University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Principal competencies in leading special education programs: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Principal competencies in leading special education programs: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Principal Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs:
A Gap Analysis
by

Stacy Andrews Wheat

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020

Copyright 2020 Stacy Wheat
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the individuals who have supported me in my educational
career and learning. To my sister, brother, extended family, “the crew”, and friends, my life is
blessed with you. Thank you for your constant support of my learning.
To Don, you are always optimistic and encouraging, and I appreciate you so much. Dad
and Debby, this milestone would not have been a reality if not for your love and support through
the years. Broc, I can always count on you to bring humor into my life it as you are one of the
funniest people I know. Your love and humor helped get me unstuck when I was writing.
Kaytlin Marie, our late-night homework sessions are what got me to the end of this journey.
Thank you for being my 1:00am study buddy. Mom, you knew this was possible long before I
did, and I thank you for THAT. You are the foundation of all I have accomplished.
Keith, you emulate the type of loving human being that I am reminded I can be daily-
thoughtful, calm, supportive, adventurous, and a friend to everyone. I am at my best with you.
For over eighteen years, you have been there every step of the way. Thank you for all the
personal sacrifices that led to this accomplishment. I’m done. Really. This is it.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation could not be done without the expertise, sacrifice of time, and guidance
of my committee members, Dr. Angela Hasan, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, and Dr. David Cash. Your
support and learning through the inquiry process were appreciated and admired. I am sincerely
grateful to all three of you.
To the community of professors throughout the OCL program and dissertation process,
thank you for your insight, sharing of knowledge, and encouragement through coursework. You
challenged me to think in new ways and am grateful as I use my newly acquired breadth of
knowledge to support student learning.
To the GREAT Cohort 8, I’m thankful for all of you. I would like to highlight the
“Thursdays Forever” group as you helped keep me on track when I would hit a wall and could do
no more.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 9
Abstract 10
Chapter One: Introduction 11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 11
Organizational Context and Mission 12
Organizational Performance Status 12
Related Literature 13
Importance of Addressing the Problem 16
Organizational Performance Goal 16
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 19
Methodological Framework 19
Definitions 20
Organization of the Project 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Influences ON the Problem of Practice 22
Expansion of IDEA 22
Principal Preparation Programs 23
Principal Turnover 25
Inclusion 26
Impact of Principals on Compliance with IDEA 28
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus 29
Clark and Estes’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework 30
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 31
Knowledge and Skills 31
Knowledge Influences 31
Understanding Federal and State Laws and Education Code
as it Relates to Students with Disabilities 32
Principal Preparation 33
Facilitate Inclusion 34
Self-Identify Areas of Strength and Weakness 35
Motivation 37
Self-efficacy 37
Principals’ Self-efficacy to lead Special Education 38
Utility Value 38
Principals’ Utility Value 39
Organization 41
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

General Theory 41
Stakeholder Specific Factors 41
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context 44
Conclusion 47
Chapter Three: Methods 48
Participating Stakeholders 49
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 50
Survey Sample (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 51
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 52
Interview Sample (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 52
Data Collection and Instrumentation 53
Surveys 55
Interview 57
Data Analysis 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness 58
Validity and Reliability 58
Ethics 59
Limitations and Delimitations 60
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 62
Participating Stakeholders 63
Determination of Assets and Needs 66
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 67
Factual Knowledge 68
Conceptual Knowledge 70
Procedural Knowledge 73
Metacognitive Knowledge 75
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 79
Self-Efficacy 79
Utility Value 81
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes 84
Cultural Model 85
Cultural Settings 88
Summary of Validated Influences 91
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation and Evaluation 96
Organizational Context and Mission 97
Organizational Performance Goal 97
Description of Stakeholder Group 98
Goal of Stakeholder Group for the Study 98
Purpose of the Project and Questions 99
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 100
Knowledge Recommendations 100
Motivation Recommendations 105
Organizational Recommendations 108
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 112
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 112
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 6

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 113
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 114
Level 3: Behavior 116
Level 2: Learning 119
Level 1: Reaction 123
Evaluation Tools 124
Data Analysis and Reporting 125
Summary 126
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 126
Limitations and Delimitations 127
Future Research 127
Conclusion 128
References 130
Appendices 144
Appendix A: Informed Consent 145
Appendix B: Letter to Directors of Special Education 147
Appendix C: Letter to Site Administrators 148
Appendix D: Director of Special Education Survey Protocol 149
Appendix E: Site Administrator Survey Protocol 155
Appendix F: Site Administrative Interview Protocol 161
Appendix G: Codebook for Site Administrator Interview 162
Appendix H: Special Education Training Program 163
Appendix I: Special Education Training Program Evaluation 165

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals

Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Influence Assessments
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Table 5: Data Collection Timeline

Table 6: Demographic Information of Site Administrators
Table 7: Demographic Information of Directors of Special Education
Table 8: Knowledge and Skill Influences Validated and Not Validated
Table 9: Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Factual Knowledge for Principals
Table 10: Site Administrators’ Perceived Levels of Factual Knowledge
Table 11: Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Conceptual Knowledge for Principals
Table 12: Site Administrators’ Perceived Levels of Conceptual Knowledge
Table 13: Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Procedural Knowledge for Principals
Table 14: Site Administrators’ Perceived Levels of Procedural Knowledge
Table 15: Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Metacognitive Knowledge for Principals
Table 16: Site Administrators’ Perceived Levels of Metacognitive Knowledge
Table 17: Summary of Validated Assumed Knowledge and Skill Influences
Table 18: Motivational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Table 19: Directors’ Perceptions of Self Efficacy Factors for Principals
Table 20: Site Administrators’ Perception of Self-Efficacy
Table 21: Directors’ Perceptions of Utility Value Factors for Principals
Table 22: Site Administrators’ Perception of Utility Value
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 8

