ...........................................................................................................25
Inclusive Settings for Students With Exceptionalities in Urban Elementary Schools.......32
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................41
Summary............................................................................................................................44
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................45
Overview of Methodology.................................................................................................45
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................51
Ethics..................................................................................................................................53
The Researcher...................................................................................................................54
vii
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................56
Presentation of Findings ....................................................................................................58
Research Question 1: How Do Urban School Elementary Teachers in Southern
California Describe the Support They Receive From School Administrators in
Building Their Capacity to Serve Students With Exceptionalities? ..................................58
Research Question 2: What School Settings and Conditions Have Southern
California Urban Elementary School Administrators Created Around Systems and
Supports for Students With Exceptionalities? ...................................................................70
Research Question 3: What Do Urban School Elementary Teachers and
Administrators Suggest As Additional School Settings and Conditions
Administrators Could Put in Place to Strengthen Teachers’ Abilities to Reduce
Inequities That Arise for Students With Exceptionalities?................................................81
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice ......................................................93
Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................93
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................101
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................110
Areas for Future Research ...............................................................................................111
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................111
References....................................................................................................................................113
Appendix A: One-on-One Interview Protocol (Administrators) .................................................124
Questions (With Transitions)...........................................................................................126
Closing .............................................................................................................................127
Appendix B: One-on-One Interview Protocol (Teachers)...........................................................128
Questions (With Transitions)...........................................................................................130
Closing .............................................................................................................................131
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: CPSEL Overview 29
Table 2: Thirteen Categories of Dis/Abilities by IDEA 33
Table 3: Data Sources 47
Table 4: Summary of Participants 57
Table 5: Examples of School Principals Being Actively Involved to Create a Culture of Care
in Urban Elementary Schools 72
Table 6: Examples of Needing More Time Built Into More Equitable Schedules for Teachers
of Students With Exceptionalities 87
Table 7: Key Findings: Administrators’ Role and Approach to Systems for Students With
Exceptionalities 92
Table 8: Key Findings and Recommendations for Practice: Administrators’ Role and
Approach to Systems for Students With Exceptionalities 102
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Inclusion Rates in California and Nationally for Students With Exceptionalities in
General Education Classrooms 5
Figure 2: Special Education Programs in California Before 1980 17
Figure 3: Process for Identifying and Educating Students with Exceptionalities 19
Figure 4: Standardized Testing Results in California From 2016–2017 22
Figure 5: An Area’s Impact on Student Achievement 27
Figure 6: Universal Design for Learning Guidelines 37
Figure 7: Data Improvement Matrix 40
Figure 8: Conceptual Framework for This Study 43
Figure 9: Analysis Map for Coding Data 51
Figure 10: Whole Child Approach to Education 77
Figure 11: Guiding Principles for Equitable Whole Child Design 105
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Students with exceptionalities in California public schools have been underserved,
leading to inadequate educational services due, in part, to insufficient training of educators
(Mader, 2017). Years of injustices and inequities around deficit ideologies as they pertain to
people’s abilities have stifled students’ progression and need immediate dismantling. Students
who have been identified as having a dis/ability have been termed names enclosed in deficit
perspectives. In this study, they will be termed as “students with exceptionalities” and “students
who have been identified as having a dis/ability” as an intentional reframing to show each of
their abilities as assets to who they are.
The number of children in the United States receiving special education services has
continued to increase over time. In the 2020–2021 school year, 7.2 million children in the United
States ranging from 3–21 years old received special education services under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which included 15% of all public school students in
California (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). There has been an increase in the
number of students who received special education services from 6.5 million children in the
2009–2010 school year, or 13% of the total public school enrollment population, to 15% of the
total public school population in the 2020–21 school year. The number of students who received
special education services in California under IDEA in the 2009–2010 school year was 673,494
individuals, 3–21 years old (California Department of Education, 2024). In the 2022–2023
school year, 793,985 individuals, 3–21 years of age, received special education services in
California. The continuous and rapid increase in the percentage of students in special education
programming has led to inconsistent and ineffective programming throughout California’s
schools, with teachers who are not adequately trained under the guidance of school
2
administrators who also lack training (Izak, 2024). That has resulted in underperformance on
standards-based assessments and overall low student achievement by students with
exceptionalities. In 2023, 425,890 of these students who took the English Language Arts
California state assessment in Grades 3–8 and Grade 11 performed 96.3 points below standard
(California School Dashboard, 2024). In comparison, looking across all 2,979,436 students, they
performed on average 13.6 points below standard. For mathematics, these students performed
127.3 points below standard, in comparison to 49.1 points below standard across all students.
This gap in achievement continues to widen.
The systems and supports in California’s urban elementary school settings around serving
students with exceptionalities have varied based on the school administrator (Gilson & Etscheidt,
2022). The variations have resulted in a multitude of performance outcomes for these students.
With the continuously increasing number of students with exceptionalities, teachers are also
completing preparation programs inadequately prepared to meet their needs (Mitchell, 2020).
This has led to a range of equity gaps in special education programming and supports. The
training, systems, and support for these students have been left in the hands of school
administrators to design, implement, and adjust to what is best for their school and students. The
purpose of this study was to examine the role a school administrator plays in a teacher’s ability
to support students with exceptionalities both through the lens of the administrator and the
teachers who work alongside them.
Background of the Problem
The IDEA was enacted as a federal law in 1975 to establish a formal process for
identifying and serving students with exceptionalities and was reauthorized by Congress in
December 2004 (Legislative Analyst's Office [LAO], 2019). The IDEA ensures that children
3
with exceptionalities receive free and appropriate public education and related services from
birth and that their and their parents’ rights are protected (U.S. Department of Education, 2023a).
Under Part B of IDEA, that includes students ages 6 to 21. There were nearly 800,000 students in
California, equating to 13%, who received special education services in 2020, increasing from
10.9% in 2011 (Population Reference Bureau, 2021). The large rise in the identification of
students with exceptionalities has challenged educational practices and has been seen in the
underperformance of students with exceptionalities in comparison to their peers.
In 2018, students across California who took the California state standardized test in
English language arts in Grades 3 through 8 and Grade 11 scored, on average, six points below
standard (California School Dashboard, 2024). The students who were identified as students with
exceptionalities scored, on average, 95.5 points below standard. Further, there were students who
took the California Alternate Assessment, which is the state assessment that is individually
administered to students who have an individualized education program that indicates using an
alternate assessment on statewide assessments. In 2018, 36,140 students took the California
Alternate Assessment in English language arts, with 51.4% scoring at a level one of limited
understanding, 31.4% at a level two of foundational understanding, and 17.2% at a level three of
understanding (California School Dashboard, 2024). For mathematics, students across
California, on average, scored 36.4 points below standard on the state assessment in 2018. Those
who were identified as students with exceptionalities scored 125.3 points below standard, on
average. Further, of the 36,002 students who took the California Alternate Assessment in
mathematics, 64.5% scored at a Level 1, 27.6% at a Level 2, and 7.9% at a Level 3 (California
School Dashboard, 2024).
4
In addition, students in California are placed on a prepared level on the college/career
indicator based on their performance in the completion of rigorous coursework and performance
on examinations. Out of all students deemed prepared in 2018, 42% were from the entire
population, and 9.2% were students with exceptionalities (California School Dashboard, 2024).
Further, the academic performance of students with exceptionalities continued to fall from 2018
to 2023. All students who took the assessment in English language arts in 2023 scored 13.6
points below standard, and students with exceptionalities scored 96.3 points below standard
(California School Dashboard, 2024). All students who took the assessment in mathematics
scored 49.1 points below standard, and students with exceptionalities scored 127.3 points below
standard (California School Dashboard, 2024). It must be noted that the number of students who
actually completed the assessment was significantly lower in 2023 than in 2018, but there were
still significant decreases in scores. The difference in scores demonstrates the current
achievement challenges that students with exceptionalities face.
The relationship between the continuous increase in the number of students who are
identified as students with exceptionalities and the continuous decline in their academic
performance highlights the lack of proper systems collectively implemented in school settings to
adequately support them. The IDEA requires that students be placed in their least restrictive
environment (LRE), which means that students with exceptionalities receive as much of their
education as possible in an environment with their peers who do not qualify as students with
exceptionalities with supplementary aids and services, also known as inclusion or mainstreaming
(LAO, 2019). California has set a goal to increase inclusion rates even further to at least threequarters of students with exceptionalities receiving their education in a general education
classroom for at least 80% of the day. As shown in Figure 1, the inclusion rate has increased and
5
is designated as 80% or more of the student’s time spent inside general education classes, and is
still moving toward the direction of California’s goal. In 2017, there was a 7.4% difference
between the California and national inclusion rates, which was a 1.2% reduction in the gap
between the two. Many of these students have inclusion opportunities, but the degree of
opportunity for participation varies greatly (LAO, 2019).
Figure 1
Inclusion Rates in California and Nationally for Students With Exceptionalities in General
Education Classrooms
Note. From Students With Disabilities: Lesson From Other States by D. Humphrey, B. Gamse, J.
Myung, & B. Cottingham, 2020, p. 18. Policy Analysis for California Education.
(https://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/r_humphrey_feb20_0.pdf). Copyright 2020
by Policy Analysis for California Education.
6
The increase in the inclusion rate led educators, upon graduating from teacher preparation
programs or in their classrooms, to serve an increased number of students with exceptionalities
for which they may not be prepared. In the annual state application under Part B of the IDEA
submitted by the state of California, it was noted that the state could not provide assurance
around the qualifications from state educational agencies to ensure proper preparation and
training to serve these students (California Departmetn of Education, 2022). An attempt to
expand on the skill set and knowledge of teachers through the recent Senate Bill 488 reveals a
call to action, particularly around English Language Development and Dyslexia (Commission on
Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2024). This bill includes an update to the standards for teachers by
the CTC and teacher performance expectations (TPEs), as well as a new literacy performance
assessment that is replacing the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA). California
also passed Senate Bill 1113 in August of 2022 and Senate Bill 354 in September of 2023 to
make revisions to administrative services credential standards and performance expectations to
include and strengthen preparation for inclusion with a focus on the Universal Design for
Learning (UDL), require more inclusive practices and strategies to improve outcomes for
students with exceptionalities, and provide guidance for staffing inclusive classrooms with
deadlines occurring over the next 4 years (LegiScan, 2024a, 2024b).
The increase in the number of students being identified in special education and the
increased percentage of time students are participating in inclusive settings, coupled with the
lack of training coming from teacher preparation programs, has left school administrators, who
also lack training from administration preparation programs, to design the proper systems and
supports to serve students with exceptionalities (Izak, 2024). Since the administrators are left to
7
construct the design, the consistency and effectiveness of urban elementary schools’ special
education programming vary across the state.
Organization Context and Mission
The organization of study is Fayceville Unified School District (a pseudonym), which is
located in Southern California. The district has approximately 20 elementary schools serving
approximately 10,000 students. Their mission statement is to utilize the educational system to
ensure each student engages in rigorous curricula and personalized instruction in collaboration
with their community. The elementary schools from Fayceville Unified School District included
in this study are urban elementary schools. I selected Fayceville Unified School District
particularly because of their vision and belief around students with exceptionalities in which they
strive to provide every child with opportunities as a general education student, first utilizing a
variety of educational opportunities to maximize their experiences in their LRE viewing each
student as a unique individual with exceptional needs.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the role that an administrator plays in a
teacher’s ability to support students with exceptionalities in an urban elementary school setting.
It examined the administrators’ viewpoints on these students based on the school programming
and systems for teachers. In addition, the study included interviews with teachers to examine
how they perceived the administrators built systems and provided support for them. The
following research questions guided this study:
1. How do urban school elementary teachers in Southern California describe the support
they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve students
with exceptionalities?
8
2. What school settings and conditions have Southern California urban elementary
school administrators created around systems and supports for students with
exceptionalities?
3. What do urban school elementary teachers and administrators suggest as additional
school settings and conditions administrators could put in place to strengthen
teachers’ abilities to reduce inequities that arise for students with exceptionalities?
Importance of the Study
The study is of great importance to ensure that students with exceptionalities are
receiving equitable access to adequate school programming in urban elementary schools. These
students continue to be identified at much higher rates, underperform, and receive an education
that is subpar in comparison to their peers. California schools are continuing to fail students with
exceptionalities through a lack of proper educational systems embodied with high expectations
and purposeful student supports (Parsons, 2023). The reframing of student abilities and
opportunities for these students needs to be re-centered to the forefront of decision making for
California schools (Connor et al., 2016). Even going back to the inception of IDEA, there has
been a focus and reliance on a deficit model of dis/ability that implies a need to “fix” a child’s
issues through interventions to address disproportionality (Kramarczuk Voulgarides, 2018). This
study’s findings will support the work of school administrators, teachers, and government leaders
who seek to change the culture around serving these students to reframe the term “disabilities”
into “exceptionalities.”
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology
The study aimed to examine the role of school administrators in school programming to
support students with exceptionalities and was guided by the framework of SCT. This framework
9
created a clearer understanding of how interactions between school personnel and programming
affect school environments. According to SCT, there is a reciprocal and dynamic interaction
among people, environment, and behavior, with an emphasis on the social influence that impacts
the internal and external social reinforcements. This study sought to understand the social impact
on the schooling experiences of students with exceptionalities, especially around the dismantling
of ableism and deficit perspectives about these students as individuals and what they can do.
Albert Bandura developed SCT to describe the reciprocal interaction of the person,
environment, and behavior (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2020). This theory also describes the
many ways in which individuals initiate and maintain behaviors based on their social
environment. It is often used to describe how behaviors change, with two main operative
constructs being outcome expectancies and self-efficacy. SCT examines people as active agents
who both influence and are influenced by their environment. It is considered to be an extension
of social learning and how cognitive processes impact an individual’s behavior and the
environment, which, in turn, influences them.
In a qualitative methods approach, this study used individual interviews. Interviews with
teachers addressed Research Question 1. Research Question 2 involved one-on-one interviews
with site administrators, and Research Question 3 was understood through both the site
administrators’ and teachers’ interviews.
Definitions
• Dis/ability: The intentional alteration from using the term “disability” to disrupt the
misunderstandings and social constructs of both abilities that society has previously
predetermined one’s specific inability to perform culturally defined expected tasks
(Connor et al., 2016).
10
• Students with exceptionalities: The reframing of students who have been identified as
needing special education services from “students with disabilities,” which carries a
negative and deficit perspective on the abilities of students.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided an introduction to
the problem of practice and discussed the purpose of the study, including the research questions
guiding the study and an overview of the conceptual framework and methodology. Chapter Two
provides literature on the problem and gives a broader understanding of the social cognitive
framework used to frame the study. Chapter Three describes the methodology used in data
collection through individual interviews. Chapter Four reviews the data findings and explains the
results for each research question. Chapter Five, the concluding chapter of the study, discusses
the findings of the study in the context of current literature and the conceptual framework,
provides related recommendations for practice, and areas for future research.
11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter discusses a review of literature on dis/abilities and special education in the
United States, school programming for students with exceptionalities in California, and the role
of school administrators in urban elementary schools’ special education programming.
Perspectives about the overidentification of students, inclusive settings in urban elementary
schools, and best practices are then shared. This will be followed by a discussion on SCT, which
is a guiding theory behind this study as it pertains to school administrators and their work around
school programming in urban elementary schools. These discussions are used as an examination
of the inconsistencies and inequities in among serving and supporting students with
exceptionalities in urban elementary schools. Throughout the history of special education in our
society, these students have been perceived as having a deficit. This is seen through the literature
review with variations of “students with dis/abilities” used as terms representing the deficit
terminologies used in the literature that was studied.
Overview of Special Education Programming in Schools
The programming for special education for students in schools has emerged, evolved, and
been altered time and time again. In alignment with changing philosophies and leaders who are
directly impacting the political, financial, and social-emotional aspects of programming, students
with exceptionalities have received varying degrees of systems of support that have directly
impacted their educational experiences, particularly in urban elementary schools. The largest
challenge with this is the inequities that have surfaced and continue to be revealed for these
students that are rooted in the experiences of people with dis/abilities throughout the history of
the United States.
12
United States History of Rights for People With Dis/Abilities
People who were deemed as having a dis/ability were considered to be incomplete as
human beings and treated as such, dating to before the 1800s (De Los Santos, 2019). Any person
having a dis/ability was believed to not possess intellect, devalued because of it, often seen as
demonic, and exploited in conjunction with it. During the Industrial Revolution, a person’s
employment was based on their ability to work (Turner & Blackie, 2018). Any individual who
was determined not to have an able body that could withstand long hours in factories could not
make money. This created a division based on able-bodiedness, and those considered less ablebodied were placed in more harmful conditions, all of which were determined by their varying
employers and their perspectives on their ability to perform tasks. The raised importance of what
was deemed as “normal” by industrial capitalism leading to the great divide in the criterion for
employment (Swain et al., 1993).
The Industrial Revolution was a largely impactful causation of the increase in the number
of people who became impaired either physically or cognitively, with an annual ratio of 100
impairments to every one fatality, with an estimated 35,000 impairments each year (Turner,
2020). Following the Industrial Revolution was the American Civil War that lasted for nearly 4
years (Gibbons Backus, 2020). It was during this war that three out of every four surgeries were
amputations, leading to immediate physical impairment, equating to close to 60,000 operations.
Oftentimes, the soldiers who returned home were termed “invalids” and were not considered to
be valid members of society anymore because they could not serve as the primary moneymakers
in their households and had to rely on others at home. This was the first attention paid to
segregating people based on their abilities.
13
The 1900s were a time of both positive and negative events and movements around
people with dis/abilities in the United States. The continued segregation of people with
dis/abilities came with the court case of Buck v. Bell of 1927, which supported the sterilization of
inmates who were determined to have been unfit to reproduce based on their mental abilities.
This aligned with the rising acceptance of Charles Darwin’s theory of eugenics with a concept of
nature being more important than nurture, as well as the stagnation in and repression of the
population of people who had been identified as having a dis/ability (De Los Santos, 2019).
In 1950, a barrier-free movement began by veterans who had become physically
dis/abled led to the development of national standards for buildings to make them barrier-free for
all people (Story, 1998). The movement also created more opportunities in education and
employment that sparked change in public policies and design practices. The Arc was founded in
1950, which is its new name based on the reframing alteration of its original name, National
Association for Retarded Children, and serves as the largest national community-based
organization assisting families and children who have been identified as having intellectual and
developmental needs (The Arc, 2023). These both served as shifts toward recognizing positive
supports that uplift people’s abilities and provide more access for all.
The Civil Rights Movement that began in 1954 also served as a foundation for changes in
the way people who had been identified as having a dis/ability were treated (De Los Santos,
2019). The Special Olympics served as a springboard for providing more access to sporting
events and was founded in 1962 when children who had been identified as having intellectual
needs participated in a summer day camp in the backyard of Eunice Kennedy Shriver’s house
that she called Camp Shriver (Special Olympics, 2023). This eventually led to the first
14
International Special Olympics Games in Chicago, Illinois, in 1968, with 23 sport-led events,
providing a chance for people with intellectual needs to compete and receive athletic training.
The health opportunities expanded with the passing of Title XIX in 1965, also known as
the Medicaid State Plan, as a joint state-federal program that provided health coverage and
medical assistance for people who had been identified as having a dis/ability (Klees et al., 2009).
Further, the Disabilities Rights Movement began in the 1970s. This was launched by the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which served as the first time in history that the civil rights of people
who had been identified as having a dis/ability were actually protected by the law with the
inclusion of civil rights language for people who had been identified as having a dis/ability
(Anti-Defamation League, 2017). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provided equal opportunities
for employment, the prohibition of discrimination based on physical or mental abilities, and the
establishment of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board that provided
mandates around equal access to public services. President George Bush signed the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, later amended in 2008, which was considered to be one of the
most important civil rights laws that prohibited discrimination against people who had been
identified as having a dis/ability, including their employment opportunities, transportation,
access to programs and services, and public accommodations (Anti-Defamation League, 2017).
Movements and law amendments continue to take place to ensure equal opportunities and
anti-discrimination against people who have been identified as having a dis/ability.
Federal and State Policies Affecting California’s Special Education Programming in Urban
Elementary Schools
The establishment of the idea of schools, also known as Common Schools, began during
the 19th century with the influx of immigrants to the United States for children who lived in “the
15
urban slums” (Wright & Wright, 2021, par. 5). In the late 19th century, the first programs for
what was deemed special education schooling were delinquency prevention programs for at-risk
children (Wright & Wright, 2021). The children had to partake in manual training classes in
addition to their general education programs, as well as a focus on moral training specifically for
African American children.
The first school in the Western Hemisphere for students with exceptionalities was the
American School for the Deaf, which was established on April 15, 1817 (Gallaudet University,
2023). The first known school of any kind in the United States of America was established in
1846 by American immigrants near Santa Clara (Wood, 2013). The first schoolhouse opened in
San Francisco and was the first free California public school in 1849. The funding to support
special education programming, specifically in California, started in 1860 with the establishment
of a residential school for students who had been identified as being hard of hearing, which led to
more residential schools for both students who were hard of hearing and seeing. Schools for
students with exceptionalities continued to develop over time.
In the United States, schools continued to segregate students based on their abilities,
particularly as it pertained to attendance. The attendance laws in the United States were
established in 1874 and led to attendance becoming compulsory for children ages 8 to 14. State
aid was only guaranteed based on the children living in the district. This was then extended to
children in high school in 1902. Students who had been identified as having a dis/ability were
then grouped into isolated classrooms to avoid their influence on their non-disabled peers. This
grouping was created to limit the impact of attendance laws on students with exceptionalities in
case they would not be able to attend school for reasons potentially related to their dis/ability
(Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Students in isolated classrooms were oftentimes not educated for fear
16
that they would become normalized, integrate into society, and reproduce. It was reported in
1931 that out of the 10 million minors who needed special education support in the United
States, only one million of them actually received the education (Paul et al., 2001).
Segregation and discrimination based on their abilities also affected students at the
college level. In 1962, Ed Roberts enrolled in the University of California as a student who had
polio. Shortly after he enrolled, the university found out that he had polio, and they rejected him,
but he fought hard to have that decision overturned (Dawson, 2015). He later led efforts to
establish programming for students who had been identified as having a dis/ability and
established the first Center for Independent Living, as well as founded the Independent Living
Movement, which secured opportunities for people who had been identified as having a
dis/ability.
To address the issues around segregation and discrimination, more grant programs
continued to be developed to support the improvement of school programming and the education
of students who had been identified as having a dis/ability both in California and in the United
States. From 1920 to 1975, California created different special education categorical programs to
eventually include 11 programs that had district funding rates, eligibility, and programmatic
requirements outlined in Figure 2 (LAO, 2019).
17
Figure 2
Special Education Programs in California Before 1980
Note. From LAO report: Overview of Special Education in California by Legislative Analyst’s
Office, 2019. (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4110). In the public domain.
A specific grant program to support students with exceptionalities was in the 1966
amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1962 (ESEA) to include specific
grant programs for students with dis/abilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2023b). The
adjustments in programs during this time also set precedence for future attention to addressing
inequities.
Multiple lawsuits also had a direct impact on the opportunities for students with
dis/abilities. A lawsuit in 1971, Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was the first right-to-education lawsuit that took place in the
United States that would provide a free public education for children who were identified as
having “mental retardation” in Pennsylvania (Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, 2021a). This
18
was followed by the lawsuit in 1972, Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, which
would provide public education to all students with dis/abilities in the District of Columbia (Civil
Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, 2021b). These two cases led to an investigation by Congress to
identify the status of children who had been identified as having a dis/ability and the education
they were receiving. The investigation determined that students with dis/abilities were not
receiving the same free public education as their non-dis/abled peers. This led to the
shortcomings of systems addressed in 1975.
In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) was enacted by
Congress and was later termed the IDEA in 1990 (U.S. Department of Education, 2023a, 2023c).
This act guaranteed a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to every child who had been
identified as having a dis/ability in every state and locality across the country. Prior to this act,
U.S. schools only educated one in five children with dis/abilities, and many students were
excluded based on a variety of state laws due to their dis/ability. This act also ensured that the
rights of both children with dis/abilities and their parents were protected. In addition, this act put
into place compliance reports to provide reflective effectiveness data points around the education
of children with dis/abilities. To determine how to best identify and educate students with
dis/abilities that were systematic and measurable, IDEA created a three-step process that school
districts in California must follow, as shown in Figure 3 (LAO, 2019).
19
Figure 3
Process for Identifying and Educating Students with Exceptionalities
Note. From LAO report: Overview of Special Education in California by Legislative Analyst’s
Office, 2019. (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4110). In the public domain.
This was followed by the creation of a master plan for special education in California in
1975 to include specialized services to support students who identified as having a dis/ability.
This plan was based on the principle that all children deserve to be educated regardless of their
differences in abilities, which was deemed as a weakness in California’s education system that
needed addressing. A funding system simplified from the 11 categorical programs, listed in
20
Figure 2, referred to as the J-50 system for compliance purposes was established in 1980. The
system included three types of service: Special day class, resource specialist, and designated
instruction and services.
California continued to develop more programs to support students with dis/abilities. In
1998, California funded California Special Education Local Plan Areas to support educational
programs and services for students who had been identified as having a dis/ability, also referred
to as AB 602 (LAO, 2019). This served as a task for developing a plan to deliver special
education services. AB 602 was put into effect on July 1, 1998. It was designed as a census
system that calculated funding based on the average daily attendance for each local education
agency’s overall K–12 student population (Willis et al., 2020). The dis/ability identification rate
showed stabilization after AB 602 was passed for a decade but then began to climb rapidly again.
The United States also recognized the widening gaps for students with dis/abilities and
implemented federal policies to enhance their educational opportunities. The No Child Left
Behind law was passed in 2002 as an update from the ESEA that increased school accountability
at the federal level to support all students in an attempt to close the achievement gap (Klein,
2015). This law mandated schools to increase the achievement of students with dis/abilities by
providing them with a better education through the establishment of student academic standards
with an aligned assessment system to measure this achievement. The bill around the teaching of
the history of dis/ability rights was passed in 2006 and required all K–12 public school students
to be taught the historical events of the dis/ability rights movement (National Consortium on
Leadership and Disability/Youth, 2007). This served as an educational opportunity for all
students to learn more about the historical rights of people with dis/abilities. This was followed
by the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015 to improve educational opportunities
21
for all students with allocation formulations to local education agencies (U.S. Department of
Education, 2023b). This act further emphasized the alignment between a student’s individualized
education program (IEP) with state academic content standards and a shared commitment to high
expectations with the implementation of evidence-based practices that improve the achievement
outcomes for students with dis/abilities. This act also requires using alternate achievement
standards aligned with the state academic content standards that support a student’s pursuit of
postsecondary education and employment opportunities.
The variety of school programming and support in California for students who have been
identified as having a dis/ability has continued to change and develop over time. During the
school year following the establishment of EHA in the 1976–1977 school year, 3,694,000
students received special education services in the United States (U.S. Department of Education,
2023a, 2023c). In the 2017–2018 school year, the number of students receiving special education
services in California was 12.5% of the students, which was 798,115 students, which was an
increase from 10.8% in the early 2000s (LAO, 2019). In the 2021–2022 school year, the number
of students who received special education services in kindergarten through twelfth grade was
5,892,240 in the United States and 813,528 in California. In addition, students who receive
special education services have lower academic outcomes than their peers. There are many
factors that may contribute to positively or negatively impacting the academic performance and
outcome of a student, including the highest education degree of their parents, the socioeconomic
status of the family, and the primary language of a student. Figure 4 shows students who have a
dis/ability are underperforming in comparison to their peers who have these other listed factors
and are ranked in the 18th percentile on state tests. These facts challenge inequities in special
education programming in California.
22
Figure 4
Standardized Testing Results in California From 2016–2017
Note. From LAO report: Overview of Special Education in California by Legislative Analyst’s
Office, 2019. (https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4110). In the public domain.
Critiques of Policies and Practices Affecting Special Education Programming
There are a variety of federal policies that have been implemented over time that have
impacted special education programming. These federal policies are rooted in a deficit-based
foundation even though they have their series of attempts with statewide accountability and
reauthorizations to include the disproportionalities that are widening the education debt in
America (Kramarczuk Voulgarides, 2018). The legislation of IDEA has foundationally relied on
a deficit model of dis/ability with the approach that an individual’s abilities reside within them
and can be fixed using individualized educational remedies. It is rooted in false notions of
meritocracy and the idea that individualized educational interventions will sufficiently address
the disproportionalities a child experiences and that their issues can be fixed in this manner
(Kramarczuk Voulgarides, 2018).
23
The ideological framework of IDEA is a colorblind lens that never addresses or questions
society’s contributions to the persistent inequalities and inequities that are occurring, further
widening the education debt. The education debt includes years of disparities that characterize
our society through the historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral decisions and policies that
have been made (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The compliance reports that have followed around the
enforcement and compliance with IDEA have revealed that there is no real compliance
happening as it is inconsistent and ineffective as states are not being truly held accountable to
comply with the law (Wright & Wright, 2021). This deficit framework in IDEA creates
conditions where good intentions in the ways people work to establish policies, procedures, and
educational practices do not ensure that equity is truly achieved for all students.
IDEA includes the Child Find requirement in which all school districts must identify and
evaluate all children with dis/abilities (California Association of Health and Education Linked
Professions, 2024). This has led to the overidentification of students who are becoming eligible
for special education services. Current systems to support these students function on a deficitbased foundation, and the impacts of overidentification are harming the students involved
(Arundel, 2021). Students with exceptionalities are receiving inequitable services and negative
labeling that is detrimental. The overidentification is paired with the misidentification of
students. The intersectionality of a multitude of factors from the most historically marginalized,
minoritized students and their abilities has created an inequitable misrepresentation of students
that must be analyzed. According to IDEA, a student must have a dis/ability that is adversely
impacting their ability to learn (U.S. Department of Education, 2023a).
Often, other factors impacting academic or behavioral performance are not analyzed or
fully taken into account, including the education debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The extreme
24
levels of trauma that children have experienced have had detrimental effects on who they are and
how they behave. There have been added impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic in that
potentially well-intentioned educators have rushed qualifying students for special education
services in an attempt at academic remediation (Arundel, 2021). The reauthorized IDEA of 2004
included addressing issues around disproportionality and overidentification of historically
marginalized, minoritized students (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Despite the added
attention to this matter, it continues today.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides states with more power and
opportunity to shape their education systems, and most states are neglecting students with
exceptionalities, particularly since their primary method of accountability is testing. It includes
opportunities for alternate achievement standards and assessments that maintain the deficit
framework, pushing students with exceptionalities toward an alternative assessment (Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2020). In relation to the assessments, ESSA calls for appropriate
accommodations on assessments; yet, if these accommodations are new and not provided to the
students during instruction, they are actually having a negative impact on student performance
due to a lack of alignment between instruction and assessment (Maggin & Tejero Hughes, 2021).
There is also a lack of accountability systems to ensure that states are adhering to the
professional learning and compliance mandates, including the cap of 1% of the student
population being allowed to take the alternate assessment (Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2020).
The deficit-based foundation in federal policies around the education of students with
exceptionalities maintains the status quo of the education debt. The intentional attention required
25
to dismantle these policies to ensure equitable practices for these students must be a priority
(Kramarczuk Voulgarides, 2018).
The Role of School Administrators in Special Education Programming in Urban
Elementary Schools
A school administrator plays a key role in the effectiveness and success of an urban
elementary school based on many different factors that create cohesive programming at a school
site. It is of utmost importance that impactful and transformative school administrators are
leading the work, specifically in urban elementary schools (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2023), which are schools that serve large, densely populated, diverse communities,
oftentimes with a high concentration of students living in poverty. A school administrator
requires much preparation to lead such schools, which administrative preparation programs and
practicum training often lack (National Center for Urban School Transformation [NCUST],
2022). The broad, deep, and continuing evolving skills demanded of school leaders can result in
their being unprepared and unsupported to effectuate successful outcomes (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2023).
Role of School Administrators in Urban Elementary School Settings
There are over 12 million children who live below the poverty line in the United States,
equating to over 17% of the population in January 2022 (Center on Poverty and Social Policy,
2023). In California, there were approximately 1,420,056 impoverished children (California
Child Welfare Indicators Project, 2023). Children who are impoverished carry many impeding
factors with them to school, including trauma-related symptoms, impacts from adverse childhood
experiences, psychological and social-emotional concerns, and many more risk factors (FamilyInformed Trauma Treatment Center, 2022). These factors lead to impoverished children starting
26
their educational pathways at least 1 year behind that of their peers upon initial enrollment and
an overall direct impact on student achievement, as shown in Figure 5 (Miller et al., 2019). The
figure reveals that the experiences of a child raised in a small urban city, suburb, or rural area
influence their achievement. The societal advantages and disadvantages they engage with
throughout their upbringing create more challenges to work through than their peers.
27
Figure 5
An Area’s Impact on Student Achievement
Note. From “Poverty and Academic Achievement Across the Urban to Rural Landscape:
Associations With Community Resources and Stressors” by P. Miller, E. Votruba-Drzal, & R.
Levine Coley, 2019. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(2),
p. 114. (https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2019.5.2.06). Copyright 2019 by Russell Sage Foundation.
It is not just that there are more stressors impacting student achievement. There are also
fewer resources to support students experiencing those stressors.
28
A school administrator is responsible for overseeing all operations of a school, including
the creation and implementation of school policies, design of school systems and programming,
and training and facilitation of school personnel, all while managing and leading all work as it
pertains to creating successful learning environments for all students (National Center on Safe
Supportive Learning Environments., 2023). The school administrator must lead a critical mass of
stakeholders with a clear vision, a strong belief in educational success for all, and an impactful
plan to get them there (NCUST, 2022). A school administrator understands the importance of a
collective leading the school to success and that they alone cannot accomplish success without a
supportive, empowered team (NCUST, 2022). The systems of support executed through the
delegation of clear roles and responsibilities of school and community personnel are thoroughly
designed and implemented with quality care. In addition, school administrators’ many unseen
roles and responsibilities require their time and cognitive load, resulting in the inability to
provide specialized attention to everything. A school administrator is deemed to have the ability
to do their work yet cannot do it all, leading to the need for intentionally crafted and meaningful
ongoing development.
The changing and ever-developing adjustments in educational systems in urban
elementary schools require evolving additional expertise and skills of school leaders. The
growing number of students with exceptionalities served in inclusive settings has provided the
opportunity for school leaders to learn more about serving them. This was heightened by the
opportunities created through the COVID-19 pandemic in which school leaders had to adjust
their approaches to serve students through distance learning modalities that greatly impacted
student achievement and learning experiences that were even more impacted in urban elementary
school settings (Saagyum Dare & Saleem, 2022). Since then, the adjustments and effects of the
29
COVID-19 pandemic have led students and educators to be impacted by greater social-emotional
trauma and a focus on enhancing the skills of school leaders to support mental health concerns.
These have all been contributing factors to the need for further training and development of
school leaders to more impactfully lead urban elementary schools.
Education and Professional Development for School Administrators in Urban Elementary
School Settings
The school administrator in California maneuvers through a variety of pathways to get to
their role. Some obtain educational experiences through bachelor's and master's degree programs
and the learnings while working in a variety of settings. Some obtain an Administrative Services
Credential through a program or through an assessment, while others only have practicum
experience. This stems back to the early 19th century when educational administration was not
even recognized as a distinct profession (Lashway, 1999). Over time, administrator training
evolved from an emphasis on technical skills with a business approach to a discipline-focused
approach, then shifting toward the creation and definition of standards for what this looks like.
The standards for school leaders are now known as the California Professional Standards for
Education Leaders, which were adopted in 2014 as part of the credentialing process to become
licensed with a California Administrative Services Clear Credential, as shown in Table 1 (CTC,
2014).
30
Table 1
CPSEL Overview
California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL)
Standard 1: Development and
implementation of a shared
vision
Element 1A: Student-centered vision
Element 1B: Developing shared vision
Element 1C: Vision planning and implementation
Standard 2: Instructional
leadership
Element 2A: Professional learning culture
Element 2B: Curriculum and instruction
Element 2C: Assessment and accountability
Standard 3: Management and
learning environment
Element 3A: Operations and facilities
Element 3B: Plans and procedures
Element 3C: Climate
Element 3D: Fiscal and human resources
Standard 4: Family and community
engagement
Element 4A: Parent and family engagement
Element 4B: Community partnerships
Element 4C: Community resources and services
Standard 5: Ethics and integrity Element 5A: Reflective practice
Element 5B: Ethical decision making
Element 5C: Ethical action
Standard 6: External context and
policy
Element 6A: Understanding and communicating policy
Element 6B: Professional influence
Element 6C: Policy engagement
Note. Adapted from California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL) by
WestEd, 2015. (https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DOPS-15-03-508.pdf). In
the public domain.
Although there are CPSEL expectations for school leaders to serve as a framework for
their work, the requirement for a school administrator is to have a bachelor’s degree of any kind.
Most of the time, districts require a minimum amount of education experience, usually 2 years,
31
but that is not a requirement. Most districts also require an administrative credential, but it is not
a requirement. The variation in school administrators’ educational experiences and training
leading up to them being hired into their role has led to inconsistencies and overall potential for
high preparedness to exhibit impactful leadership.
Becoming knowledgeable and well-versed as a school leader for special education
programming involves a vast array of topics, requiring continuous professional development and
training to stay equipped to lead effectively (Samuels, 2018). This programming includes
compliance, policies and laws, instructional programming, systems of support, discipline and
mental health supports, and community and family partnerships (Bateman & Cline, 2019). To
address all of these needs, school administrators need a strategic triad of support that includes
training, networking, and coaching (Mathibe, 2007). Training would be around areas of need to
further develop expertise through conferences, workshops, and other district- or state-mandated
professional development to enhance skills (Samuels, 2018). This training would be partnered
with their work with district personnel who lead special education programming to further
develop their skills based on their schools’ and communities’ needs. Networking could take
place with role-alikes both from within and outside of the district to serve as both professional
and social-emotional support through in-person or online collaborative spaces and support
groups. Coaching could be through mentorship and on-site feedback from experienced, trained
professionals to target specific needs and development both at the school and outside of the
school in a dual setting. This may be the same person or people who lead their district work
around special education programming. This triad of supports would create a cohesive design for
strategically aligning and supporting school administrators to be more effective.
32
Inclusive Settings for Students With Exceptionalities in Urban Elementary Schools
Students with exceptionalities are increasingly mainstreamed to ensure that they receive
educational services in their LRE. When a child is mainstreamed, the child is part of a general
education setting with their peers and can experience the same educational opportunities,
including academics, social, and extracurricular activities, that take place for a varying amount of
time, depending on the student (Silva et al., 2023). There is an important distinction when
discussing mainstream and inclusion, as the idea of mainstreaming, at its root, focuses on a
child’s abilities while the term “inclusion” or “inclusive setting” focuses on the whole child to
ensure including all aspects of who they are as part of their educational setting (Manaher, 2022).