Table 23: Motivational Influences Validated
Table 24: Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Table 25: Directors Perceptions of Essential Cultural Model Factors for Principals
Table 26: Site Administrators’ Perception of Cultural Model
Table 27: Directors Perceptions of Essential Cultural Setting Factors for Principals
Table 28: Site Administrators’ Perception of Cultural Setting Factors
Table 29: Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Table 30: Summary of Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Table 31: Research Questions Aligned to Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational
Validated Influences

Table 32: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals

Table 33: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Table 34: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Table 35: Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Table 36: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals
(revisited)

Table 37: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Table 38: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Table 39: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Table 40: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Table 41: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Framework for Principals to Effectively Lead Special Education Programs
Figure 2: Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Design

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 10

ABSTRACT
Principals continue to face shifting responsibilities in the education of all students, including
students with disabilities and the related accountability with Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA). When a district is found out of compliance with IDEA, the consequences can result in
expensive litigation. This improvement study investigated why the Coastline School District
(CSD) cannot consistently meet 100% compliance with IDEA. A gap analysis framework was
utilized focusing the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational barriers of the CSD
school site administrators. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected through surveys and
an interview. Findings suggest site administrators need to expand their knowledge of special
education, be better prepared to lead special education, further develop their skills to facilitate
and promote inclusion, and the district must cultivate an environment of improvement.
Successful implementation of the recommendations is anticipated to lead to capable and effective
leadership for special education programs, decreasing special education related litigation,
increasing the resources available for all students, and ultimately lead to the accomplishment of
the organization’s goal.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 11

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Providing students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education (FAPE)
which includes special education and related services is a key tenet of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). When students with disabilities access special
education services, there is an assumption by parents and educators of access to the same
academic standards and opportunity to learn what they need to know (Kurz, et al., 2014). As an
accountability measure, IDEA’s federal spending program targeted to education students with
disabilities employs a monitoring system where states must meet identified indicators through
data collection. In California, as in most states, lack of adherence to IDEA is addressed through
a correction of non-compliance when a complaint is filed with the state or through the due
process system (IDEA, 2004; National Council on Disability, 2018). When a district appears to
be non- compliant with IDEA and the allegation is resolved through the due process system, it
can result in costly litigation (American Association of School Administrators, 2016). Further,
it is important to note, not all special education litigation is related to non-compliance with IDEA
as disagreements may arise over parent requests and expectations and a disagreement with
district recommendations (American Association of School Administrators, 2016).
School districts across the country face the challenge of meeting student learning needs in
the face of diminishing resources and funding. In the California’s K-12 public school system,
cost of litigation in special education continues to rise, thereby, further reducing the funding left
to operate schools. The Office of Administrative Hearings reported for the 2016-17 academic
year, over 3,300 special education filings: approximately a 16% increase since 2014 (Office of
Administrative Hearings, 2016). Special education compliance starts at the school site with
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 12

Child Find, as outlined in IDEA and the Individual Education Program (IEP) process. Special
education services require sizeable resources to allow school site staff to provide high-quality
instruction and intervention services (Lemons, Vaughn, Wexler, Kearns, & Sinclair, (2018).
The impact of special education litigation as a result of suspected and confirmed non-compliance
with IDEA, requires the expenditure of a considerable amount of personnel time, resources, and
funds which can impede the district’s ability to educate all the students (American Association of
School Administrators, 2016).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Coastline School District (CSD), a pseudo name, is one of four elementary school
districts serving the city of Coastline. The surrounding area is affluent and with coastal
beachfront homes. The district enrollment is 7,034 students across nine elementary and middle
school sites. CSD provides special education services to 847 students from birth to eighth grade.
The mission of the school district is the academic and personal development of every student so
they become a responsible, well-rounded individual, achieving success and fulfillment in a global
environment. The district employs ample teachers and support staff including principals,
assistant principals, maintenance, custodial, fiscal, bus drivers, clerical, and district office
administrators.
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem central to this study is the CSD’s inconsistent
compliance with IDEA. As dictated in IDEA, students with disabilities have a right to a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). IDEA and the
regulations for the implementation of IDEA, publicly funded entities are required to adhere to all
special education laws, equates to an expectation of 100% compliance (Dunn, Katsiyannis, Ryan,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 13

& Ryan, 2018; National Council on Disability, 2018). During the 2017-18 school year, CSD
was served with six special education filings with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
In a review of school board meeting agendas and minutes, for the 2017-18 fiscal year, which
included reimbursements for settlement agreements and family attorney’s fees as well as the
district’s attorney fees, CSD’s costs associated with litigation were $244,383.42. The OAH
filings represent a compliance gap of .007%. While the gap may not present as statistically
significant, the associated legal expenses for the 2017-18 school year average out to $40,730.57
per filing. For CSD to fulfill its mission of educating students, it is imperative the district is in
100% ongoing compliance with IDEA.
Related Literature
Until 1970, there were no protections or mandates for children with disabilities. The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, specifically Section 504 of the act, guaranteed those with disabilities
protections against discrimination by institutions relying on federal funds, including public
schools. Children with disabilities gained greater access to a public education in November
1975, when the president signed into law the Education for All Handicapped Children Act,
Public Law 94-142, now called IDEA. IDEA guarantees the rights of children with disabilities to
the same education alongside their non-disabled peers to the greatest extent possible, described as
LRE (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Special education and the implementation of the IDEA continues
to evolve due to numerous driving factors: Educational initiatives, litigation, court decisions,
administrator rules, and societal norms (Gallacher, 2006; Kirby, 2016). To compound the issue
of educating students with disabilities is the increase in costs associated with special education
services (CA Department of Education, 2015). As reported by the California Department of
Education (2015) during the 2012-13 school year, students with disabilities represented 11.31%
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 14

of the student population yet 20% of the state’s total education budget was allocated for special
education. IDEA continues to be underfunded as district receive only 16% of the 40% of funds
permanently authorized by congress in 1982 (National Council on Disability, 2018). The
implications of increasing special education costs, inadequate IDEA federal funding, and rising
special education litigation expenses are detrimental to a school district’s budget and result in
less funds to educate all students. Compounding the district’s budget issues is special education
litigation. Research on legal case studies reveals central to most litigation are school site issues
(American Association of School Administrators, 2016; Mueller, 2009).
In 2004 and 2006, changes to IDEA included a mandate for administrators to know and
understand their duties and obligations under the law (Yell, Katsiyannis, Ryan, McDuffie, &
Mattocks, 2008). The continual legal shifts in special education draws attention to the
importance of the principal’s role in leading special education programs. School site principals
face shifting demands and increasing pressures to ensure student achievement as well as meet
numerous federal and state mandates. The most complex aspect of a principal’s responsibilities
is the education of students with disabilities which includes the mandate of legal compliance with
the IDEA. Angelle and Bilton (2009) note school principals have a duty to provide leadership
and develop the expertise to appropriately educate students with disabilities which includes
compliance with IDEA. Cooner, Tochterman, and Garrison-Wade (2005) concur the principal
must be an effective leader of all programs, including special education. Furthermore, the
researchers discovered when principals are replaced, the new site leaders are often inexperienced
and without the legal or practical ability needed to capably supervise special education programs.
While principals bear greater responsibility for special education programming, research shows
the often will refer problems to central office special education administrators to resolve (Angelle
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 15

& Bilton, 2005). The potential for various common student issues to arise under the IDEA and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a second area of legal compliance and protections related
to educating students with disabilities, requires the principal to develop a programmatic and legal
literacy rather than relying solely on a special education director to handle problems (Zirkel,
2011). Finally, a compounding factor in educating students with disabilities, are shifting legal
interpretations and case law which drives subtle and significant changes in how students are
educated.
Studies reveal principals routinely lack the knowledge and skills to effectively lead
special education programs. Three topics emerge from the review process: Technical knowledge
of principles of the implementation of the IDEA; Principal preparation programs; the role of the
principal in supporting general education inclusion of students with disabilities. Research shows
students with disabilities are in the greatest need of effective instructional leadership as they
repeatedly do not meet proficiency standards (Lynch, 2016; Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010).
Satisfactory implementation of IDEA as well as compliance with complex state laws and state
education codes related to special education, requires principals to have a vast set of pertinent
knowledge and skills. DiPaula and Walther-Thomas (2003) report that most principals do not
possess the foundational knowledge to adequately supervise special education programs.
Additionally, there is limited research even identifying specific knowledge and skills principals
should have to effectively lead special education program (Boscardin, 2007). Further, research
has highlighted the deficiency in special education coursework and field experiences in principal
preparation programs, resulting in a low readiness level to deal with special education issues
(Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Cooner, Tochterman, & Garrison-Wade, 2005; DiPaola & Walther-
Thomas, 2003; Lynch, 2012). Lastly,the growth of inclusive opportunities for learning for
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 16

students with disabilities prompts the need for principals to be skilled instructional leaders who
can facilitate inclusion in general education classrooms (Causton & Theoharis, 2014; Lynch,
2016; Voltz & Collins, 2010).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is urgent that the problem of inconsistent compliance with IDEA be addressed for a
number and variety of reasons. Because of the negative fiscal impact on school district budgets
by special education litigation, there are cuts to resources to education students. Jackson,
Johnson, and Perisco (2016) found a 10% increase in spending per student over a 12-year period
led to improved student outcomes, including more years of completed education, higher wages,
and lower poverty rates in adulthood. Maintaining and preserving district fiscal resources to
support educational programs is imperative if a district is to provide high quality instruction to all
students and drive greater student outcomes. Students with disabilities require additional
resources to provide educational opportunities, demonstrating why it’s critical to protect the
district’s budget from large litigation expenditures. Without adequate funds in the district
budget, school sites may have fewer, if any, enrichment programs, teacher retention is at risk, and
student outcomes suffer. Jackson, Johnson, and Perisoco (2016) report a positive correlation
between student funding, student outcomes, and independence in adulthood. Finally, from the
perspective of the school district, inconsistent compliance with IDEA may lead to costly
litigation and the corresponding adverse effect on the district’s need to be fiscally solvent.
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance problem for this study is to increase compliance with
IDEA to 100%. The superintendent established this goal after a review of district expenditures
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 17

and identification that special education litigation has the greatest negative fiscal impact to the
district budget.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The CSD has several stakeholder groups which contribute to overall goal of consistent
compliance with IDEA. Three groups of stakeholders with a direct effect on compliance are
teachers, principals and assistant principals, and district special education administrators. The
teachers are one stakeholder group with a direct link to IDEA compliance. They assess students,
prepare IEP paperwork, are the primary implementer of the IEP, and collect data which is then
reported to the state. Principals and assistant principals are the designated instructional leaders at
the school site and supervise special education programs on their sites. For the purpose of this
study, the CSD principals and assistant principals will be referenced as site administrators as they
hold similar responsibilities for special education at their school sites. The two middle schools
are the only sites with assistant principals and each site the assistant principals are primarily
responsible to managing special education although ultimately, the principal holds final
accountability. Related to special education, the CSD designated site administrators as the role
primarily responsible for supervision and evaluation of special education teachers, delivering
professional development to all teachers, and acting as the local education agency (LEA)
administrator in individualized education program (IEP) meetings, and lead special education
programs. Thus, site administrators bear the greatest responsibility for compliance with IDEA.
Special education administrators are the stakeholders who support to all special education
programs across the district, monitoring federal and state compliance, data reporting, professional
development for special education specialists, assignment of special education personnel, and
special education program development.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 18

Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1

Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals

Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Special Education
Administrators’ Goal
Site Administrators’ Goal Teachers’ Goal
By June 2020, special
education department
administrators will ensure
100% compliance with
IDEA through a data audit
of the Special Education
Information System.
By June 2020, site
administrators to effectively
lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction
in litigation expenditures
compared to prior year.