Even within the inclusive setting approach, there is a need to further dismantle the societally
acceptable educational and academic ableist mentality around accessibility and inclusion to
achieve true inclusion (Connor et al., 2016).
California has set a goal to increase inclusion rates to at least three-quarters of students
with exceptionalities receiving their education in a general education classroom setting for at
least 80% of the day. There were 813,528 students with exceptionalities in California during the
2021–2022 school year, which equated to approximately 167,242 in elementary school. This
means that California’s goal would be for 125,432 of them to participate in inclusive settings
each day (California School Dashboard, 2024). There were 686,352 students with
exceptionalities in California during the 2011–2012 school year, displaying an 8% increase in
students being identified over 10 years. The rapid increase has equated to barriers and challenges
at urban elementary schools that have resulted in students being underserved and
underperforming.
33
Barriers and Challenges Around Inclusive Settings for Students With Exceptionalities in
Urban Elementary Schools
Teacher and school administrator preparation programs have traditionally minimally
incorporated special education skill set knowledge and development into their curriculum. This
has led to the training and development of teachers and school administrators with on-the-job
training to best support students with exceptionalities. Maggin and Tejero Hughes (2021)
described the lack of coursework and practicum experience needed and required to lead their
schools to create efficient programming and learning environments that emphasize true academic
success for these students.
There are many different barriers and challenges that come with designing inclusive
settings for students with exceptionalities. Some educators have a lack of understanding about
each of the identified 13 dis/abilities by IDEA and the spectrum within each (Maggin & Tejero
Hughes, 2021). The 13 dis/abilities are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Thirteen Categories of Dis/Abilities by IDEA
Thirteen categories of dis/abilities by IDEA
Autism
Deaf-blindness
Deafness
Emotional disturbance
Hearing impairment
Intellectual disability
Multiple disabilities
Orthopedic impairment
Other health impairment
Specific learning disability
Speech or language
impairment
Traumatic brain injury
Visual impairment (including
blindness)
Note. Adapted from Categories of Disability Under IDEA by NICHCY, 2012.
(https://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_items/gr3.pdf). In the public
domain.
34
There is also a 14th category under IDEA, which is “developmental delay,” that can be
termed for children aged 3 through 9 who are experiencing developmental delays and are in need
of special education and related services in physical, cognitive, social or emotional, adaptive, or
communication development (NICHCY, 2012). This lack of understanding has left students with
exceptionalities misunderstood or inadequately supported in their educational experiences.
The teaching craft that is required to design strategic lessons and educational experiences
for all learners is crucial, and educators are often inadequately prepared to design or deliver such
impactful learning experiences. The curriculum provided is generic to meet the majority’s needs
and lacks individualized support for students’ various needs as people in the classroom. The
proper systems of coaching and instructional feedback by instructional leaders are key
components in addressing this need. This is frequently a barrier that goes unaddressed as schools
run into funding deficits or school leaders who are not prepared as instructional leaders, leading
to the school programming and systems being poorly designed and unfit to meet all students’
needs.
Urban elementary schools often lack the resources, including financial, social-emotional,
and school personnel, to support inclusive settings. The strategic planning required to address the
barrier of resources takes collaborative, intentional attention in partnership with the district’s
specialized personnel over special education to ensure needs and supports are utilized
impactfully (Simmons Cotton, 2020). It takes a well-informed school leader to appropriately
contact and work in collaboration with others to impactfully lead special education resources.
The overall negative stigma and deficit mindset toward students with exceptionalities
greatly impact approaches to working with and around these students. These factors can cause
school administrators and teachers to feel resentful and unprepared to properly create inclusive
35
learning spaces for all children (Samuels, 2018). The lack of effective inclusive learning spaces
for these students directly affects their social-emotional, physical, academic, and psychological
well-being (Lathan, 2023).
Best Practices for Inclusive Settings for Students With Exceptionalities in Urban
Elementary Schools
Inclusive settings in urban elementary schools begin with creating an inclusive school led
by the school administrator. This work is led with a mindset toward an asset-based approach to
school reform in which the social constructs around what society deems as being able-bodied and
“normal” that have led to educational debt and societal inequities be intentionally dismantled and
reconstructed (Connor et al., 2016). True school reform with a clear, distinct vision around
dismantling ableism is the first step toward inclusivity.
Once the work of mindset shift has been intentionally planned and executed and the
vision is established, the school administrator must intentionally lean on distributive leadership
to impactfully lead the work around special education programming since the high levels of
complexity for effective programming are crucial (Simmons Cotton, 2020). As a school
administrator, there are many roles and responsibilities that inhibit them from doing their job
effectively if distributive leadership is not used. Developing inclusive educational leaders to lead
alongside the school administrator is of utmost importance (Maggin & Tejero Hughes, 2021).
There is a priority around continuous improvement for all stakeholders through training,
and intentional reflection that is required to ensure inclusivity is at the forefront of the
conversation to keep students with exceptionalities at the heart of decision making. Jorgensen et
al. (2012) designed a program improvement tool with outlined reframing indicators to consider,
including high expectations, the least dangerous assumption, participation, communication,
36
curriculum and instruction, assessment and evaluation, partnerships, and resources. Each of these
components works in alignment with the clear vision and goals set forth by the school
administrator.
The UDL, in conjunction with the lens of diversity in inclusive classroom spaces, is a
must (Roth et al., 2021). The three UDL guidelines include providing multiple means of
engagement, representation, and action and expression, as shown in Figure 6. This approach
serves as a framework for creating teaching and learning experiences based on science for how
people learn as a way for all learners to actively participate in their educational experiences. It
focuses on the why, what, and how of learning by providing opportunities to access, build, and
internalize their learning. This is the newest version of the guidelines that continue to be revised
to address inequities as new learnings arise (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2023).
37
Figure 6
Universal Design for Learning Guidelines
38
Note. From The UDL Guidelines by Center for Applied Special Technology, 2023. (https://udlguidelines.cast.org/). Copyright 2023 by
Center for Applied Special Technology.
39
Ongoing support from expert learners and instructors is a must for both school
administrators and school personnel to achieve true inclusion for students with exceptionalities.
The need for this at three different levels is important, including one-on-one pairings, team
structures, and schoolwide initiatives to support these students (Maggin & Tejero Hughes, 2021).
The one-on-one pairings of individual teachers with school leaders or others that they designated
as educational leaders for this work should be used in a variety of models, including mentoring,
coaching, and co-teaching. The team structures should include small groups (grade level, rolealike teams, and professional learning communities) and schoolwide groups (instructional
leadership teams, multi-tiered systems of support teams, and school improvement teams). The
schoolwide initiatives should include vertical alignment and long-term improvement goals.
There is a need for a schoolwide accountability system to ensure data is being collected
and evaluation and reflection are occurring. Bateman and Cline (2019) discussed the impact of
evaluating systems and personnel to hold all stakeholders to high professional standards and
remain present in the learning process. This serves as a level of accountability to ensure
continuous improvement with inclusivity at the forefront of the conversation. Progress
monitoring and data systems serve as important tools to provide consistent and objective forms
of data and reflection opportunities to determine areas of success and opportunities to learn from.
Maggin and Tejero Hughes (2021) discussed the data improvement matrix, as displayed in
Figure 7, as a continuous cycle for improvement aligned with vision and goal setting. The data
improvement matrix serves as a framework for school leaders to engage their team in the work
around special education programming and students with exceptionalities in a systematic way to
foster improvement for this. This serves as cyclical work to ensure that the process of
improvement continues and is more deeply analyzed each time for an increase in results.
40
Figure 7
Data Improvement Matrix
Note. From Developing Teacher Leaders in Special Education: An Administrator’s Guide to
Building Inclusive Schools by D. M. Maggin & M. Tejero Hughes, 2021. Taylor and Francis
Group. Copyright 2021 by Taylor and Francis Group.
Maggin and Tejero Hughes (2021) also shared the implementation of data-based
individualization (DBI) to intensify and individualize interventions and supports when needed as
a next step in the process of systems of support. Specifically, DBI is used to tailor evidencebased interventions to meet students’ individual needs, both behaviorally and academically. This
particularly helps school administrators lead programming with multiple stakeholders to ensure
effective change and a positive impact on student outcomes.
41
This study sought additional information on best practices for inclusive settings in urban
elementary schools from the administrators and teachers interviewed. The intention of studying
this school district and school administrators was to unveil and uncover additional best practices
and school reform that create impactful change for students with exceptionalities.
Conceptual Framework
This qualitative study sought to gain a deep understanding of the influence that urban
elementary school administrators in California have on teachers' ability to support and serve
students with exceptionalities. These students have been overidentified and underserved, leading
to inadequate educational services due, in part, to insufficient training for educators (Parsons,
2023). The continuous and rapid increase in the number of students in special education
programming has led to inconsistent and ineffective programming throughout California’s
schools, with teachers who are often not adequately trained under the guidance of school
administrators who also have limited training in this area. That has resulted in students’
underperformance on standards-based assessments. The systems and support in California urban
elementary school settings around serving these students have varied based on the school
administrator. Training, systems, and support have been left in the hands of school administrators
to design, implement, and adjust in ways that are best for their school and their students.
The conceptual model, shown in Figure 8, displays the role of urban elementary school
administrators in Southern California from different lenses driven by the SCT. An important
aspect of the conceptual framework is the space for uncertainty and the unknown that could arise
in a study. There are intentional blank spaces within the conceptual framework at both the entry
of the lens and the double-sided guiding factor in thinking through the work of the urban
elementary school administrator. There are many frames and factors to consider when analyzing
42
the administrators’ role in leading schools to serve students with exceptionalities. These must be
considered using this conceptual framework and are crucial in guiding the study using the focus
research questions:
1. How do urban school elementary teachers in Southern California describe the support
they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve students
with exceptionalities?
2. What school settings and conditions have Southern California urban elementary
school administrators created around systems and supports for students with
exceptionalities?
3. What do urban school elementary teachers and administrators suggest as additional
school settings and conditions administrators could put in place to strengthen
teachers’ abilities to reduce inequities that arise for students with exceptionalities?
43
Figure 8
Conceptual Framework for This Study
This study used a variety of key concepts to analyze the problem for students with
exceptionalities in urban elementary schools. The relationships between school administrators,
school personnel, teachers, and students through communication, expectations, and dialogue all
affect school systems. The school settings, including the facilities and learning environments,
also influence the students’ learning experiences. The instructional programming established by
the school administrator, including curriculum, professional development, instructional practices,
44
and support provided by personnel, impacts their academic outcomes. All of these factors, and
the shared blank spaces of the uncoverings to be found, shape how school administrators lead in
support of these students.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the literature on special education in the United
States and California, programming for students with exceptionalities at urban elementary
schools in California, the role of school administrators in special education programming,
overidentification of students in special education, barriers and challenges for inclusive settings,
and best practices to support these students to examine the ways schools have supported them in
urban elementary schools. The next chapter discusses this study’s methodological approach.
45
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examined the role of urban elementary school administrators in California as it
pertains to teachers’ ability to support students with exceptionalities in urban elementary school
settings. This included the ways teachers experience the systems and supports the administrator
provides for effective teaching. The research questions that guided the study were:
1. How do urban school elementary teachers in Southern California describe the support
they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve students
with exceptionalities?
2. What school settings and conditions have Southern California urban elementary
school administrators created around systems and supports for students with
exceptionalities?
3. What do urban school elementary teachers and administrators suggest as additional
school settings and conditions administrators could put in place to strengthen
teachers’ abilities to reduce inequities that arise for students with exceptionalities?
Overview of Methodology
The research design that I used was a qualitative methods approach that included
individual interviews. Qualitative methods best served the advancement of research for this study
as it focused on learning more regarding the experiences of the study participants to gather
informational data specifically for both administrators and teachers as it related to the research
questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the important use of qualitative research to
understand how people experience or make meaning of their experiences. The qualitative
methods approach is complex and puts the researcher as the primary instrument through an
inductive process. Maxwell (2013) noted that the research design must be grounded in the
46
study’s purpose and goals and aligned with the research questions, which were used in this study
with the interactive model of research design to collect specific data through individual
interviews with attention to validity.
This study used individual, semi-structured interviews lasting 45–60 minutes with three
site administrators and five teachers from schools all in the same district. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) discussed the semi-structured interview as a structured approach with an interview guide
and opportunities to gain a deeper understanding with flexibility for follow-up. There was a
prepared list of questions with the opportunity of flexibility in the order, and the inquiry focused
on learning more about their experiences and perspectives. Agee (2009) described how the
inquiry process approach of using qualitative interviews to gain a deeper insight into specific
suggestions from the interviewees allows for true meaning to be discovered. This provided the
space for the interviewees to explain ideas in a dialogue that supported further understanding of
thought processes and experiences as teachers of students with exceptionalities.
Data Sources
This study used data collected through interviews of urban elementary school
administrators and teachers who worked for one Southern California district to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of how administrators perceive their role in creating school
settings and conditions to support students with exceptionalities and how teachers perceive
administrators’ building their ability to support these students in an urban elementary school
setting. The primary sources for the data were one-on-one interviews with administrators to
examine systems and supports related to school programming. It also included gaining a deeper
understanding of teachers’ experiences.
47
Interviews
Interviews were used as the method of data collection, with one-on-one interviews with
school administrators being used to address Research Question 2 and Research Question 3 and
one-on-one interviews with teachers being used to address Research Questions 1 and 3, as shown
in Table 3. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated that qualitative interviews allow for opportunities
to make potential adjustments based on data that surfaces throughout the interviews to gain true
perspective. This is an important part of this research design, as it is grounded in learning deeply
about experiences as they pertain to the programming for students with exceptionalities. These
one-on-one interviews provided a deeper understanding of their experiences through the semistructured interviews to explore their individual perspectives and collective perspectives.
Table 3
Data Sources
Research questions Administrator interviews Teacher interviews
RQ1 X
RQ2 X
RQ3 X X
48
Participants
The target population for the interviews were urban elementary school administrators and
teachers who worked for Fayceville Unified School District. The original plan was to use three
urban elementary school administrators and three teachers at each site who worked for those
administrators to cohesively analyze systems of support from multiple perspectives at one school
site. I used purposeful sampling to request participation from elementary administrators and
teachers who worked for Fayceville Unified School District. Lochmiller and Lester (2017)
discussed the use of purposeful sampling to discover and gain deeper insight through a specific
sample. This was the intention of the study as it focused on Fayceville Unified School District
administrators and teachers to gain deeper learning of their specific experiences as educators of
students with exceptionalities. Due to the lack of responses, I was unable to interview teachers
and administrators who worked at the same site. I interviewed three elementary school
administrators and five elementary school teachers from this same district.
Instrumentation
I used an interview guide and protocol to collect the interview data. The one-on-one
interviews consisted of 12 questions for both the administrators (Appendix A) and the teachers
(Appendix B) that were aligned to the research questions. The interview began with background
questions about the individual’s role at the school. It then transitioned to the school’s
programming. This was followed by the support provided by the school administrator for
students with exceptionalities. It continued to the work happening in the classrooms. It
concluded with recommendations around best practices and support for teaching these students
and wishes for support from the administrators.
49
Data Collection Procedures
This study included 45- to 60-minute semi-structured individual interviews. Through
research about schools in the district of focus and conducting meetings with different district
stakeholders, I collected the names of different urban elementary schools that had been working
toward impactful special education programming. I requested the participation of the district
personnel through their school email addresses and identified myself along with the purpose of
the study to gain permission to conduct research in their district. Once I obtained clearance from
the district administrator, I shared with them my introductory letter, which included the purpose
of the study, an overview of the process and study, and confidentiality agreements. I also
included a letter with a short recruitment questionnaire to verify that teachers and administrators
met the study criteria: working for Fayceville Unified School District as either an elementary
school administrator or teacher and, if a teacher, currently teaching students with
exceptionalities.
District personnel sent the study letter and recruitment questionnaire to schools identified
via purposeful sampling pro. The questionnaire also included a space for clarification questions
or wonderings prior to providing initial consent for participation. I used email communication
with interested individuals to discuss the interview process, procedures, confidentiality
agreements, participation options for withdrawal, questions, and clarifications. I scheduled an
interview date and time upon consent for participation. In an effort to obtain more participants, I
emailed the district administrator again to extend the offering to more of the district’s schools.
Out of those who consented to participate, three administrators and five teachers participated for
the entirety of the study. Upon consent, email communication was used to schedule the
interview. Before the interview began, I provided a review of the purpose of the study,
50
opportunities to withdraw from the study at any point, upholding confidentiality agreements in
my role as a researcher, clarity on the interview, and consent information. I took notes during the
interview to capture their communications and utilized my computer with the Zoom application
to record the conversation, with participant approval, to support transcribing and capturing the
interview. This was only used for research purposes to ensure that I did not miss any
information. I reassured the participants of this confidentiality. These data collection procedures
and methods served in capturing and understanding data to address this study’s research
questions.
Data Analysis
I conducted and recorded the interviews through Zoom in conjunction with my interview
practicum notes. After transcribing the interviews, I sent the transcriptions to the interviewees to
ensure accuracy through member checking. In analyzing my notes and data, I identified a coding
system and process to identify categories and themes to analyze the data from the experiences of
the participants, as shown in Figure 9 (Saldaña, 2013). I began coding using an open coding
format, then moved to an axial coding format, and finished with selective coding (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). This allowed me to transmit the experiences into abstract and thematic concepts
from my positionality and identity as a researcher to understand the role that a school
administrator plays in the school programming for students with exceptionalities.
51
Figure 9
Analysis Map for Coding Data
Note. From The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers by J. Saldaña, 2013. Sage
Publications. Copyright 2013 by Sage Publications.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and trustworthiness that stand behind the level of impact and outcomes of
a qualitative study are important to analyze. In thinking through this study, I worked to create a
trustworthy atmosphere to positively impact the outcomes of the study. Because I interviewed
both school administrators and teachers who worked in the same district, I needed to assure all
participants of the confidentiality of what they shared and their anonymity in the presentation of
52
the results. Maxwell (2013) noted that the researcher is a human instrument, and a researcher’s
bias and reactivity in the setting influence a study’s validity. I utilized a researcher journal to
document my thoughts and feelings, along with those of the participants, to maintain an audit
trail. This ensured that all documentation was occurring in the same place. The shortcomings and
biases that came along with my positionality as I was studying the role of administrators were
important for me to recognize and own throughout this process. The primary strategy that I
implemented to intentionally work to address this was through self-reflective journaling leading
up to, throughout, and after each step in the research. I drafted specific reflective questions prior
to starting this study to ensure that I was addressing, being mindful of, and reflecting on these
specific dangers and how my positionality could affect the approaches in this study.
To strategically maximize the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, I created a
strategic and intentionally transparent approach to the messaging in all communications with
participants. This included my reasons for the study, what my intentions were, how I would use
the data, the confidentiality of their words, and the discarding of the information and the
transcriptions of the interviews. I also used the strategy of member checking with the participants
to ensure that I was transcribing their words accurately (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I needed to
be careful and mindful of the ways I presented my findings and how I handled their results. The
fact that both the administrators and the teachers in the same district were participating could
have potentially affected responses, and I needed to consider this when thinking about the
study’s design and where the interviews and interactions with participants would take place.
The topic itself can be seen as sensitive and is a topic about which I am very passionate. I
understood that I hold biases about how students with exceptionalities should be supported in
schools that may have affected how I looked at, analyzed, and presented information in the
53
results and explanation portions of this study. I needed to be overly mindful and careful of
checking my biases to ensure they did not affect the study. I knew that if I did not get this part
correct, the findings and recommendations for practice would be much less impactful and clear.