[Ins By June 2020, all special
education teachers will provide
a program for students that is
100% compliant with IDEA,
including IEP paperwork and
implementation.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete analysis would include all stakeholder groups, for the purposes of this study,
the stakeholder group of focus is the CSD site administrators. The goal of the study is to
establish a baseline conception of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
contributing to a site administrator’s capability, or lack thereof, to effectively lead special
education programs at their school and ensure 100% compliance with IDEA. The selection of
school site administrators for the study is suitable as they are primarily responsible for the
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 19

programming for all the students on their site, including students with disabilities and they
assume the role of LEA administrator for the purposes of IEP development and implementation.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to gain an understanding of root
causes for the organizational performance problem preventing the CSD from meeting its goal of
100% compliance with IDEA. An analysis of site administrators’ capability to effectively lead
special education programs focused on gaps in the knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The initial focus of the study was to list assumed influences and examine
each influence for validation. A more comprehensive study of all stakeholders may be suitable
for follow-up research based on the findings of this study, which concentrates on the CSD site
administrators.
The research questions guiding this improvement study are:
1. What is the site administrators’ knowledge and skills and motivational factors related to
the CDE meeting its organization goal of 100% compliance with IDEA?
2. What knowledge and skills and motivational factors do site administrators use in leading
special education programs related to achieving the organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between the district (organization) culture and context and site
administrator knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
An analytic template was used to clarify organizational goals and identified the gap
between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level within an organization,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 20

similar to the research of Clark and Estes (2008). The design was a quantitative and qualitative
case study, generating descriptive statistics and expressive data. Assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences interfering with organizational goal achievement is
based on the knowledge of the researcher and supported by literature. These influences were
measured with surveys, document analysis, literature review, content analysis, and a follow up
interview. Research-based solutions are proposed and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Child Find: legal requirement that schools find all children who have disabilities and who
may be entitled to special education services (IDEA, 2004)
Free appropriate public education (FAPE):
Free — “without cost” to parents or children;
Appropriate — “in keeping with an individualized education program”
Public — “at public expense, under public supervision and direction”
Education — “preschool, elementary...or secondary school…” (San Mateo County Office
of Education, 2019)
Inclusion: A supported placement where a child with severe disabilities is placed in a
school and classroom that the student would attend if the student did not have a disability.
(SMCOE, 2019)
Individualized Education Program (IEP): A written document, mandated by law, that
defines a child’s disability, states current levels of educational performance, describes
educational needs and services and specifies annual goals. (SMCOE, 2019)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: law that makes available a free appropriate
public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 21

education and related services to those children. (SMCOE, 2019)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA): reauthorization in
2014 of the law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with
disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those
children (IDEIA, 2014)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The environment in which a child can be educated
most like a non-disabled child and still meet the requirements of his IEP. (SMCOE, 2019)
Local Education Agency (LEA) Administrator: representative as someone who;
is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the
unique needs of children with disabilities; (ii) is knowledgeable about the general education
curriculum; and (iii) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency.
(IDEA, 2004)
Organization of the Project
Five chapters organize this study. Chapter One stipulates key concepts and terminology
common to discussions of special education. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders
as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter Two includes a review of
current literature on special education law, principal preparation, and inclusion of students with
disabilities. Additionally, the assumed knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational
influences of site administrators’ leadership are highlighted. Chapter Three presents the assumed
interfering elements as well as methodology related to the selection of research participants, data
collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data analysis and results are presented. Chapter
Five presents solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived and actual gaps as
well as recommendations for an implementation and a follow up evaluation.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 22

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review examines the problem of the CSD’s inconsistent compliance with
IDEA. This was an important issue for study as students with disabilities have rights and
protections under IDEA and site administrators supervising special education programs must
comply with the mandates of IDEA. This chapter begins with a review of the general research on
the challenge’s principals face in meeting compliance with IDEA as well as implementation. The
areas of focus for the literature review were the preparation principals engage in to lead special
education, the turnover of principals, and finally ensuring students with disabilities inclusion in
the LRE. Next, the chapter will present information on the impact of a site administrator in
ensuring compliance with IDEA. The following section describes the method of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences of site administrators in leading special education
programs. Finally, site administrators’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
were explored followed by a presentation of the relevant conceptual framework used in the study.
Influences ON the Problem of Practice
Expansion of IDEA
IDEA rests on three principles intended to provide an education for students with
disabilities which includes the right to receive a FAPE, the right to be educated to the maximum
extent possible in the LRE, and the right to have an IEP developed delineating the special
education services the student will be provided (Couvillon, Yell, & Katsiyannis, 2018; IDEA,
2004). The researchers further state that while the basic principles of IDEA are have remained
unchanged, the definitions of FAPE and LRE are vague rather than comprehensive. The
implementation of IDEA continues to change as a result of many driving factors: educational
initiatives, administrator roles, societal norms, litigation, and court decisions (Gallacher, 2006;
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 23

Kirby, 2016; Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010). Litigation and court decisions have expanded
the responsibilities in educating students with disabilities which draws attention to the
importance of the principals’ role in leading special education (Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler,
2010). Litigation has also complicated principals’ compliance with federal and state laws as
case law expands and shifts compliance expectations (American Association of School
Administrators, 2016; Bateman, & Bateman, (2014).
Principal Preparation Programs
In the past three decades, there have been drastic changes in special education (Cobb,
2015; Lynch, 2012). The principal’s role in supervision and accountability of special education
programs heightens as more students with disabilities are enrolled in public schools (Lynch,
2012). California regulations require that public school principals hold a preliminary or clear
administrative services credential. The preliminary administrative services credential is earned
through one of three paths: traditional program; intern program, or examination pathway
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2017). The traditional program and intern
program both include coursework and a field experience component with a mentor administrator
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2018). The coursework in a traditional or
intern program includes one course in school law that encompasses although it is not limited to
human resources, pupil services, finance, and special education (University of California Irvine)
California is the only state allowing principal candidates to take a mostly multiple-choice
exam as a route to earn a preliminary administrative services credential, (EdSource, 2012). The
California Preliminary Administrative Credential Examination (CPACE) was revised in July
2015 requiring that potential aspiring administrators demonstrate depth of knowledge and the
ability to handle complex issues although the threshold for passing is considered low at 73.3%
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 24

(California Department of Education; EdSource, 2012). A conclusion can be drawn that passing
an exam without having to engage in any coursework may result in a principal who is less
prepared to lead special education programs.
Upon completion of a tradition or intern program or passage of the CPACE, a candidate
for the preliminary administrative services credential must also meet additional requirements as
established by the State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) including at
least five years of full-time service in public or private schools and meet one of the following:
(a) Hold a clear or life California teaching credential which requires a baccalaureate
degree;
(b) Hold a clear or life California designated subject credential in adult education, career
technical education, vocational education or special subjects;
(c) Hold a clear or life California services credential in pupil personnel services, health
services for school nurse, teacher librarian services, or speech-language pathology or
clinical or rehabilitative services.
According to the preliminary administrative credential requirements as developed by the CCTC,
even without a background in teaching are routinely designated as instructional leaders for school
sites.
Upon completion of the preliminary administrative services credential and holding a
position which requires the credential, the principal must clear the credential. All administrators
who fill a position requiring an administrative credential, must clear the credential within five
years or the credential will not be valid. According to the CTC, clear credential program
requirements do not include coursework solely focused on special education. Research
demonstrates principal preparation programs fail to prepare graduates to step up as instructional
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 25

leaders for students’ with disabilities: The special education coursework is minimal for
developing an understanding of special education law (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012;
Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010).
In Bettini, Gurel, Park, Leite, and McLesky’s (2019) report principals may not be
adequately prepared to supervise and promote effective instruction for students who have
disabilities. Of concern, is principals with a discrepancy between perceived preparedness and
their actual understanding of special education. Research by Lynch (2012) confirmed
recommendations principals should increase the amount of instruction related to special
education as they prepare to be instructional leaders. The underlying assumption is the principal
with more specialized knowledge in special education will be better prepared to lead special
education and provide the teachers the support needed to educate students with disabilities
(Bettini, Gurel, Park, Leite, and McLesky, 2019; Lynch, 2012). Finally, Lynch (2012) found
principals who are not properly prepared as instructional leaders, result in negative consequences
specifically for students with disabilities raising further concerns about principals being the
educational leaders of special education programs.
Principal Turnover
According to Mascall and Leithwood (2010), contributing factors to principal turnover
are the increasing accountability and expansion of education initiatives intensifying the role of
principal, making the job less attractive. Adding to the turnover rate, is constant interest in
educational change which creates more problems than solutions for school administrators
(Baylor, 2017). Principal leadership is documented as one of the most influential factors in
student performance. Principal stability is critical to a school running well (Yan, 2019).
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 26

Principals have differing priorities, beliefs, and experiences around educational practices,
managing accountability, building and supporting school climate, and how to meet the needs of
students with disabilities. Mascall and Leithwood (2010) identified two associated negative
effects of principal turnover include the disruption in staffs’ focus on learning and a disruption of
the change process the former principal was driving. Sun and Yongmei (2016) found when a
new principal takes over a period time is needed as a learning curve to have a positive effect on
student learning. Evidence indicates principal longevity impacts student achievement and
accountability (Rangel, 2018). One responsibility of the principal is supervision and support for
special education teachers (Cobb, 2015; Correa & Wagner, 2011). The turnover of principals is
concerning as the role of the principal is vital in students with disabilities accessing an education
in the LRE and making academic gains. Research identifies the principal as the second most
important factor in student achievement, with the teacher as the first most important factor
(Cooner, Tochterman, & Garrison-Wade, 2005; Mendels, 2015; Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
Further compounding the work of a school administrator is the educational change related
to education of students, especially those with disabilities (Gonzalez and Firestone, 2013). There
is growing pressure for accountability of federal and state systems, including special education,
which is significantly influencing principal effectiveness and turnover (Baylor, 2017; Gonzalez
and Firestone, 2012). While many factors affect principal turnover rates, central to the issue is
the lack of leadership stability at the school site and the resulting impact to student learning and,
specifically, the complexities of educating a child with disabilities (Baylor, 2017; Gonzalez and
Firestone, 2012; Yan, 2019).
Inclusion
As the instructional leader for a school, it is the principal’s responsibility to ensure all
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 27

students, including those students with disabilities, have the opportunity to be educated to the
maximum extent appropriate in the LRE. IDEA, and the reauthorizations, as well as societal
shifts pushing for more inclusion, have changed the role of principals as they work to meet the
federal mandate to educate students with disabilities in the LRE (Thompson, 2015). As
educational reforms promote inclusion, Ryan (2010) and Cohen (2015) found that establishing
inclusive practices in schools is challenging as it requires a principal who is a proponent of
inclusion, possesses the ability to shift attitudes towards inclusion, and the understand the
components of what makes a school inclusive . Cohen (2015) further confirms the successful
implementation of inclusion is also dependent on a principal’s attitude and leadership style.
In order for a school site to have an inclusive mindset, there must be a leader who
believes in inclusion (Thompson, 2015). Cohen (2015) reports one of the most important factors
in building a successful, inclusive program is the positive attitude of the principal towards
inclusion. Further, Cohen (2015) determined that shaping the behaviors related to the promotion
of inclusion must begin in pre-service and in-service programs as part of the special education
training. The next steps the inclusive school principal, is to promote a vision (Waldron,
McLesky, Redd, 2011). As the instructional leader of the school, the principal has the role of
cultivator of the culture of the school and must shift an entrenched culture, when needed, to
ensure students with disabilities are served in the LRE (Ryan, 2010).
The principal, as the primary cultivator of a positive school culture, should effect school-
wide change as needed. Because of the federal mandate for education of students with
disabilities in the LRE, it is the principal’s responsibility to stimulate an inclusive environment.
The principal with cultural competence can reform and improve the school culture toward
increased learning for all students, including those with disabilities. Fostering an inclusive
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 28