Ethics
The ethical considerations throughout the research were crucial to think deeply about.
The participants were informed of the purpose of the study, the interview and data collection
processes, as well as opportunities to opt out of participation at any point (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I utilized this strategy of ensuring voluntary participation in the study and consent to
participate throughout the process of this study. I used pseudonyms to protect the identities of
participants and worked to ensure their anonymity remained intact (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
I used my computer to record through Zoom, and I ensured I had the participants’ consent
before recording occurred. I stored the recordings on my password-protected computer. Once the
study concluded, I removed the data and ensured it had been erased completely.
My role as an urban elementary school administrator may have unintentionally persuaded
and impacted the participants to participate in the study by even just hearing my title in the
presentation of myself to them. This may have impacted their participation and the ways they
reacted or responded throughout the process. I worked to mitigate this by sharing with the
participants that this study was being conducted through my role as a doctoral student and that I
was solely approaching the interview through the lens of a researcher in a non-evaluative, nonjudgmental manner. It was important to build trusting relationships and interactions, particularly
because I was interviewing administrators and the teachers who worked alongside them. Their
responses to the questions might have harmed their own personal relationships if I had not been
careful in how I designed the questions and handled their responses. This was particularly true
54
when thinking about how they responded to the systems and supports around students with
exceptionalities for both the administrators and the teachers, especially if they had negative
relationships with one another or previous harm had occurred. The results from the interviews
may have put relationships at risk, both professionally and personally, depending on the content
of the responses. For example, if there was a lack of a system called out about the administrator
or a lack of implementation by the teachers, this may have had an impact on their work together.
It was crucial that I approached the study process and interview design to minimize risk and
harm to their circumstances. To help ensure that no one was harmed, I received approval from
the institutional review board of the University of Southern California to ensure that the study
met human subject protection expectations.
The Researcher
This study focused closely on the work of urban elementary school administrators as it
related to their role in supporting the educational experiences of students with exceptionalities.
This is something tied closely to my positionality that I needed to ensure I was closely
monitoring. I am currently in the role of an urban elementary school administrator. Milner (2007)
discussed the enormous role of a researcher in thinking through their positionality as it pertains
to the participants and study, particularly the dangers that may arise and the harm that may be
caused to the communities and individuals, especially those of color. The primary strategy I used
to address my own power and my positionality as it related to dangers that may have arisen
throughout this process was through shared discussions with reflective and constructive mentors
leading up to the interviews and communication with the participants. This ensured that I was
bringing in alternative perspectives to look deeply into the study’s approaches, questions, and
other methodologies.
55
There are many different power dynamics in the urban elementary school setting as it
relates to conditions for students with exceptionalities. A major one is between an administrator
and their teachers. Another is between the teachers and the support team members. An additional
power dynamic is between the teachers and their students. Potentially, the most significant power
dynamic is between the school administrator and each of the students with exceptionalities. I
may also be seen as a person of power as it relates to the study participants, as I serve as an
educated student coming in to do research work and am also a school administrator talking to
administrators and teachers. The study participants were not people I knew or worked with in the
same district, so I did not have familiarity or a standing relationship with them prior to the study.
Although I did not know who the participants were, I needed to be mindful and aware that I may
have a different gender, culture, class, and background that may have affected my interactions,
but more importantly, it may have influenced how they perceived me and my intentions. It was
important that I reassured the participants of the study’s purpose and methodological approach,
particularly in ensuring the questions and interactions were clear and unbiased.
An important aspect to note is that I tend to come off initially as quite serious and intense,
particularly when I am focused on something. This may come off as off-putting or
unapproachable and may have greatly influenced the study’s results and the participants’
comfort. It was important for me to place intentional reminders for myself that I saw throughout
my process with them, including practicing my non-verbal and verbal expressions to minimize a
negative perception or impact on the participants.
56
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine the role that an administrator plays in a
teacher’s ability to support students with exceptionalities in an urban elementary school setting.
It examined the administrators’ perceptions of their schools’ systems and supports for these
students. In addition, the study explored the perceptions of teachers as to how those supports
have built their capacity to serve their students and the additional supports needed to strengthen
their abilities. This chapter provides an overview of the participants and the results from the
research organized by research question and findings related to the research questions guiding
this study:
1. How do urban school elementary teachers in Southern California describe the support
they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve students
with exceptionalities?
2. What school settings and conditions have Southern California urban elementary
school administrators created around systems and supports for students with
exceptionalities?
3. What do urban school elementary teachers and administrators suggest as additional
school settings and conditions administrators could put in place to strengthen
teachers’ abilities to reduce inequities that arise for students with exceptionalities?
Overview of Participants
This qualitative study consisted of eight participants, to whom I assigned pseudonyms to
protect their anonymity and confidentiality. The study included three school site administrators
and five teachers who all work at urban elementary schools in one Southern California district.
The three administrators worked at different schools in the district, and each identified
57
themselves in the role of school site principal. The five teachers each taught students who have
an IEP in varying roles, including identifying themselves in their role as the case manager,
specialized academic instructor, adaptive physical education teacher, and special day class
teacher. Table 4 displays the summary of the participants.
Table 4
Summary of Participants
Pseudonym Role Years in role
Arbor
Channing
Ellis
Haven
Kris
Riley
Scout
Tatum
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
5–10 years
Under 5 years
Under 5 years
More than 10 years
5–10 years
5–10 years
More than 10 years
5–10 years
58
Presentation of Findings
The analysis yielded findings for each research question. The following sections share the
discussion of the results, including the interview questions that were guided by the research
questions and the findings. Findings pertaining to Research Question 1 include the teacher
participants. Those for Research Question 2 emerged from the interviews with school
administrator participants. The findings addressing Research Question 3 stem from both groups’
perspectives.
Research Question 1: How Do Urban School Elementary Teachers in Southern California
Describe the Support They Receive From School Administrators in Building Their
Capacity to Serve Students With Exceptionalities?
Research Question 1 was designed to better understand the perspective of the teachers
around their school administrators’ support in building their capacity to best serve their students
with exceptionalities. The question aimed to identify their schools’ practices and how teachers
perceived the school administrator’s role in building their capacity to teach their students who
have IEPs.
A variety of interview questions were designed to gather more information to answer
Research Question 1. The leading question pertained to the self-identification of their role as it
pertained to serving students who have an IEP and identifying the role of their school
administrator. There were multiple questions regarding different experiences, training, and
encounters between the teacher and their school administrator, including the following questions:
• What is a recent conversation you have had with your school administrator(s) around
your students who have an IEP, if any?
59
• Describe a recent training or experience, if any, in which you discussed regarding
students who have an IEP.
• What do you feel the role of your school administrator(s) was during the training that
you have been a part of regarding students who have an IEP?
The remaining questions focused on the specific supports that the teacher received and hoped to
receive from their school administrator to support their capacity to serve students with an IEP,
including the following questions:
• Ideally, what would make for a school environment that promotes inclusive learning?
• What would you say is your school administrator(s) role in creating the school
environment that you just described?
• How does your school administrator(s) support your work as a teacher of students
with an IEP?
From these questions, three key findings surfaced for Research Question 1:
1. School administrators build the capacity of teachers of students with exceptionalities
by utilizing purposeful availability and meaningful interactions.
2. Special education programming design impacts the teaching of students with
exceptionalities.
3. The support the administrators provide to the teachers must align with the needed
support by the teachers in building their capacity to serve students with
exceptionalities.
The proceeding sections contextualize the findings to gain a deeper understanding of the
experiences of the elementary school teachers and the support they receive from their school
administrators.
60
Finding 1: School Administrators Build the Capacity of Teachers of Students With
Exceptionalities by Utilizing Purposeful Availability and Meaningful Interactions
As all five teacher participants shared, their role may often feel overlooked in urban
elementary schools with limited training and differentiated support to ensure they meet their
students’ needs. The school administrator must create spaces to engage in meaningful
interactions with these teachers to provide the training and coaching to build their capacity as
educators.
The teachers emphasized planned and unplanned designated time with the school
administrator as worthwhile opportunities to build their capacity. Ellis described the consistent
pre-scheduled check-ins with their site administrator, which provided a designated space to
discuss administrator-led topics and topics of the teacher’s choice, as extremely beneficial. They
shared that these check-ins were available during those scheduled times, and they knew they
could also stop by the administrator’s office or see them at school to discuss items of importance.
Ellis stated, “[My administrator] gives me regular check-ins. … That’s been helpful. It’s
structured. [My administrator] is supportive in giving [their] time.” This supported Ellis as a
teacher in having the individualized support needed to build capacity.
Similarly, Riley expressed various practices by their school administrators that they have
encountered at different school sites over their educational career. They expressed an
understanding of the heavily impacted job and responsibilities of a school administrator who is
strategically managing a wide array of personalities and activities while still managing to be
supportive of teachers. They shared they have experienced school administrators making the
time to make teachers feel seen and heard. This included even, at times, just providing a listening
ear for the teachers. They expressed that their school administrator created a true open-door
61
policy with genuine means to want to help as a problem solver with different circumstances as
opposed to sending them to a different department or asking them to resolve the issue on their
own. They called attention to the usefulness of gaining knowledge and information from those
interactions to obtain the clarity they needed to perform their job well as they served students
with exceptionalities. This was particularly true in the realm of special education as policies and
laws change, individualized supports change, and multiple added layers of complexity fall into
the teachers’ decision-making hands.
Arbor also illuminated the school administrator’s problem-solving approach. They shared
about the importance of administrators being understanding and empathetic while also being
realistic to the circumstances at hand when approaching or handling situations with teachers.
Arbor stated,
They know the things we are trying to handle. And if there is something that comes up
that seems really difficult, they come in and support and try to help figure out what we
can do rather than just being like, “Oh, go figure it out.” And so, that’s really important
because anybody can get up and talk a good talk and make it, and say all the right words.
But at the end of the day, it comes to, “What can we do? What’s possible?” and “Let’s
figure it out together!”
The collective thoughts of the interviewees around their school administrators illuminated
the importance of feeling seen and heard to build their capacity. The value of being sought out
and truly listened to as a teacher of students with exceptionalities surfaced regarding interactions
with school administrators. This was coming from the teachers’ daily experiences of often being
left out of conversations. An administrator who values their voice ensures that the systems of
support uphold equitable outcomes.
62
Finding 2: Special Education Programming Design Impacts the Teaching of Students With
Exceptionalities
All five of the teachers felt that the way in which a school administrator designs special
education programming embodies the culture in which special education is taught. Further, the
logistics by which the programming is executed helps to build the capacity of teachers to serve
students with exceptionalities. The priorities the school administrator establishes for training,
classroom expectations, and human capital management create the culture for action.
Arbor illuminated how school administrators design programming to promote the notion
of inclusion for all school community stakeholders. Arbor shared that their school administrator
was a frequent thought partner to jump into any situation surrounding students with
exceptionalities and the ways they brought in others around them. They shared how this modeled
how to work together to support students and enforced the culture of inclusion. Arbor revealed
that their administrator utilized this collective approach to build the team’s capacity as an in-themoment coaching opportunity or through opportunities to provide real-time feedback and
support with particular situations. Arbor additionally described an example of how their students
were part of a leadership role that supported the entire school and the meaningfulness of that,
sharing,
So, when I came to this school that I’m working at, … I noticed that several of my
students were on the safety patrol, and I was just so excited about that. [At other schools],
that had to be the top students that were [getting] all As or who were excellent in every
way. And I really loved the inclusion, including them in different groups or things that
are going on at the school. You know, little extracurricular things like that.
63
The school administrator’s modeling ensures that students with IEPs have the same educational
opportunities to engage, showing that they are valued. This further supported building others’
capacity to lead in expanding this in other ways.
Participants also spoke of the opportunities to deepen their learning provided through a
schedule of training outlined for the staff at site, district, and county levels. Kris, Riley, and
Tatum expressed the support they felt from opportunities to engage in district-led specialeducation-specific professional development training, such as curriculum and instruction,
behavior, and case management, to build their capacity and engage in interest areas to deepen
their learnings to better support their students. Kris shared the need for behavior support training
that the district’s behavior specialist provided and how they helped in building the capacity of
the entire staff to better support and meet the needs of students who might engage in behaviors
that they may not yet be equipped to support. Kris also expressed gratitude for the opportunity to
meet as a grade level during designated prep times with general education and special education
teachers or just the special education teachers alone. This allowed the teachers to help inform and
build one another’s capacities around how to best meet their students’ needs in a collaborative,
co-teaching atmosphere. Both Riley and Tatum discussed learnings that came from county and
district-wide training, including topics around Special Education Information System navigating,
behavior support, and early childhood education training. Tatum also shared appreciation for the
autonomy in topics covered during designated role-alike monthly meetings.
Similarly to Tatum, Ellis engaged in monthly role-alike meetings that supported them
with needs and questions related to teaching students with exceptionalities. Ellis shared that the
meetings were with other special education resource specialist teachers to have the opportunity
64
to collaboratively discuss case studies and receive guidance around next steps among one
another.
Kris stressed the opportunities the school administrator created through personnel
management in classrooms to help build teachers’ capacity. They discussed the different districtlevel support that works in conjunction with the school administration to build their capacity to
serve students with exceptionalities, including a behavior specialist who focuses on any Tier II or
III behavior supports in the classrooms, specifically in supporting the adults in those spaces, and
the special education curriculum resource teacher, who focus on assisting with curriculum and
instruction for special education classrooms and caseload management. School administrators
often also lack the specialized training required to lead schools that serve students with
exceptionalities. The opportunity to build their capacity through designated supports and training
can be beneficial to the overall student support. Both Arbor and Ellis additionally shared
gratitude for the district’s special education administration support and how this helps them build
their capacity.
Two of the participants also described the ways their school administration supported
building their capacity by pairing mentor teacher leaders with different teachers of students with
exceptionalities and establishing a culture of collaboration among similar roles or grade levels.
Riley shared about being a part of a cohort of special education teachers where she can
brainstorm ideas with other mentors in the cohort and the ways they share their knowledge with
newer teachers who are on the team. Ellis also discussed the collaborative culture and
opportunities to learn from others. They emphasized that the real-time support and coaching
received from this mentor teacher really helped to obtain more wisdom and knowledge around
65
best practices to support students with exceptionalities that they can apply to current and future
situations.
Teachers further discussed how their school administration led in compliance with the
legalities of special education programming at each school site and provided them with the
guidance to enforce that compliance. Each teacher expressed the school administrator was a
member of the IEP team at their school. Arbor highlighted the ways their school administration
helped to ensure a student received the appropriate interventions and reinforcement of protocols
around their social-emotional needs, specifically through the educationally related mental health
services assessment process for a student and being seen as the gatekeeper for appropriate mental
health evaluations and assessments for students.
The teachers suggested the need to be knowledgeable of the most up-to-date policies as
crucial for a school administrator to support teachers in serving students with exceptionalities,
including the knowledge about the processes and practices utilized by the school site team in
support of students. Arbor, for example, shared the ways their school administrator has
knowledge of the latest laws, regulations, and policies that govern special education and that one
of their big roles is in the dissemination of that information to the staff. This is critical due to
changing policies and laws that school administrators are more keen to research or seek specific
knowledge on to provide guidance for educational decision making. Special education teachers
tend to focus more on their classroom and students rather than educational policy and law
compliance.
Extending from the process of IEP meetings and special education policies is the role of
the school administrator’s expectations for special education services and enforcement of
policies. Each of the teachers discussed their caseload numbers and the placement of students
66
onto their caseload and/or in their classrooms, which is led by the school administrator, who
must hold to compliance around caseload expectations while attending to the balance of student
needs and class sizes.
Students’ placement needs to be corroborated with the classroom teachers and with the
parents. Arbor shared the emotional aspect that is paired with parent voice and how
administrators need to objectively, yet humanly, approach supporting parents around placements
and services while adhering to FAPE. Frequently, FAPE for students with exceptionalities means
large opportunities for inclusion with students who do not have an IEP, and the school
administrator helps to orchestrate and enforce this policy for students. Ellis expressed the
importance of open collaboration and communication between general education and special
education teachers for supportive co-teaching models, which the school administrator must
centralize and prioritize to ensure compliance. Crafting the program design to promote
inclusivity to ensure FAPE and a collaborative atmosphere to build teachers’ capacity to serve
students with exceptionalities are crucial to the outcomes for students with exceptionalities.
Finding 3: The Support That Administrators Provide to the Teachers Must Align With the
Needed Support by the Teachers in Building Their Capacity to Serve Students With
Exceptionalities
All five of the teachers expressed the importance of the alignment between the support
they seek to best serve their students and the support they receive from school administrators.
The support that a teacher might need or hope for from school administrators may differ from the
school the school administrator provides or thinks the teacher needs. The misalignment of the
two may detract from providing support to best serve students with exceptionalities.
67
Riley shared their experiences with working at various schools with a multitude of school
administrators who each had a different approach to providing supports to teachers in building
their capacity. They described the hands-on supports that their school administrators provided by
being heavily engaged with and involved in providing teachers of students with exceptionalities
verbal and physical guidance. They expressed the request for support in IEP meetings from the
school administrator and shared a specific example when this support felt more like a call-out of
the teacher in front of the parents. They shared that although it was important information, the
way that it was executed did not align with the support the teacher hoped for.
Tatum, Riley, and Ellis explained that one support that their school administrators
provide is to be sent to training around teaching students with exceptionalities or around the
work of a special education teacher. Each discussed that although the training was beneficial in
building their capacity, it could create knowledge gaps for the school administrator as the
information learned is not shared with the school administrator systematically. This may lead to
a misalignment with their school administrator regarding common language and new learnings
from the training. Riley additionally described that a consistent practice of this can make
teachers feel as though they are just being sent off to someone else to receive support. Kris added
their role as a trainer for teachers who needed support that the school administrator might request
at their school site. Kris explained that they have previously been tasked with supporting others
with curriculum and behavior needs. This may have been viewed by the school administrator as
the support needed by the teachers who were requesting it or were in need of it. Kris stated that it
can feel like a “check box” approach when not executed appropriately.
Four out of the five teacher participants described the behavior supports the school
administrators provided for teachers of students with exceptionalities. Tatum and Arbor
68
explained that their school administrators would engage in dialogue with them to talk through
behavior situations and supports for individualized students. They both expressed how beneficial
this was to the support they were seeking to provide more strategies in their toolkit to best
support students with exceptionalities. Ellis added to this by sharing about the open
conversations they had with their school administrator about individualized needs and learning
opportunities for students with exceptionalities. They particularly expressed how they felt that
the school administrator’s vulnerability in those conversations felt very supportive to building
their capacity, as the administrator admitted to not having all of the answers. They then worked
together to find solutions. Riley illuminated that the behavior support the school administrator
provided felt more cohesive when they truly got to know the students and their needs. This
brings attention to the visibility aspect associated with the school administrator’s role to ensure
they can be actively involved and knowledgeable about what is happening in their school
community. Arbor also shared how their school administrator provides strategic support
regarding additional accommodations a student might need when they are knowledgeable about
the students and situations.
Kris and Ellis both highlighted the visibility and knowledge aspects of the school
administrator’s role in building the teachers’ capacity. Specifically, the knowledge they obtain by
being visible can provide the appropriate strategies needed for individualized support. Kris added
the beneficial approaches of involvement that are relevant and fitting for the situation as opposed
to a school administrator inserting themselves to claim that they were there or staying completely
away to avoid the situation. This may be creating additional barriers to impactful support by
school administrators in building the capacity of teachers of students with exceptionalities.