environment starts with developing a shared vision for inclusion with the school site staff
(Hoppey and McLeskey 2013). Furthermore, culture plays a significant role in how society
defines disabilities and educators are greatly influenced by their environment (Schwartz, Blue,
McDonald, Pace, & Schwartz, 2010). Schwartz et. al (2013) recommended an initial shift to
emphasizing the use of “person first” is a powerful first step shaping a culture which identifies a
child firstly as a person. An example is saying “a student with autism” rather than “autistic
child.” Beyond cultivating an inclusive culture, a principal must be equipped with the skill set to
lead an inclusive learning environment.
An inclusive learning environment requires a principal which has strong leadership
skills, supports inclusive activities, uses shared decision making based on data, fosters teacher
leaders, and promotes learning communities among teachers (Cohen, 2015; Waldron and
McLesky, 2011). Eight responsibilities were identified by Frost and Kersten (2011) for
principals to develop effective inclusive programs. Principals must know how to establish a
communication system for IEP related issues, participate in IEP meetings, develop relationships
with families, collaborate with school staff to address student behaviors, provide access to
professional development, develop shared philosophy of special education service delivery,
understand how to evaluate special education teachers, and model problem-solving and decision-
making skills.
Impact of Principals on Compliance with IDEA
Principals often function as the front-line leaders at the school site as they are expected to
supervise special education programs and comply with federal and state mandates. Research has
confirmed that the principal influences student learning, including students with disabilities
(Angelle and Bilton, 2009; Lynch, 2012). While IDEA provides students with disabilities access
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 29

to public schools, the principal’s responsibilities include effectively implementing IDEA and
ensuring access to educational opportunities (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Cobb, 2015: Correa &
Wagner, 201; DiPaola, 2003). Research validates, in the current state of accountability for
improvement in achievement and outcomes for all students, the principal is central in engaging
the school community in a variety of activities which contribute to increased outcomes and
achievement for students with disabilities (Waldron & McLesky, 2011). Furthermore, factors
which contribute to improved outcomes for students with disabilities include feeling valued, safe,
comfortable, and included in their learning environment (Ryan, 2010; Correa & Wagner, 2011).
Another contributing factor to educational access for students with disabilities is the appropriate
implementation of a student’s IEP which is typically supervised by the principal (Lynch, 2012).
When students lack an education which, according to parents, is appropriate and allows equitable
access, the result is often lengthy and expensive litigation (Mueller, 2015; Wagner, &
Katsiyannis, 2010). Several studies reviewed litigation in special education have a common
finding that most of the issues leading to litigation are rooted at the school site (Mueller &
Carranza, 2011; Mueller, Singer, & Draper, 2008).
Role of the Stakeholder Group of Focus
For this problem of practice, the stakeholder group of focus is the CDE site administrators
as their role in supervising special education programs includes the responsibilities of
instructional leader, compliance with IDEA, LEA administrator, evaluation of special education
teacher and specialists’ performance, and school culture. Additionally, after the classroom
teacher, research indicates the principal has the greatest impact on student education, including
students with disabilities (Cooner, Tochterman, & Garrison-Wade, 2005; Mendels, 2015;
Waldron & McLeskey, 2010).
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 30

Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, the systematic, analytical method which
helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap in actual performance level and
preferred performance level within an organization. Rueda (2011) highlights Anderson and
Krathwohl’s (2001) identification of four types of knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge gaps are
deficits of facts and foundational knowledge to understand and solve problems. Conceptual
knowledge is understanding of categories, structures, and principles. Procedural knowledge is
comprehension of the methods or steps to complete a task or activity. Metacognitive knowledge
is the awareness of when and why a person is engaging in an activity and use of strategies to
problem-solve (Rueda, 2011). Categorizing the knowledge influence by type of knowledge
provides a framework to address knowledge and skills gaps. Revealing individual knowledge
and skill development needs and ensuring attainment transfers into organizational knowledge and
skills, provides a pathway to meeting performance goals. Knowledge and skill enhancements are
addressed by supplying supplemental information, job aides, training or education. When there
is a lack of knowledge and skills to solve novel problems, further education is a viable solution
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
The areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs for the CSD stakeholder
group of site administrators will be explored to meet the performance goal of site administrators
effectively leading special education programs as demonstrated by a reduction in litigation by
50% from the previous year. The first section will explore the assumed knowledge and
motivation influences on the stakeholder performance goal. Next, the site administrators’
assumed motivation will be considered in reaching the stakeholder goal. Lastly, site
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 31