69
Four teacher participants described the differentiated supports needed for teachers of
students with exceptionalities. This implies the one-size-fits-all approach to support does not
build capacity for teachers who come in with varying levels of experience and expertise. Tatum
explained that the differentiated supports by school administrators can be approached similarly to
the ways teachers approach their students with individualized needs. Both Ellis and Tatum
expressed the benefits of the observation process by school administrators to receive authentic
feedback for their teaching practices and behavioral approaches. They both shared that this
helped in moving their instructional practices forward to better support students with
exceptionalities.
Riley additionally noted that coaching opportunities need to be individualized. They
expressed that the school administrator asked them to be the coach of a new teacher on campus
to support them. The new teacher, although appreciative of that support, was hoping for support
from the school administrator. Riley stated that the new teacher frequently expressed a desire for
more face time with the school administrator to receive guidance from them specifically in
improving their practice. Kris explained a similar need at their school site with a need to build
specific systems of support for newer teachers of students with exceptionalities by the school
administrators. They shared the importance of the approach of the school administrators to
ensure that the support being provided is not simply adding more work onto the plate of teachers.
This may be counterproductive to the support that is being requested or provided.
The teacher participants’ thoughts illuminated the need for clarity and alignment between
supports requested and those provided. This was coming from ambiguity in how urban
elementary school teachers and administrators perceive supports.
70
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 presented three findings regarding the teacher participants
describing the support they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve
students with exceptionalities. Finding 1 revealed that teachers felt supported when the school
administrator made themselves available and engaged in purposeful interactions with the
teachers. In those interactions, the teachers received individualized supports and coaching to
further enhance their skills to provide the best educational experience for their students. Finding
2 uncovered the effect of special education programming design on how teachers feel supported.
The school administrator’s work leads the foundation around an inclusive mindset for all
stakeholders. Finding 3 was that approaches to providing support for teachers to build their
capacity must be aligned. Misalignment can lead to counterproductive results. The opportunities
offered to teachers to enhance their skills through training, meetings, and personnel designations
were central to building their capacity and deepening their craft. The school administrators’
compliance with and enforcement of policies around FAPE also helped ensure students’ needs
were upheld appropriately. Each of the special education teachers valued these supports.
Research Question 2: What School Settings and Conditions Have Southern California
Urban Elementary School Administrators Created Around Systems and Supports for
Students With Exceptionalities?
Research Question 2 shifts to the perspective of the urban elementary school
administrator. The question aims to identify specific aspects of the role of a school administrator
that bring support for students with exceptionalities. This includes school settings and conditions
created that the school administrator perceives as contributing to serving students with
exceptionalities in their schools.
71
The interviews with the school administrators were grounded in questions about different
components of their role and school setting. The interview questions led with self-reflection on
how they view their role as it pertains to serving students with an IEP. The bulk of the questions
centered around the identification of systems or supports the school administrator put into place,
such as:
• What systems have you implemented around the programming for the teachers of
students who have an IEP?
• Describe a recent training or experience that you lead, if any, in which you discussed
regarding students who have an IEP.
• How do you support the work of teachers of students with an IEP?
Interestingly, there was an overlap in the findings between the school administrators and the
teachers around the administrators’ systems of support. Two findings surfaced from Research
Question 2:
1. An active, involved school administrator aids in the cultivation of a culture of care for
their school community.
2. Strategic planning centered around what is best for students must guide decision
making.
The proceeding sections contextualize the findings to gain a deeper understanding of the school
settings and conditions that the school administrators have identified to best support students
with exceptionalities.
72
Finding 1: An Active, Involved School Administrator Aids in the Cultivation of a Culture
of Care for Their School Community
The school administrators in this study discussed how their role is central in establishing
the culture of the school and ensuring that the culture of the entire school community is
upholding a culture of care with one another. The concept of humanizing the school community
is one that is centered around a culture of care grounded in the strength of relationships with each
stakeholder. Each principal described examples of what this looks like in their schools
throughout their interviews, as shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Examples of School Principals Being Actively Involved to Create a Culture of Care in Urban
Elementary Schools
Principal Quote
Haven, principal for
more than 10 years
What I’ve always tried to do in whatever way I can is to make sure
that [special education] teachers feel included in everything.
I’m pretty hands-on, just in general so I am really active with our
kids. If they’re having a rough time, the teachers will call me…
sometimes I’ll just allocate an hour. “I’m going to give you an
hour today, an hour tomorrow, an hour [on] that day.”
And I just feel like it’s so important that they recognize each other
and that they recognize we all have a really hard job. “I’ve
decided to go this path, and you’ve decided to go this path, but
we’re all here for kids, and they’re all our kids.”
Channing, principal for
under 5 years
[I provide] check-ins. I do incentives for students who definitely
have an IEP, such as pizza parties, especially when they’re
working towards their behavioral goal needs.
I think, for me, [supporting] is being open, honest, and reflective. I
think that being open and realizing that teaching is the hardest
profession in the world. And I think that when teachers are
needing support, [it’s] really about cultivating an environment that
73
Principal Quote
allows psychological safety and vulnerability. I think that’s
essential. Because if people are teachers, I think innately they have
the heart because they care about kids. They didn’t get into it for
the money.
I think knowing the street data of our students. [This] is one of the
books that we were diving into that said it, and [the book] is
named Street Data. But knowing the stories, the why of the
family, the goal of the family. For their student, really
understanding and getting side-by-side and not top-down [with]
the families, especially those who traditionally may struggle and
really try to find the ways that we can support and develop that
true bridge because I feel like a lot of families feel shut off or feel
not supported, not adequately supported, when they have students
who have [an IEP] because they just see what’s on the news.
Scout, principal for
more than 10 years
I’ll make [items] ... I have a bank of [them] just from being in
education for awhile. But also, I know I can quickly get those
resources online. And that enables them to come and ask me for
some of those resources. But at the same time, I know how busy
they are and so if I can just make a reward chart or I can make a
point sheet or a visual, tactile schedule, I’ll just make it for them.
And they know how to do it. It’s not hard. But when it comes to
those types of supports, I’ll just take that off so they can work
with the kids and can provide the resources.
We do talk about: Who are our kids with IEPs that are multilingual?
Who are our kids with IEPs and also identify as Black Youth?
Who are our kids with IEPs that also have attendance concerns?
But when it comes to the academics, when I’m working with my
staff, we’re trying to look at all of the kids and not use the excuse
of, “Well, he has an IEP” or “She has an IEP.”
The notion of being present with the students, staff, and families to have conversations,
interact together, build connections, understand circumstances, and address needs along the way
was described as essential for creating the opportunities for the interactions to even occur. It is in
those opportunities, as suggested by the school administrators, that space is made to strengthen
relationships. The examples from Table 5 suggest that the ways that individuals feel cared for in
74
a school community look different depending on the individual and the setting. The care cannot
be felt without learning what that care looks like for those individuals. Specifically, Channing
noted that they build meaningful relationships and know the community through “street data,” as
guided through a collective whole school book study. An excerpt from Street Data highlights
this importance:
Street data takes us down to the ground to observe, listen to, and gather artifacts from the
lived experiences of stakeholders. Street data are the qualitative and experiential data that
emerges at eye level and on lower frequencies when we train our brains to discern it.
These data are asset-based, building on the tenets of culturally responsive education by
helping educators look for what’s right in our students, schools, and communities instead
of seeking out what’s wrong. Street data helps us reveal what’s getting in the way of
student or adult learning, illuminate where the learner is in relationship to a holistic set of
goals, and determine what might come next. The street data model embodies an ethos and
a change of methodology that will transform how we engage everything from student
learning to district transformation to policy by offering a new way to think about, gather,
and deploy data. (Safir & Dugan, 2021, p. 57)
It is a deep understanding of street data that contributes to the establishment and development of
a culture of care among the school community. The more a school administrator truly
understands each member of the school community, the more they can provide and allocate
supports. The more each member is seen and understood, the more they feel cared for.
75
Finding 2: Strategic Planning Centered Around What Is Best for Students Must Guide
Decision Making
The school administrators reported that programming to support students with
exceptionalities requires strategic planning to maximize their learning opportunities and reach
their full potential. They emphasized administrators putting students first when making
decisions.
All three school principals strategically planned for their professional development and
training for their teachers at the start of the year to ensure this was a priority to provide more
equitable outcomes for their students and to build the capacity of their teachers. Channing
described the different professional learning opportunities that they build into their designated
site staff meetings around their school goals and a variety of strategies to support teachers with
sharpening their skills in an ongoing, consistent manner to support the students’ varying needs.
They explained a presentation that was co-presented with their resource teacher to specifically
support students who were two or more grade levels below where they were expected to be and
the ways to utilize data to create strategic small groups. Those data points connected to the five
focus students whom teachers selected at the beginning of the year to ensure that students who
fell into specific target groups were supported daily with appropriate Tier I and Tier II classroom
interventions. Channing stated that the professional learning opportunities planned for staff
needed to be grounded in listening and seeking to identify the staff and students’ needs to build
those opportunities for them:
It’s just one of those deals where I think, like Maya Angelou said once, “When people
know better, they do better.” And so, that’s where my stance is and that’s what I always
try to keep in the forefront of my mind. And providing those professional learnings that
76
they are expressing where their skills may not be as sharp is my role. And to make sure
that I’m an advocate for students with special needs at all times. I need to really make
sure that we try to adapt an inclusion model that helps teachers understand what that
looks like and how we can do that here at our school.
Additionally, Channing shared their focus as a school on small group instruction and truly
knowing students: “When we truly know how to create academic environments that are warm,
welcoming and nurturing, that is essential to their student success, especially those who have
IEPs.” Two big partnerships that they had integrated into their professional learnings for their
school to support this were with the WRITE project, which is an equity-focused writing program
using an equity lens framework, and the Leader in Me program, which is around the
development of enhancing the eight habits of leaders in the entire school community to shift
culture and academics. The highlights of these specific programs by Channing came from
strategic planning that centered on equitable student outcomes that may incorporate different
programs or projects to ensure the focus on the whole child. The whole child is the approach that
is used to honor all parts of the child to ensure they are being equitably prepared to reach their
greatest potential, as shown in Figure 10.
77
Figure 10
Whole Child Approach to Education
Note. From Whole Child Approach to Education by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, 2024.
(https://chanzuckerberg.com/education/whole-child-approach-to-education/). Copyright 2024 by
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Scout also discussed the different ways they thread the lens of students with
exceptionalities throughout their professional development and training, particularly when
approaching instructional practices and curriculum, as a way that they strategically plan for what
is best for students with exceptionalities. They described the decision to incorporate into the
work of the grade-level professional learning communities that they led for their staff at the
meeting held earlier in the day of the interview to strategically plan to support students with
exceptionalities. The focus of the meeting was in preparation for upcoming assessments and
strategic small group planning for students with exceptionalities and groupings in inclusive
partnerships. In the previous week’s meeting, they planned out the integration and focus around
78
their students with exceptionalities and their writing instruction. They incorporated the analysis
of student work along with the writing progressions with identifying specific supports to make
inclusive groups for students to ensure the best first instruction in the classrooms. Scout further
explained the ways they strategically planned for the focus on classified team members to attend
monthly behavior and de-escalation training to build their capacity to support student behaviors.
Similarly to Scout, Haven explained the ways they planned for a focus on best first
instruction through their staff meetings. They shared about a meeting 2 weeks prior that was
about ensuring each lesson had a clear purpose that students could explain and connect to their
learning that included their special education teachers. They described the ways they used
walkthroughs and data collection through coaching conversations and feedback to further
develop their teachers after their learnings. They specifically planned to incorporate monthly
classroom walkthroughs that include the special education classrooms in which teachers can
celebrate one another, sharing “something I learned, something I loved, or something I will use”
and leave those notes in one another’s classrooms. They tied this to normalizing being in one
another’s classrooms to see what is happening in each of their spaces. They specifically stated
that oftentimes, special education teachers are present in general education classrooms but not
vice versa, and this is a way to begin building that bridge together. This may be due to the pushin model that occurs with special education teachers who provide mainstreaming or inclusion
support in a general education teacher’s classroom. The bridge created allows for reciprocal
interactions to ensure that the previous approaches of the general education teacher versus the
special education teacher are addressed. The ways in which the push-in to the space was used
may now lead to a more dynamic, collaborative, unified classroom together or the equal sharing
of spaces and voice.
79
Both Scout and Channing described another way that strategic planning centered around
what is best for students with exceptionalities. They cluster specific student needs together to
maximize supports for them. Scout shared the reallocation to ensure there was a classified team
member to support at each grade level and special education teacher placements to best support
similar needs and students on their caseload together. Other classified team members who could
assist in classrooms received extra compensation. In addition to clustering students, Channing’s
team received time compensation. Any special education teacher received at least an additional
prep period each month, fewer duty assignments, and fewer other duties to give them extra time
for caseload management. These strategic shifts allowed the personnel to best support their
students’ needs.
Additionally, the school administrators described a major component of strategic
planning around parent education, centered on what is best for students, to ensure their full
understanding of what it means to be a parent of a student with exceptionalities. Scout noted the
need to ensure that families truly understand the IEP process and to strategically plan around the
meaning of having an IEP and the rights of parents. She stated, “But what does that really mean?
What is that going to mean for my kiddo in middle school and high school, and we’re talking
about this in third grade, and they’re not even thinking about middle or high school.” This may
be coming from the density of the procedural safeguards that are provided to parents in academic
jargon that is unfamiliar to most and the futurism of eligibility with special education services.
Channing also shared this sentiment around families intentionally being provided the
education to “understand truly what special education is now and not what it was before.” They
shared the importance of “really getting side-by-side” with families both during and outside of
IEPs. They additionally discussed the opportunity for possible onboarding for families of newly
80
qualified students with an IEP to really teach them about the process, the supports, and what this
may look like for them as a parent. Haven further discussed that they have different families who
feel strongly about placement for their child in ways that may be a deficit mindset both from
parents who do and do not have a child with exceptionalities. They shared the parent education
aspect to provide more understanding and openness about students with exceptionalities with all
families.
The school administrator must strategically plan to provide families with intentionally
crafted opportunities to gain a deep understanding of students with exceptionalities. This
strategic planning would heavily benefit the students as a strategy for urban elementary school
administrators to use to support these students. A school administrator’s strategic planning
around the systems and supports requires intentionality and cohesive, detailed planning. The
thoughtfulness to each aspect of this involving each stakeholder must be well-crafted and
student-centered.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 presented two findings regarding the school settings and conditions
that Southern California urban elementary school administrators have created around systems
and supports for students with exceptionalities. Finding 1 was that school administrators must
create systems and supports for these students by being active and involved in cultivating a
culture of care for their school community. Being hands-on and engulfed in the everyday school
happenings to know each member’s street data was discussed as having a great impact on how
each member feels seen and can see others. Finding 2 centered on formal and intentional
strategic planning centered around what is best for students in the special education
programming decision-making process. This planning included the creative scheduling for
81
personnel supports and classroom needs that aided in maximizing student learning opportunities,
the intentional planning of professional development based on actively listening and adhering to
the school community’ needs and centering special education programming conditions on
inclusivity to ensure that each student was engaging in their most impactful educational
experience.
Research Question 3: What Do Urban School Elementary Teachers and Administrators
Suggest As Additional School Settings and Conditions Administrators Could Put in Place
to Strengthen Teachers’ Abilities to Reduce Inequities That Arise for Students With
Exceptionalities?
Research Question 3 examined both the urban elementary school teacher and
administrator recommendations around additional school settings and conditions that could
reduce inequities for students with exceptionalities. In addition, this study created an opportunity
for teachers and administrators to be able to “freedom dream” as they step outside of their
current circumstances to identify specific hopes and wishes toward what these students need
most to succeed that is currently not being provided.
The one-on-one qualitative interviews with both teachers and school administrators were
grounded in questions related to specific aspects of their current circumstances. I asked both
teachers and school administrators about additional settings and conditions in which they wished
they had more of or less of as it pertained to supporting students with exceptionalities. It
concluded with the opportunity to freedom dream as they identified specifics in the school
environment that would further promote inclusive learning. Three findings surfaced from these
questions:
82
• The reflective work for all stakeholders must be implemented to ensure asset-based
inclusivity mindsets.
• There is a need for collaborative efforts between the school administrator and the
district personnel toward opportunities for more equitable schedules to support
students.
• The creation of educational policy around a more realistic adult-to-student ratio must
be proposed.
The following sections contextualize findings related to additional settings and conditions
administrators could place to strengthen teachers’ abilities to create a more equitable school
environment.
Finding 1: The Reflective Work for All Stakeholders Must Be Implemented to Ensure
Asset-Based Inclusivity Mindsets
The climate in education reflects a divide between general education and special
education that has begun to shift and must be prioritized toward a more asset-based inclusivity
mindset. All participating administrators and teachers suggested that this begins with the
structures to ensure ample opportunities for deep reflection on oneself and accountability toward
this work with one another collectively.
The opportunity to be more efficient and ideal in meeting students’ diverse learning
needs can happen in a more inclusive setting. This begins with creating the environment for
conversations to take place to unpack, define, and fully grasp the concept of inclusivity. Arbor
found it important to establish alignment and commonality in understanding what inclusivity
actually looks like. They explained that many people have varying understandings of what it
means, so their versions of supporting students and providing inclusive environments vary by
83
teacher. Kris further explained the challenges they have seen in their experience with teachers
refusing to provide mainstreaming opportunities for students with exceptionalities. They shared,
I think we need to have some meaningful, hard conversations about what inclusivity is.
And then we just need backup [from our school administration team]. [We need to shift]
that there is the status quo that [students with exceptionalities] can’t be there.
Both Ellis and Tatum described the level of efficiency in utilizing a co-teaching model, a
model used in a classroom setting where two or more educators share the instructional
responsibility as the students’ needs continue to grow in urban elementary schools. This
highlights that collaborative teaching models promote shared responsibility for all students’
outcomes and not placing that responsibility solely on the special education teacher. This would
create a space for reflective conversations around individual students and their supports in the
classroom. Ellis specifically discussed the communication aspect of providing spaces of realtime communication between general education and special education teachers as opposed to this
occurring at different times of the day and/or becoming the “role of the special education
teacher” that impacts student performance outcomes. This came from their experiences with the
need to engage in instructional feedback with other colleagues and the opportunity to have
courageous conversations about equitable outcomes for students with exceptionalities.
Channing shared that this includes changing the mindset of special education teachers,
equally as much as general education teachers, to get to a place of true co-teaching in one
classroom and one another being open to having someone in their class for long periods of time.
They stated,
84
And I think just like attitude and just will. I think that kind of goes with teachers wanting
to really get down and focus on groups of students who struggle the most and not [just]
focus on the students who are not having any [struggles].
Riley added to the sentiment with the opportunities created to gain more “buy-in” from the
general education teachers to include special education students as there may be times when
general education teachers have minimal interactions with teaching students with exceptionalities
prior to becoming classroom teachers. This reflected the opportunities they have seen with their
staff around equity gaps and the opportunities to engage in reflective work to transform
perspectives and expand understanding. Haven added that oftentimes, general education teachers
do not come into the classrooms of students with exceptionalities. They emphasized that school
administrators can create opportunities and strategic spaces for this to occur.
Scout stressed that schools must have quality interventions in place with the right
mentality to be certain that quality first instruction is taking place in each classroom at each
moment every day. They described that they have experienced teachers placing the sole
responsibility of educating students in the hands of special education teachers or the pre-labeling
of student needs and diagnoses. They suggested the need to ensure there is ample opportunity for
deep reflection on oneself and accountability for this work collectively with one another.