administrators assumed organizational influences on goal achievement are studied. Each
assumed influences, knowledge, motivation, and organization, on stakeholder performance will
then be examined through the methodology discussed in Chapter 3.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
This review of the current scholarly research focuses on the three dimensions of what is
needed for the site administrators to achieve their stakeholder performance goal of effectively
lead special education programs as demonstrated by a reduction in litigation by 50% from the
previous year: , knowledge, motivation and organizational. Clark and Estes (2008) delineate
three causes of performance gaps: knowledge and skills, motivation to accomplish the goal, and
organizational barriers. To achieve success, all three areas must be addressed to provide a global
solution to a performance gap. Additionally, the authors recommend alignment of the
organization’s goals and stakeholders’ group goals for optimal performance. When goals are
misaligned, people tend to focus on career-building tasks rather than the organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge Influences. The first dimension is the knowledge influences required for the
site administrators to achieve their stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education
programs. Recognizing deficits in site administrators’ knowledge and skills will guide how the
strategy for addressing performance improvement. Krathwohl (2002) identifies of four types of
knowledge: Factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge gaps are deficits of facts and foundational
knowledge to understand and solve problems. Conceptual knowledge is understanding of
categories, structures, and principles. Procedural knowledge is comprehension of the methods or
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 32

steps to complete a task or activity. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own
strengths and weaknesses (Krathwohl (2002). Categorizing the knowledge influence by type of
knowledge lends a framework for addressing knowledge and skills gaps. Pinpointing individual
knowledge and skill development needs and ensuring attainment transfers into organizational
knowledge and skills, offers a pathway to meeting performance goals. Knowledge and skill
enhancements can be addressed by essential information, job aides, training or education. When
lack of knowledge and skills exists related to how to meet a performance goal, suggested
remedies to close the gap include more information, job aides, or training, although these are not
inclusive of all remedies available. When there is a lack of knowledge and skills to solve novel
problems, further education is one possible solution (Clark & Estes, 2008). The site
administrators’ three areas of knowledge and skills emphasize the importance of understanding
laws, education codes, and regulations, preparation for leading special education programs, and
promoting and facilitation inclusion of students with disabilities in general education learning
environments.
Understanding federal and state laws and education code as it relates to students with
disabilities. The first knowledge influence which site administrators need to achieve their
stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education programs is to ensure they have
knowledge of special education laws, education code, and regulations as they relate to IDEA.
Principals require factual knowledge to perform the basic functions of their position. According
to Clark and Estes (2008), factual knowledge of site administrators can be assessed through
surveys to determine areas of deficit which may require one or more of the four enhancements of
additional information, job aides, training, or education to accomplish the stakeholder
performance goal. Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) found principals
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 33

with greater special education knowledge are involved at a greater level in special education
programs. Site administrators require a comprehensive understanding of legal requirements to
effectively lead and engage in the work of developing programs and collaborate in IEP
development and implementation for students with disabilities. A lack of knowledge and skills
by site administrators in the program supervision and IEPs can result in unresolved conflict
between home and school and lead to litigation.
Principal preparation. The second knowledge influence site administrators need to
achieve their stakeholder goal to effectively lead special education programs is the acquisition of
strong leadership skills in the area of special education which requires conceptual knowledge.
Knowing what to do falls under conceptual knowledge as an effective site administrator has the
ability to lead education programs, including special education. According to the California
Professional Standards for Education Leaders (2014) an essential function of a principal’s job is
to exert influence on student achievement through work across six broad categories:
● Development and Implementation of a Shared Vision
● Instructional Leadership
● Management and Learning Environment
● Family and Community Engagement
● Ethics and Integrity
● External Context and Policy

Central to a principal’s effectiveness in leading special education programs is their ability
to ensure equitable access to curriculum, effective teaching methods, appropriate resources, and
learning opportunities for students (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Lynch, 2012; California
Professional Standards for Educational Leaders, 2014). According to Lynch (2012), in their day-
to-day work, principals make decisions which affect curriculum, equity, and inclusion for
students with disabilities which requires training and practice. Researchers Cobb (2015) and
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 34

Lynch (2012) confirm that the principal, as supervisor of special education programs, is
responsible for compliance with IDEA including resolving possible conflicts which may arise
from disagreements about the implementation of the IEP. Further, both authors agree principals,
as the first line of support for special education students, must be prepared for the assignment of
navigating complex laws and the ability to resolve possible legal conflicts (Cobb 2015; Lynch,
2012).
Facilitate Inclusion. The third knowledge influence site administrators need to achieve
the stakeholder goal of site administrators effectively leading special education programs is to
promote and facilitate inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education learning
environment. IDEA does not specifically use the term inclusion although the law uses the term
LRE. The LRE for a student with an IEP is educating the student in the regular education
classroom with supplementary aids and supports along with their non-disabled peers, to the
maximum extent possible (IDEA, 2004). The decision about the appropriateness of the LRE in
the student’s IEP and the location, is for the IEP team to determine. Site administrators, teachers,
special education specialists, and parents make up the IEP team. Parent-school conflict over
services in the IEP, specifically participation in the general education environment, or inclusion,
was a central and common point of legal conflict between districts and parents (Mueller, Singer,
& Draper, 2015; Rock & Bateman, 2009).
The paradigm of providing students with disabilities equal opportunity and access to
education continues to shift. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
reauthorization of IDEA include legislative mandates which are contributing to the movement of
inclusion for students with disabilities. Until about the early 2000’s, special education services
were almost exclusively provided for students in a separate school or classroom (Schwartz, Blue,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 35

McDonald, and Pace, 2010). With the paradigm shift towards inclusion, Walden and McLesky
(2011) found that the principal’s support of inclusion is key if a school is to have an inclusive
culture. Leading a change and promoting and facilitation inclusion in a school necessitate the
principal valuing inclusive classrooms, creating a vision for inclusion, acquiring the skills
necessary to support teachers, and managing external pressures (Hoppey and McLeskey, 2013).
Assessing the knowledge and skills of the principals’ ability to promote and facilitate an
inclusive school can be achieved through surveys.
Self-Identify Areas of Strength and Weakness. The fourth area of knowledge influence
site administrators need to achieve their stakeholder goal of site administrators effectively
leading special education programs is to have awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses.
Awareness of one’s own cognitive process, knowing when and why to act as well as knowledge
of one’s own strengths and weaknesses requires metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
Developing metacognitive knowledge requires the remedy of additional education as does the
ability to identify and address a variety of situations which may often be novel, builds the skill of
what causes things to happen (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002). Every
student with a disability is unique and, therefore, principals face various situations, including
novel issues. The ability to recognize one’s own strengths and weaknesses is crucial as special
education policy evolves and shifts.
Table 2 is an overview of how four knowledge influences of the principals, related
knowledge types, and the methods to assess for knowledge gaps impact the mission,
organizational goal, and stakeholder goal.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 36

Table 2

Assumed Knowledge Influences and Knowledge Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Special Education
Administrators’ Goal
Site administrators’ Goal Teachers’ Goal
By June 2020,
administrators will ensure
100% compliance with
IDEA through a data audit
of the Special Education
Information System.
By June 2020, site
administrators to effectively
lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction
in litigation expenditures
compared to prior year.