It is in the spaces that are created around current approaches and practices that spaces can
be created for deep reflection on one’s self and collective accountability as educators that can
begin to create a more shared understanding of students with exceptionalities.
85
Finding 2: Collaborative Efforts Needed Between the School Administrator and the
District Personnel Toward Opportunities for More Equitable Schedules to Support
Students
Serving students with exceptionalities in an effective and impactful manner requires
strategic planning that often happens outside of contractual hours, which can lead to it not
happening. There are many additional tasks to make these supports happen, including caseload
management, interventions and supports, planning and preparation time, IEP meetings,
paperwork, and assessments.
Channing shared that they have tried to intentionally make adjustments for special
education teachers and teachers with students with exceptionalities to provide them with an
additional preparation period each month and allow them to miss their duty assignments to try to
provide them with more time for their additional tasks needed. This has been an effective starting
place for this work that needs to be expanded on to include the additional tasks needed to be
completed to effectively support these students. The current scheduling policies have limited
opportunities for teachers of students with exceptionalities. Haven added the desire to adjust
scheduling but suggested they are often hand-tied due to a lack of funding to accommodate in a
manner that best supports educators. This included the emphasis on creating inclusive classroom
environments that require additional planning and preparation time between general education
and special education teachers, as current district policies do not provide time for this.
Scout discussed the limitations from the perspectives of district personnel with the
appropriate classroom supports. They shared that it is often a numbers and minutes focus by
district personnel when examining the systems for support at the school and in the classrooms.
This emphasizes the need to shift to more collaborative approaches between school
86
administrators and district personnel to ensure that the schedules of the personnel that enhance
student learning experiences are more appropriately crafted. Scout highlighted the office hours
and after-school professional development opportunities for special education teachers at the
district level. The challenge with this was teachers’ availability to attend these opportunities due
to other conflicting mandates and/or IEP meetings. The way the current schedules are structured
is not conducive to the additional training that would benefit the special education teachers.
Riley illuminated, “Where can we make more time by not doing more.” They expressed
that oftentimes, they are asked to do different tasks on top of the additional tasks as a special
education teacher and that they really need time to actually prep and have downtime for their
students.
Tatum discussed the importance of built-in time for collaboration with their support team
members and the impact this has on supporting students with exceptionalities. One of the
strongest supports in the classroom is their aide to ensure collaborative conversations can occur
to provide more impactful supports. They shared that they only get 15 minutes to collaborate
with their aide before the students show up. This highlighted the lack of time to truly
communicate when the schedule allows for only 15 minutes for co-planning opportunities to
support students for the core classroom team.
Three of the teachers shared examples of needing more time built in to provide better
student supports, as shown in Table 6.
87
Table 6
Examples of Needing More Time Built Into More Equitable Schedules for Teachers of Students
With Exceptionalities
Examples of needing more time built into more equitable schedules for teachers of students
with exceptionalities
Arbor, teacher There is no built-in time for “caseload management with testing, IEP
meetings, and paperwork.” The cap for student caseload at their school
is 28, but that does not include any initial assessments that come their
way. Initial assessment cases are not counted as a part of their caseload,
and they have to do all of the assessment/ paperwork leading up to the
IEP meeting to determine eligibility.
Kris, teacher I don’t have any prep time for my students, and I also have no ability to
timecard the time I need to do that, too. I don’t have any prep time to
write IEPs. I don’t have any prep time for anything. I work from 7:45 to
2:45 as my contract hours. [I have to support] my students. I have to
support them every day with bus duty and recess duty. And so [with]
my students, I tend to stand out in front of school until about 2:15
before my last student gets picked up by their parents. And so that puts
me with about 30 minutes of time in my contract to do everything I
need to do within a day. … [There is also] no salary differential or
timecarding for [special education] teachers. … I have kindergarten
through fifth-grade math skills, and so that there’s almost no curriculum
that exists to meet those needs, and so what’s more appreciated would
be just the time to prep and plan for that. … [Even having] opportunities
for the [general education] teachers and the specialists to chat. … Even
every few months to set up plans to check in to see how I can support
them. “What small groups can I do for you? What can we do to pat each
other’s backs?” [and be able to have] planning and prep time for
collaboration.
Ellis, teacher They expressed the wish that there were set scheduled times, such as,
“This is the paperwork time.” They shared that there is a lot more
paperwork, and so “‘It would be great if there was a way to have more
protected time or even like, “This is the time you have to do this part of
the job.” Because … it was different teaching general education. There
was definitely, it seemed, like more time to do things.”
88
The current circumstances are not always the most suitable for effectively teaching
students with exceptionalities. The participants suggested that collaboration between site
administrators and district personnel around this issue could provide changes that make this more
impactful.
Finding 3: The Creation of Educational Policy Around a More Realistic Adult-to-Student
Ratio Must Be Proposed
Participants suggested that the high caseloads, in conjunction with limited personnel due
to budget constraints, bring additional challenges and added stress to teachers. The same is true
for school administrators in leading schools with such limitations and added stressors to their
staff.
Each of the teachers discussed that their caseload limit is not where their current numbers
are. Tatum shared that they currently have 20 students on their caseload, whereas it is usually 10.
Taking the data for double the number of students has been very difficult to manage. Riley added
to this:
You could have anywhere from eight to 15 kids, of which each kid has five to 10 goals.
So, you’re managing that, and I feel like I didn’t really get a grasp on that part for almost
8 years of teaching.
Riley additionally expressed the challenge of having more parents to manage when the caseload
numbers are even higher than expected and the impact this has on their work as an educator.
Kris described the reverse mainstreaming of students that are additionally incorporated
into the classroom, thereby increasing the number of students on their caseload unofficially.
They also described that while there might physically be additional adults in the space who count
as personnel supports for students, they are designated as one-on-one support for the student and
89
cannot leave their side. Arbor added to this with their current cap of 28 students and the need for
more personnel. They expressed that it has been very challenging with such high numbers to
have the support that is truly needed in the classrooms. In addition, Ellis discussed,
I think our caseloads are kind of high. So, as much as I love every single one of my
students, I wish that we didn’t have as many. … It would be great to be able to have less
students because then I could have more time and be able to dedicate more focus to their
needs into writing more clear IEPs.
Ellis discussed the ripple effect of having fewer students on their caseload, which would lead to
more time and meeting more students’ needs with more classroom aides and without budgetary
restrictions.
Scout expressed the challenges this brings as an administrator. They stated that their
caseload for teachers is up to 20 but that it goes over. They stated,
We’ve had to create some intentional pull-out groups to provide that level of support
because we don’t have enough adults to push-in across three classrooms during their
math block or during their literacy block. I’m always trying to get them extra support. We
don’t have enough staff.
They described the impact of smaller class sizes that would minimize the span and maximize the
effect size in classrooms. They also discussed the wide range of learning needs within one
classroom where there are often students with learning needs that expand across more than three
grade levels, and the special education teacher is expected to impactfully support the students.
Haven also illustrated the rise in social-emotional supports needed at their school and the
support the teachers require. They wanted more “in-the-moment” support, particularly with
behavior issues. This may be coming from the rise in social-emotional and behavior supports
90
needed in urban elementary schools generally and the lack of training previously provided to
both school administrators and teachers on these issues.
Channing brought forth the funding that gets lost to support schools when school
improvement occurs. They shared how they were under school improvement but did well, which
led to a loss in funding of $200,000 that could have supported additional personnel. They
explained the impact this has had on their school, particularly as they serve students with
exceptionalities who are also experiencing poverty with teachers who were not adequately
prepared to teach their wide range of changing needs.
Both participating administrators and teachers suggested that additional funding to
support added personnel to enhance adult-to-student ratios is needed to reduce inequities.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 revealed three findings regarding the additional school settings and
conditions school administrations could put into place to support teachers’ ability to reduce
inequities for students with exceptionalities more adequately. Finding 1 suggested that teachers
would benefit from school administrators creating additional spaces for all stakeholders to
engage in reflective work to move toward each individual, upholding a mindset of asset-based
inclusivity. The courageous conversations around a common understanding of what inclusivity
means could lead to unpacking implicit biases and shifting practices. These shifts could lead to
more effective co-teaching along with stronger practices for best first instruction and quality
interventions. Finding 2 suggested the need, which both principals and teachers expressed, for
school administrators to work in conjunction with district personnel to design more equitable
schedules to support students with exceptionalities. The scheduling would allow teachers to have
built-in time within their contractual hours and/or be appropriately compensated for the
91
additional time needed to best support students. Finding 3 recommended a more realistic adultto-student ratio be created through educational policy. There are high numbers of students on
each teacher’s caseload, detracting from their ability to address student needs, and they hope for
additional personnel to assist in this. Participants suggested that budget constraints created
additional challenges for schools to address these needs.
Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the study’s key findings. The participants’
narratives illuminated intentional shifts to improve the culture and mindsets that are more
inclusive of students with exceptionalities in approaches and overall school programming design.
This study generated eight key findings around the administrators’ role and approaches to
systems for these students. The summary of the key findings is in Table 7.
92
Table 7
Key Findings: Administrators’ Role and Approach to Systems for Students With Exceptionalities
Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3
Key Finding 1 School administrators
build the capacity of
teachers of students
with exceptionalities
by utilizing purposeful
availability and
meaningful
interactions.
An active, involved
school
administrator aids
in the cultivation
of a culture of care
for their school
community.
The reflective work for
all stakeholders must
be implemented to
ensure asset-based
inclusivity mindsets.
Key Finding 2 Special education
programming design
impacts the teaching of
students with
exceptionalities.
Strategic planning
centered around
what is best for
students must
guide decision
making.
Collaborative efforts are
needed between the
school administrator
and the district
personnel toward
opportunities for more
equitable schedules to
support students.
Key Finding 3 The support the
administrators provide
to the teachers must
align with the needed
support by the teachers
in building their
capacity to serve
students with
exceptionalities.
The creation of
educational policy
around a more
realistic adult-tostudent ratio must be
proposed.
The next chapter discusses the findings in relation to the literature reviewed and the
conceptual framework guiding this study, as well as recommendations for practice, future
research, and concluding thoughts.
93
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations for Practice
This chapter provides an overview of the study’s findings in the context of scholarly
literature and SCT, recommendations for practice, areas for future research, limitations and
delimitations, and concluding thoughts. The purpose of the study was to examine the role that an
administrator plays in a teacher’s ability to support students with exceptionalities in an urban
elementary school setting. This included identifying administrators’ practices that helped
develop strong systems of support in the reframing from dis/abilities to exceptionalities as
guided by the framework of SCT dismantling ableism and deficit perspectives.
Discussion of Findings
This section discusses the study’s findings within the conceptual framework guided by
the SCT and scholarly literature. Three research questions guided this study:
1. How do urban school elementary teachers in Southern California describe the support
they receive from school administrators in building their capacity to serve students
with exceptionalities?
2. What school settings and conditions have Southern California urban elementary
school administrators created around systems and supports for students with
exceptionalities?
3. What do urban school elementary teachers and administrators suggest as additional
school settings and conditions administrators could put in place to strengthen
teachers’ abilities to reduce inequities that arise for students with exceptionalities?
Research Question 1: Discussion of Findings
Research question 1 addressed the perspectives of urban elementary school teachers
regarding the support their school administrator provided to them to build their capacity to serve
94
students with exceptionalities. Teachers of these students have had to broaden their skill set
quickly with the growing number of students being identified in special education (LAO, 2019).
Some who have recently entered their career in education may have had more exposure to
additions to curricula during teacher preparation programs, specifically around special education
(Jones, 2020). For the majority, though, this lack of curriculum is a barrier that they have had to
learn to overcome on their own or rely on their school administrator for support. It is not just the
knowledge about specific components of special education that presents a challenge; it is also the
impactful teaching aspect that ensures that students’ needs are met. The school administrator
plays a key role in leading the work in this programming design for teachers to ensure that they
are adequately prepared to meet those needs.
The teacher participants described the ways their school administrators enhanced their
capacity to teach students with exceptionalities. This largely came from the integration of
knowledge building through professional development and training for classroom teachers,
classified support team members, and other site personnel who supported the work of students
with exceptionalities. Maggin and Tejero Hughes (2021) discussed having different levels of
initiatives when building capacity, including one-on-one pairings, team structures, and
schoolwide initiatives. School administrators can build these into their programming to ensure
individuals have varied experiences to build collaborative spaces as they support one another by
deepening their knowledge together. The teacher participants shared how these collaborative and
varied spaces were a valued design in building their teaching capacity and ensuring that their
support team members were equipped as well.
The level of engagement and activeness within the school environment also impacts
special education programming and personnel. Social cognitive theory describes the reciprocal
95
relationship of people, environment, and behavior, which was evident in this study. The teacher
participants stated that the school administrator’s efforts to build strong relationships with the
students and staff allowed a deep understanding of the happenings at the school and impacted
how they felt supported and engaged at work. Causton et al. (2023) discussed the school
administrator being actively involved in the inner workings of the school and being the listener
that the staff needs their leader to be. When the school administrator leads from within and not
top-down, the staff feel listened to, cared for, and seen. Relationships that build trust must truly
provide support that impacts the behaviors of all and creates an environment that supports
students with exceptionalities.
As explained in the description of the conceptual framework introduced in Chapter Two,
the school administrator’s decisions determine programming, and those decisions influence the
environment and behaviors of those who work at the school, linking back to the school’s
performance, including that related to personnel and student achievement. Rios (2024) described
this as a culture of cariño. This is the way in which educators create the conditions that exude
what it means to share compassion for each individual student in a way that they feel seen and
heard for who they truly are. Built on this is the notion of critically compassionate intellectualism
model of transformative education, which describes the approaches with love, hope, identity, and
organic intellectualism through the convergence of critical race theory, critical pedagogy, and
authentic caring of educators (Cammarota & Romero, 2006).
The activeness of a school administrator being in the spaces of the classroom to create
their understanding and provide support is important. The participants stated that the school
administrator must know their students to provide accurate guidance to the teachers. The
opportunities to coach teachers of students with exceptionalities in these spaces to provide
96
feedback and build capacity were important to note. It also allowed the school administrator to
really know what was going on to determine the impact of the programming systems that have
been put into place. Bateman and Cline (2019) emphasized creating space for the evaluation of
systems and personnel to ensure that standards are being upheld by all as part of the learning
process. This is especially true with the growing population of students being identified in
special education to ensure that teachers are truly equipped to support them adequately.
Research Question 2: Discussion of Findings
The findings from Research Question 2 around the perception of the school
administrators in the school settings and conditions were similar to those of the teacher
participants. They noted that school administrators require strategic planning to ensure student
support that is best for their educational experiences. This begins with a clear vision for the work
and the plan to ensure vision setting and opportunities to flush out details that impact that plan
(NCUST, 2022). The school administrator participants described this planning in the logistical
and operational aspects of their role. The clear plans pertaining to special education
programming needed to be paired with opportunities for analysis and adjustments. As supported
by research, the strategic planning around special education programming requires thoughtful
integration of all stakeholder voices and being in the space of the environment to ensure fidelity
to data results (Causton et al., 2023).
Similar to teachers, educational leaders must have the education and training to support
their students, and that may not always come in their schooling. The pathway to administration
greatly varies by individual, some of whom do not have specific engagement with the curriculum
in their elementary school administrator preparation programs related to students with
exceptionalities (Izak, 2024). As the school administrator participants shared, they are continuing
97
to build their knowledge through their own research to expand their knowledge and practices to
stay up-to-date with the more recent and relevant information to lead their schools. Knowledge
about special education may be non-existent for a school administrator before coming into their
role (Gilson & Etscheidt, 2022). The school administrator participants discussed how this was
particularly true when it came to leading the work with special education, as the laws and
policies require frequent upkeep of information in preparation to lead their teams. Their
information gathering and preparation as educational leaders must be prioritized (Gilson &
Etscheidt, 2022). Since the variation is so great, integrating data-driven decision making ensures
that strategic plans benefit students (Wilcox et al., 2021). Maggin and Tejero Hughes (2021)
introduce the data improvement matrix, found in Figure 7 in Chapter Two, that can be utilized by
school administrators to guide their work.
As the participants shared, a data system provides support to teachers of students with
exceptionalities, and the relational systems the school administrators create humanize the
process. Connecting to Chapter Two, with the explanation of the conceptual framework, the
behaviors, environment, and people in the school setting have reciprocal relationships. The
school administrator’s actions play a role in the occurrences of the environment and in staff
behaviors, just as much as staff behaviors affect the school environment and administrator. The
teacher participants discussed how the school administrators influenced their abilities to serve
their students well through supports and systems. The school administrator participants explained
how they centered a culture of care and coupled this with the specific approaches of care and
guidance they provided to their teachers to ensure they felt supported at work. Kennedy (2019)
discussed centering care in leadership and its impact on schools. The participants shared that
they worked to be actively involved in the school community and to have daily programming to
98
ensure they have a full scope of what is happening in their school. The added component in this
was the intentional ways they showed different ways of care toward staff and students.
The system of support created for the parents of students with exceptionalities was an
integral component of the web of school programming and strategic planning. The work of the
IDEA was built on the need to ensure parents’ rights were also protected along with their
students in special education (U.S. Department of Education, 2023a). The school administrator
participants brought up that this is an area for improvement in special education. The entire
process of obtaining an IEP for students, including the intricacies that follow, is extremely
complex and vitally important, yet school administrators needed to strategically plan to ensure
that parents were adequately supported through this process. It is typically up to the parent to
conduct their own research, involve themselves with special education family groups, or get an
advocate to prepare themselves to support their child. The opportunities to frontload and fully
engage families in this process would be essential in building their capacity to support their
students and creating a more collaborative, supportive, and impactful relationship and experience
with schools.
Research Question 3: Discussion of Findings
The findings of Research Question 3 regard opportunities to discuss additions to school
settings and conditions that school administrators could create to strengthen the teachers’
abilities to reduce inequities. To truly address inequities for students with exceptionalities, the
mindset about them must be an area of focus for all stakeholders guided through the school
administrators’ work. The participants illuminated varying stakeholders’ deficit mindsets, which
are deeply rooted in U.S. history (De Los Santos, 2019), as shared throughout the literature
review in Chapter Two. The participants discussed that this is still present in their schools. In
99
particular, the school administrators highlighted intentional ways and approaches to shift toward
a more asset-based mindset with their staff through professional development and training for
both general education and special education teachers. Research supports that the foundation of
IDEA has relied on a deficit model of dis/ability (Kramarczuk Voulgarides, 2018). The deep
rootedness of this results in the gap continuing to widen for students with exceptionalities, and,
importantly, the education debt increasing. The school administrator can provide systems and
conditions to address this more impactfully. The school administrator participants pointed out the
discrepancies in their data for these students specifically. They discussed how they have utilized
approaches to integrate this data through discussion with their staff and design strategic plans.
The growing work of diversity, equity, and inclusion, as participants discussed, is
necessary to ground the initiatives toward more inclusive settings for students who face an
intersection of inequities throughout their schooling experiences. The social constructs of this
have surfaced through dis/ability studies and critical race theory (DisCrit; Connor et al., 2016).
Cox (2022) discussed the difficulty in attempting to build and lead inclusive organizations when
the traditionally excluded experiences are not deeply understood or are excluded from the
conversations. Channing shared about the integration and use of street data and having the space
to discuss this at their school. School administrators must provide systems to build awareness,
understanding, dismantling, and action at their schools to intentionally shift to an asset-based
approach with all stakeholders.
The participants in the study equally shared sentiments regarding the need for educational
policies that better support school programming for students with exceptionalities. The
limitations in funding have put restrictions and setbacks for more impactful programming and
support for students with exceptionalities. This is paired with the policies around teacher
100
contracts to limit equitable schedules and conditions to support students with exceptionalities.
The school administrator participants shared the limits in funding for their schools to adequately
support their students with exceptionalities both in the manner of personnel and scheduling.
In the WestEd California special education funding system study, Willis et al. (2020)
discussed the complexities of funding allocation for special education in California. As shared in
Chapter Two, the funding system has continued to evolve and become more simplified (LAO,
2019). It is important to understand that specifically for special education, California allocates
funds separately from all other education funds, and the funds are distributed to different entities,
including the planning and reporting processes and governance structure. Channing described the
significant cut in financial support due to an increase in achievement for their students that
greatly impacted funding for programming for students with exceptionalities. Recently,
Governor Newsom and the legislature increased special education funding by approximately
$3.5 billion over the past 5 years to support the increase in students’ identification, but this has
had minimal impact (Izak, 2023) due to the budget constraints and overall discrepancies in
resource allocation for students with exceptionalities.
In the governor’s newest budget proposal for 2024–2025, there was additional funding
for K–12 education but not specifically for special education (Newsom, 2024). This is in direct
alignment with the sentiment of the teacher and school administrator participants, who echoed
the need for increased funding at the discretion of schools to best support impactful
programming for students with exceptionalities. The funding aspect guiding school administrator
decision making is an additional aspect aligned with the conceptual framework discussed in
Chapter Two. Aligned with SCT, the current state of school programming for students with
exceptionalities and their current environmental settings and conditions are impacting school
101
administrator decision making. The participants illuminated the need for more personnel and
adjustments to education policy to ensure that students with exceptionalities can be supported in
a more inclusive setting. Included in this is providing equitable scheduling for special education
teachers to ensure that they have built-in time for which they are compensated to meet their
students’ needs.
Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of urban elementary school
teachers and school administrators about the role the administrator has in a teacher’s ability to
support students with exceptionalities in urban elementary school settings. The data from the
interviewees led to eight key findings across the three research questions guiding the study.
These key findings are presented in Table 8, along with three recommendations for practice
related to the findings. Recommendations 1 and 3 are intended to address findings across all
research questions, while Recommendation 2 is intended to address findings related to Research
Questions 1 and 2. I present three recommendations for practice:
1. Redefine the meaning of special education systems of support in urban elementary
schools.
2. Create a system to define and provide “support” for special education teachers.
3. Reimagine and revamp the multi-tiered systems of support for students with
exceptionalities using the whole-child approach.
102
Table 8
Key Findings and Recommendations for Practice: Administrators’ Role and Approach to
Systems for Students With Exceptionalities
Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Research Question 3
Key Finding 1 School administrators
build the capacity of
teachers of students
with exceptionalities
by utilizing
purposeful
availability and
meaningful
interactions.
An active, involved
school
administrator aids
in the cultivation of
a culture of care for
their school
community.
The reflective work
for all stakeholders
must be
implemented to
ensure asset-based
inclusivity
mindsets.
Key Finding 2 The special education
programming design
impacts the teaching
of students with
exceptionalities.
The strategic planning
centered around
what is best for
students must guide
decision making.
Collaborative efforts
between the school
administrator and
the district
personnel toward
opportunities for
more equitable
schedules to
support students.
Key Finding 3 The support the
administrators
provide to the
teachers must align
with the needed
support by the
teachers in building
their capacity to
serve students with
exceptionalities.
The creation of
educational policy
around a more
realistic adult-tostudent ratio must
be proposed.
Recommendation 1 As a school community, redefine the meaning of special education
systems of support in urban elementary schools.
Recommendation 2 Create a system to define and provide “support” for special education
teachers.
Recommendation 3 Reimagine and revamp the multi-tiered systems of support for students
with exceptionalities using the whole-child approach.
103
The first recommendation is to redefine the meaning of special education systems of
support in urban elementary school settings. The second recommendation is for school
administrators to create a system that defines the word “support” and provides that support for
special education teachers. Throughout this study, it was clear that the word “support” presents
much ambiguity in its interpretation by all stakeholders. Lastly, the systems in urban elementary
schools for multi-tiered systems of support for students with exceptionalities must be reimagined
and revamped for students with exceptionalities.
Recommendation 1: As a School Community, Redefine the Meaning of Special Education
Systems of Support in Urban Elementary Schools
Special education has been grounded on a deficit perspective that has created excessive
harm that must be intentionally reframed. The work of diversity, equity, and inclusion must be
expanded to include the work of respect, equity, diversity, and inclusion (REDI) to ensure
equitable treatment and access via a respect-first model (Cox, 2022). This lens must be the
framework to center school administrators in the ways they are intentionally reframing and
recentering the assets of each student with exceptionalities in urban elementary schools (Pinkard,
2023).
To achieve an asset-based approach to special education using the concept of REDI, the
school administrator must design a systematic approach specifically for asset-based special
education programming in their school. There is no one systematic approach, as each school has
unique needs. It is important to center the conceptual framework discussed in Chapter Two in
alignment with the reciprocity principle behind SCT to bring the humanistic aspect and
approaches to the center of conversation when thinking about programming design.
104
The design needs to begin with defining inclusion and the creation of a shared vision for
special education programming. This process will be continuously evaluated, revised, and
referred to in order to ensure it is part of the backbone of the work at the school. The concepts
and indicators of the systematic design for asset-based special education programming must be
created among all school stakeholders. It will be important to include the inclusive behaviors,
specifically everyday inclusion, inclusive leadership, and allyship (Mattingly et al., 2022). The
shared vision creates accountability among all stakeholders to dismantle inequities (Cox, 2022).
The special education systems of supports must also be guided by the guiding principles
for equitable whole-child design (DePaoli et al., 2024). As shown in Figure 11, the
multidimensional approach prioritizes equitable outcomes that must be applied to the work of
school administrators to build the capacity of teachers of students with exceptionalities and
create equitable learning environments for students with exceptionalities. These five principles
describe the core concepts in the design of the environments of healthy development, learning,
and thriving students with exceptionalities. The integration and implementation of these five
elements together are important, particularly in ensuring they are personalized, empowering,
culturally affirming, and transformative.
105
Figure 11
Guiding Principles for Equitable Whole Child Design
Note. From Whole Child Education J. DePaoli, L. Hernandez, & A. Maier, 2024. Learning
Policy Institute. (https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/topic/whole-child-education). Copyright 2024
by Learning Policy Institute.
Shared voice among all stakeholders in the design process is crucial. We do not know
what we do not know, and we cannot address what we cannot address without knowing
(Williams, 2021). The power of voice and space for that voice is a crucial component to ensuring
the system is functioning in a way that truly benefits each student with exceptionality. Each
voice is necessary in the design, in conjunction with seeing the strengths in others, and needs to
redefine the meaning of special education in urban elementary schools.
106
Recommendation 2: Create a System to Define and Provide “Support” for Special
Education Teachers
Support is defined as “to endure bravely; to promote the interests or cause of; to hold up
or serve as a foundation or prop for; to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage; to keep
something going” (Merriam-Webster, n.d., Definition 1, 2a, 4a, 5, 6). The meaning of support in
the realm of an educational setting also has many definitions. As the interviewees noted, a school
administrator may provide the support that they deem to different stakeholders, yet the receiving
stakeholder may not view it as support. Each person views support differently, and it is
imperative that a school administrator creates a system to clearly define “support” to best support
their students with exceptionalities, particularly because of the additional needs for teachers of
these students.
Support is viewed in many different ways that may also change, given varying
circumstances that may be occurring. A special education teacher might request support for a
student, and the school administrator might send them resources. The school administrator might
consider that support, while the teacher might feel differently. The school administrator might
alternatively respond by making themself present in the classroom, and the teacher may interpret
that in a different way. There needs to be a system that establishes a clear understanding of what
support is for each individual that can be utilized as differing circumstances or situations arise.
This must be based on relational trust and understanding of one another. This can be built
through administrators utilizing powerful availability and meaningful interactions, as suggested
by the teachers interviewed, as well as the culture of care.
The definition of “support” in urban elementary schools needs systematizing. The
interviewees stated that the ambiguity of this word may lead to counterproductive levels of
107
support for teachers. Included in this is the human aspect of the work, highlighting the domino
effect of meeting the needs of those who need support. It becomes a more proactive approach to
ensure addressing expected hurdles and build the emotional intelligence to truly support one
another through a school’s everyday functioning. Landry (2019) defined emotional intelligence
as “the ability to understand and manage your emotions, as well as recognize and influence the
emotions of those around you” (p. 1). Enhancing people’s emotional intelligence (EQ) is
necessary, but it also includes cultural intelligence (CQ) to gain a true understanding of one
another. Menabney (2019) defined CQ as “the ability to understand and interpret the actions of a
different culture and work more effectively across cultures” (p. 3). As teacher participants
shared, there must be a clear system to define what support truly looks like and feels like to each
individual so that the programming and overall functioning can be appropriate for students with
exceptionalities.
Once the support has been defined to meet individual needs, it must transfer into the
system around professional development and training for special education teachers to build their
capacity. The teacher interviewees expressed that the school administrator must guide this
training, integrating these true systems of support as their team defined and embedded into the
culture. This finding expands upon the notions of SCT around the reciprocal relationship among
people, environment, and behaviors.
The system of support must be expanded into the preparation programs for both teachers
of students with exceptionalities and school administrators. As the participants shared, they have
to build this knowledge once they are working at the school sites, which is greatly dependent on
school administrators’ work. The school administrators expressed how they needed to build and
expand on their knowledge through their own research with current pedagogies and information.
108
Connecting to the recent passing of Senate Bills 354 and 1113, there must be a push for
legislation to include expanded opportunities for all stakeholders around supports for students
with exceptionalities. There is a recognized gap in preparation training for educators in
California, with a call to action by the passing of the two senate bills that will take time before
implementation and additional time before their impact is noticeable.
Recommendation 3: Reimagining and Revamping the Multi-tiered Systems of Support for
Students With Exceptionalities
The number of students with exceptionalities continues to be on the rise and has
accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak (Novak, 2022). Dan Novak (2022)
described how many schools struggle in the identification of special education with the added
delays from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, schools have continued
to use the same response to intervention (RTI) and multi-tiered systems of supports (MTSS) for
students. As the administrator participants shared, many teachers’ mentality remains that of a
deficit perspective, leading to students’ misidentification. School administrators must creatively
reimagine and revamp these systems to more appropriately provide strategic interventions for
students to ensure that they are accurately being identified.
The goal of special education is to provide support for a student to reach their maximum
potential (Novak, 2022). The support is implemented to progressively build a student’s capacity
in their LRE until they may no longer need it. The current special education systems of support
do not adequately address students’ needs. In fact, many of the current systems are harming
students with exceptionalities (Novak, 2022). As the school administrator participants shared,
students who are being fast-tracked into or inappropriately identified in special education are
being stripped of the opportunity to receive adequate support. In connection with the
109
implementation of reflective work by all stakeholders to ensure asset-based inclusivity mindsets
are being upheld is the need for impactful special education programming design to support each
person who is in need of a varying degree of support and the legal mandates around this to
ensure those supports are put into place when necessary. In addition, the negative “label”
grounded in the deficit framework of IDEA that is associated with students with exceptionalities
must be dismantled. The school administrator participants shared this sentiment to ensure the
work of asset-based inclusivity was prioritized. This label, in its current state, strangles students
with biased approaches and degrading practices that further widen the education debt for
students with exceptionalities. This calls for the need to ground the work of current RTI/MTSS
systems in data. Data improvement matrices, as shared in Chapter Two, ensure that there is a
framework to address inequities and improve student experiences for students with
exceptionalities (Maggin & Tejero Hughes, 2021).
The additional training that must be implemented into education systems around the
identification of students with exceptionalities must be prioritized. As the school administrator
participants shared, the addition of implicit biases, pre-diagnoses, misidentification, fast-tracked
approaches, and other similar behaviors are continuing to impact special education in its current
state. An attempt to expand on the skillset and knowledge of teachers through the recent Senate
Bill 488 reveals another call to action, particularly around English Language Development and
Dyslexia (CTC, 2024). This bill includes an update to the standards for teachers by the CTC and
TPEs, as well as a new literacy performance assessment that is replacing the RICA.
The priority for the current systems for special education in California overall is to shift
toward a more asset-based approach and inclusive system to benefit students with
exceptionalities (Cox, 2022). It is crucial for a school administrator to reimagine and revamp
110
their current RTI/MTSS to ensure that best first instruction is happening, interventions for
students are progressive and impactful and supports for students are leveraging strengths with an
asset-based approach to systems of support.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations that were present in this study. These serve as outside factors that
are beyond the control of the researcher during the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
limitations include the limited literature and data that capture the impactful and best practices of
school programming for students with exceptionalities following the rise in identification and
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Another limitation is in the interviewees’ reasons for
participating and their positionality, which may be unknown to me. The pool of individuals who
responded in the specific district and schools of focus was limited. An added limitation was the
time of year that the interviews took place, which may have affected the participation rate.
Participants expressed the stress of the timing of the interviews and the illnesses that arose
during the time of year of the interviews that impacted participation. An additional potential
limitation is in the participants’ interview responses and their truthfulness as it pertained to this
study and the questions asked of them.
There are also delimitations in this study. These delimitations serve as factors that are
within the researcher’s control in the study’s design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
methodology selected for this study and the choice of the small sample are delimitations due to
the time constraints in conducting this research. The data might not fully represent the
experiences of others who serve students with exceptionalities who are or are not a part of the
Fayceville School District. Another delimitation is the role-alike commonality of the three site
administrators with my identity as a school administrator who might have influenced the study
111
design and the participants’ responses, as well as the data analysis. The limitations and
delimitations are all factors to consider in the data analysis and in areas for future research.
Areas for Future Research
The need for future research to assist in addressing the school programming for students
with exceptionalities by school administrators resides in the opportunity to engage in more
inclusive, innovative research-based practices that are guided by the asset-based REDI mindset.
The limitation in current literature and data analyzing best practices for special education
programming is an area to be further explored through research. Research to guide practices that
support reframing and dismantling inequitable approaches, specifically around the education of
students with exceptionalities, is another area to explore. Additional research on urban
elementary school administrators and their best practices to lead the work for students with
exceptionalities would be beneficial. The need for a greater focus on best practices and
highlighting impactful programming for students with exceptionalities is crucial.
Conclusion
The study explored the practices of school administrators in urban elementary schools in
Southern California and their role in building a teacher’s capacity to serve students with
exceptionalities. It examined the perceptions of the school administrator and the perceptions of
teachers of students with exceptionalities around the systems the administrator implemented to
build the capacity of teachers to support students with exceptionalities. Prominent findings from
this study illuminated school administrators designing special education settings and conditions
that benefit students with exceptionalities by intentionally building teachers’ capacity.
Additionally, the creation of a culture of care by a school administrator and providing
meaningful interactions with teachers serving students with exceptionalities creates an
112
environment for students with exceptionalities that brings more equitable access to their
educational experiences. Another finding stressed the alignment of the word “support” between
the support the school administrators provide and teachers’ needs. The additional findings were
centered around the need for the implementation of reflective work for asset-based inclusivity
mindsets to help reframe the deficit framework and approaches in the current education system.
Another finding was for more equitable schedules to be created to support students with
exceptionalities through the collaborative work of the school administrator and district personnel.
A final finding was the need for the creation of educational policies, including more realistic
adult-to-student ratios, that center students with exceptionalities.
This study’s participants stressed the need for significant upgrades to systems for students
with exceptionalities. This led to a recommendation for redefining what it means to have special
education systems of supports in urban elementary schools. This includes creating a more just
system in which “support” is defined and acted upon for special education teachers. Lastly, and
equally as important, is the need for a full revamping and reimagining of the MTSS for students
with exceptionalities.
Moving forward with current special education programming would be unjust. The harm
that has already been done has had detrimental impacts on students’ academic experiences and
overall well-being as human beings. The entire framework and historical mentality around what
it means to be dis/abled is barbaric. We must get to a place where an asset-based mindset is
upheld through equitable practices that enhance the experiences of our students with
exceptionalities. I am eager to bear witness to the years when students with exceptionalities are
thriving, and an entire societal reframe is a living, breathing approach that focuses on the assets
of each human being.
113
References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 22(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Anti-Defamation League. (2017). A brief history of the disability rights movement.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/brief-history-disability-rights-movement
The Arc. (2023). The power of parents. https://thearc.org/about-us/history/
Arundel, K. (2021). Why having too many or too few special education students matters. K–12
Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/why-having-too-many-or-too-few-specialeducation-students-matters/600659/
Bateman, D., & Cline, J. (2019). Special education leadership: Building effective programming
in schools. Taylor and Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351201353
California Association of Health and Education Linked Professions. (2024). Child find mandate.
https://www.cahelp.org/parents_students/services/id_referral_process/about_child_find
California Child Welfare Indicators Project. (2023). Child poverty population estimates.
https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/PovertyPopulation/MTSG/r/rts/s
California Department of Education. (2023). Special education - CalEdFacts.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/cefspeced.asp
California Department of Education. (2024). Special education enrollment by program setting.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California School Dashboard. (2024). State of California: Academic performance.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/ca/2023/academic-performance
114
Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2006). A critically compassionate intellectualism for Latina/o.
students: Raising voices above the silencing in our schools (EJ759647). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ759647
Causton, J., Macleod, K., Pretti-Frontczak, K., Rufo, J., & Gordon, P. (2023). The way to
inclusion: How leaders create schools where every student belongs. ASCD.
Center for Applied Special Technology. (2023). The UDL guidelines.
https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
Center on Poverty and Social Policy. (2023). Policy update: 3.7 million more children in poverty
in January 2022 without monthly child tax credit.
https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. (2024). Whole child approach to education.
https://chanzuckerberg.com/education/whole-child-approach-to-education/
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. (2021a). Case: PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
https://clearinghouse.net/case/11082/
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. (2021b). Mills v. Board of Education of the District of
Columbia. https://clearinghouse.net/case/11084/
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2014). California professional standards for
educational leaders. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educatorprep/standards/cpsel-booklet-2014.pdf
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2024). Literacy and reading instruction: Senate Bill
488. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/literacy-and-reading-instruction
Connor, D., Ferri, B., & Annamma, S. (2016). DisCrit. Teachers College Press.
115
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2020). ESSA: Key provisions and implications for
students with disabilities.
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/10/essa_key_provisions_implications_for_swd-final_0.pdf
Cox, G. (2022). Leading inclusion: Drive change your employees can see and feel. Page Two.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dawson, V. (2015, March 13). Ed Roberts’ wheelchair records: A story of obstacles overcome.
Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/edroberts-wheelchair-records-story-obstacles-overcome-180954531/
De Los Santos, S. B. (2019). Painting a picture: A timeline of students with disabilities in United
States history. National Forum of Special Education Journal, 30(1).
DePaoli, J., Hernandez, L., & Maier, A. (2024). Whole child education. Learning Policy
Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/topic/whole-child-education
Family-Informed Trauma Treatment Center. (2022). Understanding the impact of trauma and
urban poverty on family systems: Risks, resilience and interventions.
https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/resourceguide/understanding_impact_trauma_urban_poverty_family_systems.pdf
Gallaudet University. (2023). A place of our own: The first permanent school for deaf children.
https://gallaudet.edu/museum/exhibits/history-through-deaf-eyes/formation-of-acommunity/a-place-of-our-own-the-first-permanent-school-for-deaf-children/
Gibbons Backus, P. (2020). Amputations and the Civil War. American Battlefield Trust.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/amputations-and-civil-war
116
Gilson, T., & Etscheidt, S. (2022). Preparing administrative leaders to support special education
programs in schools: A comprehensive multi-dimensional model. International Council of
Professors of Educational Leadership. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1345847.pdf
Humphrey, D., Gamse, B., Myung, J., & Cottingham, B. (2020). Students with disabilities:
Lesson from other states. Policy Analysis for California Education.
https://edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/r_humphrey_feb20_0.pdf
Izak, J. (2023). Special education problems we are not solving. Ori Learning.
https://orilearning.com/special-education-problems-we-are-not-solving/
Izak, J. (2024). The biggest challenges in special education in 2024. Ori Learning.
https://orilearning.com/biggest-challenges-special-education-2024/
Jones, C. (2020, November 30). Less siloed, more inclusive: Changes to special education
teacher preparation expected to have big impact on schools [Blog post]. EdSource.
https://edsource.org/2020/less-siloed-more-inclusive-changes-to-special-educationteacher-preparation-expected-to-have-big-impact-on-schools/644367
Jorgensen, C., McSheehan, M., Schuh, M., & Sonnenmeier, R. (2012). Essential best practices
in inclusive schools. University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability.
https://tash.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Essential-Best-Practices-070312-FULLJorgensen.pdf
Kennedy, K. (2019). Centering equity and caring in leadership for social-emotional learning:
Toward a conceptual framework for diverse learners. SAGE Publications.
Klees, B., Wolfe, C., & Curtis, C. (2009). Medicare and Medicaid: Title XVIII and Title XIX of
The Social Security Act. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
117
https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-andreports/medicareprogramratesstats/downloads/medicaremedicaidsummaries2009.pdf
Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind: An overview. EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/policypolitics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04
Kramarczuk Voulgarides, C. (2018). Does compliance matter in special education? Teachers
College Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://thrive.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/From%20the%20Achievement%20Gap%20to
%20the%20Education%20Debt_Understanding%20Achievement%20in%20US%20Scho
ols.pdf
Landry, L. (2019, April 3). Why emotional intelligence is important in leadership [Blog post].
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/emotional-intelligence-in-leadership
Lashway, L. (1999). Preparing school leaders. ERIC Publications.
Lathan, J. (2023). 4 proven inclusive education strategies for educators (plus 6 helpful
resources). University of San Diego. https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/inclusiveeducation-strategies/
LegiScan. (2024a). California Senate Bill 1113. https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB1113/2021
LegiScan. (2024b). California Senate Bill 354. https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB354/
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2019). LAO report: Overview of special education in California.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4110
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
118
Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2020). The handbook of behavior change. Cambridge
University Press.
Mader, J. (2017, March 1). How teacher training hinders special-needs students. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/how-teacher-training-hindersspecial-needs-students/518286/
Maggin, D. M., & Tejero Hughes, M. (2021). Developing teacher leaders in special education:
An administrator’s guide to building inclusive schools. Taylor and Francis Group.
Manaher, S. (2022). Mainstreaming vs inclusion: How are these words connected? The Content
Authority. https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/mainstreaming-vs-inclusion
Mathibe, I. (2007). The professional development of school principals. South African Journal of
Education, 27(3), 523–540.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Menabney, D. (2019, December 30). Why emotional intelligence needs cultural intelligence
when working across borders. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenmenabney/2020/12/30/why-emotional-intelligenceneeds-cultural-intelligence-when-working-across-borders/
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Support. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 3,
2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/support
Miller, P., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Levine Coley, R. (2019). Poverty and academic achievement
across the urban to rural landscape: Associations with community resources and stressors.
119
RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 5(2), 106–122.
https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2019.5.2.06
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
Mitchell, C. (2020, January 23). Teacher prep needs more focus on students with disabilities,
report says. EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teacher-prep-needsmore-focus-on-students-with-disabilities-report-says/2020/01
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Annual reports and information staff: Students
with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Urban schools: The challenge of location and
poverty. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/96184ex.asp
National Center for Urban School Transformation. (2022). Leadership in America’s best urban
schools. https://ncust.com/leadership-in-americas-best-urban-schools/
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (2023). Roles of school/district
administrators. American Institutes for Research.
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/training-technical-assistance/roles/schooldistrictadministrators
National Consortium on Leadership and Disability/Youth. (2007). National Consortium on
Leadership and Disability for Youth. http://www.ncldyouth.info/Downloads/disability_history_timeline.pdf
Newsom, G. (2024). Governor’s budget summary. California Department of Finance.
https://ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
120
NICHCY (2012). Categories of Disability Under IDEA. The National Dissemination Center for
Children with Disabilities. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/wp-content/uploads/repo_
items/gr3.pdf
Novak, D. (2022). How many children need special education after pandemic? Learning
English. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/how-many-children-need-specialeducation-after-pandemic-/6868550.html
Parsons, A. (2023). Equity gaps for students with disabilities. University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School of Education. https://urbanedjournal.gse.upenn.edu/volume-17-spring2020/equity-gaps-students-disabilities
Paul, J., French, P., & Cranston-Gingras, A. (2001). Ethics and special education. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v34i1.6784
Pinkard, G. (2023). Improving special education: 4 strategies for district leaders. Aspen
Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/improving-special-education-4-
strategies-for-district-leaders/
Population Reference Bureau. (2021). Special education enrollment.
https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/95/specialeducation/table#fmt=1146&loc=2,127,347,1763,331,348,336,171,321,345,357,332,324,3
69,358,362,360,337,327,364,356,217,353,328,354,323,352,320,339,334,365,343,330,367
,344,355,366,368,265,349,361,4,273,59,370,326,333,322,341,338,350,342,329,325,359,3
51,363,340,335&tf=110,64&sortType=asc
Rios, V. (2024). MasBloom [Keynote speech]. CABE Conference 2024, Anaheim, CA, United
States.
121
Roth, A., Singh, G., & Turnbow, D. (2021, May 26). Equitable but not diverse: Universal design
for learning is not enough. In The Library With the Lead Pipe.
https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2021/equitable-but-not-diverse/
Saagyum Dare, P., & Saleem, A. (2022). Principal leadership role in response to the pandemic
impact on school process. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 943442.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.943442/full
Safir, S., & Dugan, J. (2021). Street data: A next-general model for equity, pedagogy, and school
transformation. SAGE Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Sage.
Samuels, C. (2018, October 16). The important role principals play in special education.
EdWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-important-role-principals-playin-special-education/2018/10
Silva, M., Lorena Hernández Flores, M., & Cramer, E. (2023). Inclusion Census: How Do
Inclusion Rates in American Public Schools Measure Up? The University of
Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education's Online Urban Education Journal.
https://urbanedjournal.gse.upenn.edu/archive/volume-20-issue-1-fall-2022/inclusioncensus-how-do-inclusion-rates-american-public-schools
Simmons Cotton, N. (2020). Essential tips for special education leaders. Edufaith Education
Consulting.
Spaulding, L. S., & Pratt, S. M. (2015). A review and analysis of the history of special education
and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal,
42(1), 91–109.
122
Special Olympics. (2023). Eunice Kennedy Shriver’s story.
https://www.specialolympics.org/eunice-kennedy-shriver/bio
Story, M. (1998). The Universal Design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities.
Center for Universal Design.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage.
Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., & Oliver, M. (1993). Disabling Barriers, Enabling
Environments. Sage.
Turner, D. (2020). Disability and the Industrial Revolution: Hidden histories. Swansea
Turner, D., & Blackie, D. (2018). Disability in the Industrial Revolution: Physical impairment in
British coal mining, 1780–1880. Manchester University Press.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30011158/
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). IDEA regulations: Disproportionality and
overidentification. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/Disproportionality_2-2-07.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2023a). A history of the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act. https://sites.edgov/idea/IDEA-History
U.S. Department of Education. (2023b). Every Student Succeeds Act.
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
U.S. Department of Education. (2023c). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/
WestEd. (2015). California professional standards for education leaders (CPSEL).
https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DOPS-15-03-508.pdf
123
Wilcox, G., Fernandez Conde, C., & Kowbel, A. (2021). Using evidence-based practice and
data-based decision making in inclusive education. Education Sciences, 11(3), 129-.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030129
Williams, C. (2021). What should school leaders do to support students with invisible
disabilities. CSAS. https://www.studentachievementsolutions.com/what-should-schoolleaders-do-to-support-students-with-invisible-disabilities/
Willis, J., Doutre, S., Krausen, K., Barrett, T., Ripma, T., & Caparas, R. (2020). California
special education funding system study: A descriptive analysis of special education
funding in California. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020//10/WestEd_SpecialEdFundingReport_Final_508.pdf
Wood, W. (2013). Early vision of Semple, Swett realized in broad, firm educational system. The
Museum of the City of San Francisco. https://sfmuseum.org/hist3/schools.html
Wright, P. W. D., & Wright, P. D. (2021). The history of special education law in the United
States. Wrightslaw. https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/history.spec.ed.law.htm
124
Appendix A: One-on-One Interview Protocol (Administrators)
Thank you for meeting with me today! I know that your time is valuable so I greatly
appreciate your willingness to engage in my dissertation study. As I mentioned when we last
spoke, the interview should take about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started with the interview, I wanted to take the time to re-share the purpose
of this study so that you have clarity around what our topic at hand is for this study. I am
currently studying at USC working toward my doctorate and really wanted to focus in on
learning more about the experiences of teachers who teach students who have an Individualized
Education Program or Plan (IEP). I am particularly interested in understanding the ways that
administrators design the programming for a school and for teachers who serve students with an
IEP. A big part of this study is having the opportunity to talk to teachers to learn more about your
experiences and also learning more from administrators around their approaches to leading a
school to support students who have an IEP. Your particular thoughts as a school leader will
allow me to learn more your experiences and perspectives on the systems that are a part of your
school environment. I know that the work of a school leader is incredibly honorable and requires
an intense amount of dedication, so I want to share my appreciation for the work that you engage
in each and every day. Your students are truly lucky.
As we begin this process together, it is of utmost importance for me to share with you
that your confidentiality is my highest priority. Your name will not be shared with anyone,
especially not with any other teachers, administrators, or district personnel throughout this
process. I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher today, meaning that my questions are nonevaluative and judgment-free. My biggest goal is to really listen and understand your
perspective.
125
The data that is collected during this interview process and throughout the entirety of the
study will be compiled into a report, but none of the data will be directly attributed to you. I will
use a pseudonym, which is a fake name, to protect your confidentiality and will work my hardest
to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I want to reinforce how important it is to me to
ensure your confidentiality is at the forefront of my work, as it is important for me to create a
safe environment for you to be able to share freely without your data being connected to you.
Do you have any questions for me? (Wait for response)
Are you okay with moving forward in this process and continuing on to the interview?
(Wait for response)
Thank you again. I greatly appreciate our time together and the opportunity to learn more
about your experiences.
One of the things that would help me with being able to be able to truly listen during our
time together is being able to not have to focus on typing and allow me to focus my attention on
our conversation. I was hoping that I would be able to record our interview with your permission.
If at any point you would like to skip any questions, pause the interview, or even stop
participating and engaging in this study with me, that is definitely your right to do so. Again, I
want to reassure you that the recording will only be used for my own viewing to be able to fully
focus on our discussion together for our interview.
Do you have any questions for me? (Wait for response)
I am eager to hearing more about your experiences. Before I move forward, I would love
your consent to be a part of this study.
126
Questions (With Transitions)
I’d like to start by asking some background questions about you and your role at your
school.
• How would you describe your role as it pertains to serving students who have an
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
• How long have you served in this type of role?
I’m interested to hear more about the programming at your school.
• Who are people at your school who provide support for students who have an IEP?
• In what ways do people at your school provide support for students who have an IEP?
• What systems have you implemented around the programming for the teachers of
students who have an IEP?
• Describe any district guidance and support, if any, that you have received from your
local district to support teachers of students who have an IEP.
• I’d like to ask you some questions about your role as the school administrator.
• Describe a recent training or experience that you lead, if any, in which you discussed
students who have an IEP.
• How do you support the work of teachers of students with an IEP?
• I’d like to learn more about your work around students who have an IEP.
• What is something that you wish you had more of as it pertains to leading your school
and teachers of students who have an IEP, if any?
• What is something that you wish you had less of as it pertains to leading your school
and teachers of students who have an IEP, if any?
• Ideally, what would make for a school environment that promotes inclusive learning?
127
• What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about leading your
school to serve students with exceptionalities that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing
I want to share my appreciation again for taking the time to talk to me today for my
study. Your insight has been extremely helpful already and I have really enjoyed learning more
about your experiences. This concludes this part of the study and our time together for today. I
really appreciate your transparency and openness in our conversation that allowed me to gain a
much deeper understanding about your experiences. Again, thank you for being a participant in
my study and allowing me the opportunity to learn from you.
128
Appendix B: One-on-One Interview Protocol (Teachers)
Thank you for meeting with me today! I know that your time is valuable so I greatly
appreciate your willingness to engage in my dissertation study. As I mentioned when we last
spoke, the interview should take about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started with the interview, I wanted to take the time to re-share the purpose
of this study so that you have clarity around what our topic at hand is for this study. I am
currently studying at USC working toward my doctorate and really wanted to focus in on
learning more about the experiences of teachers who teach students who have an individualized
education program or plan (IEP). I am particularly interested in understanding the ways that
administrators design the programming for a school and for teachers who serve students with an
IEP. A big part of this study is having the opportunity to talk to teachers to learn more about your
experiences and also learning more from administrators around their approaches to leading a
school to support students who have an IEP. Your particular thoughts as a classroom teacher will
allow me to learn more your experiences and perspectives on the systems that are a part of your
school environment. I know that the work of a teacher is incredibly honorable and requires an
intense amount of dedication, so I want to share my appreciation for the work that you engage in
each and every day. Your students are truly lucky.
As we begin this process together, it is of utmost importance for me to share with you
that your confidentiality is my highest priority. Your name will not be shared with anyone,
especially not with any other teachers, administrators, or district personnel throughout this
process. I am strictly wearing the hat of a researcher today, meaning that my questions are nonevaluative and judgment-free. My biggest goal is to really listen and understand your
perspective.
129
The data that is collected during this interview process and throughout the entirety of the
study will be compiled into a report, but none of the data will be directly attributed to you. I will
use a pseudonym, which is a fake name, to protect your confidentiality and will work my hardest
to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I want to reinforce how important it is to me to
ensure your confidentiality is at the forefront of my work, as it is important for me to create a
safe environment for you to be able to share freely without your data being connected to you.
Do you have any questions for me? (Wait for response)
Are you okay with moving forward in this process and continuing on to the interview?
(Wait for response)
Thank you again. I greatly appreciate our time together and the opportunity to learn more
about your experiences.
One of the things that would help me with being able to be able to truly listen during our
time together is being able to not have to focus on typing and allow me to focus my attention on
our conversation. I was hoping that I would be able to record our interview with your permission.
If at any point you would like to skip any questions, pause the interview, or even stop
participating and engaging in this study with me, that is definitely your right to do so. Again, I
want to reassure you that the recording will only be used for my own viewing to be able to fully
focus on our discussion together for our interview.
Do you have any questions for me? (Wait for response)
I am eager to hearing more about your experiences. Before I move forward, I would love
your consent to be a part of this study.
130
Questions (With Transitions)
I’d like to start by asking some background questions about you and your role at your
school.
• How would you describe your role as it pertains to serving students who have an
Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
• How long have you served in this type of role?
I’d like to ask you some questions about the supports provided by your school
administrator(s).
• What is a recent conversation you have had with your school administrator(s) around
your students who have an IEP, if any?
• Describe a recent training or experience, if any, in which you discussed students who
have an IEP.
• What do you feel the role of your school administrator(s) was during the training that
you have been a part of regarding students who have an IEP?
• How does your school administrator(s) support your work as a teacher of students
with an IEP?
I’d like to learn more about your work in the classroom.
• What is something that you wish you had more of as it pertains to teaching your
students who have an IEP, if any?
• What is something that you wish you had less of as it pertains to teaching your
students who have an IEP, if any?
• What are some recommendations you might have around your environmental
conditions in teaching students who have an IEP, if any?
131
• Ideally, what would make for a school environment that promotes inclusive learning?
• What would you say is your school administrator(s) role in creating the school
environment that you just described?
• What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about school
administrators leading schools to serve students with exceptionalities that I might not
have covered, if any?
Closing
I want to share my appreciation again for taking the time to talk to me today for my
study. Your insight has been extremely helpful already and I have really enjoyed learning more
about your experiences. This concludes this part of the study and our time together for today. I
really appreciate your transparency and openness in our conversation that allowed me to gain a
much deeper understanding about your experiences. Again, thank you for being a participant in
my study and allowing me the opportunity to learn from you.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The study was applied in the context of scholarly literature guided by the framework of social cognitive theory (SCT) to examine the role of urban elementary school administrators in school programming to support students with exceptionalities. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of an administrator in a teacher’s ability to support students with exceptionalities in a Southern California urban elementary school. It examined the viewpoints and perspectives of both the administrators and teachers to examine how they perceived the school administrators built the teachers’ capacity through systems and support for teachers. Three school administrators and five teachers participated in this qualitative study in one-on-one interviews. Further exploration and analysis of the data utilizing coding systems to transmit the participants’ experiences into abstract and thematic concepts led to findings. Findings from this study indicated that school administrators’ design for special education programming is crucial in the school culture. This study illuminates the need to prioritize shifts in the systems and policies to include more asset-based approaches and inclusivity to reframe the deficit framework that has been historically embedded within and throughout California’s education systems.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Creative trouble: an exploration of elementary classroom teachers' perceptions of their roles in educational justice
PDF
Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students
PDF
A qualitative examination of PBIS team members' perceptions of urban high school teachers' role in implementing tier 2 schoolwide positive behavior supports
PDF
Mainstreaming a high school student with a learning disability
PDF
Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices
PDF
Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows
PDF
Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China
PDF
Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices
PDF
Equity-enhancing strategies for African American students in higher education
PDF
Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California
PDF
School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies
PDF
Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings
PDF
Novice Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) school administrators' professional development and adult learning
PDF
Learning together: a meta-analysis of the effect of cooperative learning on achievement among Black and Latinx students
PDF
TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices
PDF
Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer
PDF
How the departmental cultures experienced by part-time, non-tenure track faculty affect their ability to meet first-year college student needs
PDF
An Exploration of the Development and Enactment of Anti-Racist Teaching Practices in the Elementary Classroom
PDF
Understanding the critical role of parents in improving the identification and support of twice exceptional learners in the K–12 system
PDF
Academic, social, and emotional supports for high school students in online schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Yoshida, Amanda Eryn Mie
(author)
Core Title
Administrators’ role on systems for students with exceptionalities
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
07/01/2024
Defense Date
04/29/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
administrators' perspectives,asset-based approaches,inclusivity,qualitative study,school administrators,social cognitive theory,southern California,special education programming,students with exceptionalities,teachers' perspectives,urban elementary school
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Krop, Cathy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Ermeling, Bradley (
committee member
)
Creator Email
aeyoshid@usc.edu,yoshida.amanda@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997AJ3
Unique identifier
UC113997AJ3
Identifier
etd-YoshidaAma-13172.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-YoshidaAma-13172
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Yoshida, Amanda Eryn Mie
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240701-usctheses-batch-1176
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
administrators' perspectives
asset-based approaches
inclusivity
qualitative study
school administrators
social cognitive theory
special education programming
students with exceptionalities
teachers' perspectives
urban elementary school