[Ins By June 2020, all special
education teachers will provide
a program for students that is
100% compliant with IDEA,
including IEP paperwork and
implementation.
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge Type Assumed Knowledge
Influence Assessment
Site administrators need to
understand special
education laws, education
code, and regulations (i.e.,
technical competencies).
Factual Surveys (e.g., awareness of
timelines, educational program
development)
Site administrators need to
be prepared to lead special
education programs.
Conceptual Survey and interview (e.g.,
education, credentials,
preparation)
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 37

Site administrators need to
know how to promote and
facilitate inclusion.
Procedural

Surveys (e.g., cultivate
inclusive culture, inclusive
practices)
Site administrators need to
know how to identify their
areas of strength and growth
related to leading special
education programs.
Metacognitive Survey and interview (e.g.,
identify own strengths and
weaknesses)

Motivation
The second dimension is the motivational influences required for the site administrator
stakeholder group to achieve their stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) articulate three
facets of motivation as active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when a
person chooses (or does not choose) to actively work on a goal. Persistence is when a person
continues to work even when distracted or is managing several goals at the same time. After
choosing a goal and working persistently towards the goal, a person determines the level of
mental effort to exert based on the goal. A familiar goal, or routine, requires less mental effort
while a challenging, novel goal necessitates greater mental effort. Understanding the
motivational influences of site administrators can support closing the compliance gap. The
application of two motivation influences, self-efficacy theory and expectancy value theory, as
defined by Rueda (2011), support understanding of the principals’ motivation levels and progress
towards meeting the stakeholder goal.
Self-efficacy. Rueda (2011) defines self-efficacy theory as a personal belief of capability
to complete a task or perform at a certain level. The more confident one is in their own ability to
complete a task the greater the motivation for engaging in the task. Rueda (2011) states
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 38

confidence is based on several factors including the level of knowledge of the task’s
requirements, the type and amount of feedback the person has been given. A person “with a
higher self-efficacy, greater belief in their own competence, and high expectancies for positive
outcomes will be more motivated to engage in and persist at, and work hard at a task or activity”
(p. 41). Clark and Estes (2008) propose assessing for motivational influences even when there
are no performance gaps as understanding the motivation of staff can have tangible benefits to
the organization.
Principal self-efficacy to lead special education. Versland and Erickson (2017) found
principal self-efficacy is as important to school reform as is developing technical knowledge of
leadership. Self-efficacy is central for persons who play a major role in the planning and
implementation of difficult tasks. Principals with a higher self-efficacy, are more effective in
leading inclusive schools (Urton, Wilbert, and Hennemann, 2014). The authors further found
that principals with higher self-efficacy may positively influence the overall atmosphere of their
school. Site administrators must believe they can effectively lead special education programs if
the stakeholder performance goal is to be achieved. Assessing for self-efficacy can be
accomplished by having staff complete a written survey and rate their skills and reveal the
principals’ level of confidence in leading special education programs in compliance with IDEA.
Utility value. Wigfield and Cambria (2010) reviewed the expectancy value theory model
as described by Eccles et al. as how values and expectancies relate to an individual’s
performance, choice of tasks, and emotions. The stated value of a task can be assessed by
considering four dimensions: attainment; intrinsic value; utility value; and cost value. Rueda
(2011) summarizes Eccles, et. al. and Wigfield and Cambria’s (2010) four dimensions by first
looking at attainment as the value one places on the importance of a task. Second, intrinsic value
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 39

is the enjoyment or interest one garners from a task. Third, utility value is the perception of the
usefulness of a task to achieve a greater goal. Finally, cost value refers to the perceived cost of
time, effort, or other dimensions associated with a task. For this study, utility value will be
explored.
Principals’ utility value. In applying utility value, site administrators need to see the
value in developing skills to effectively lead special education programs. Special education
continues to present as a challenging area for principals to lead and support (Gallacher, 2006).
Hoppey and McLesky’s (2013) point out that in times of high stakes accountability, principals
are central to supporting teachers and meeting students learning needs in inclusive learning
environments and should be selected based on their dispositions as well as skill set. A principal
who is leading a successful, inclusive school must desire to develop the necessary skills and
exhibit the conduct of someone who values inclusion (Thompson, 2015). Further, the research
found principals must have a commitment to continue to learn and develop their skills to
successfully implement inclusion. Developing skills through preparation and training is
imperative as a proactive approach to ensuring compliance with IDEA and effective program
implementation for students with disabilities. Utility value can be assessed through a written
survey rating the importance of preparation and training of special education laws, instructional
methods, and implementation of special education programs. Linking the value of frequently
dedicating time to keep current on special education laws and best practices will support efforts
to increase motivation of site administrators.
Table 3 illustrates an overview of how two motivation influences of the principals, related
to attainment, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value, and the methods to assess for
motivation gaps impact the mission, organizational goal, and stakeholder goal.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 40

Table 3

Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments

Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Special Education
Administrators’ Goal
Site administrators’ Goal Teacher’s Goal
By June 2020,
administrators will ensure
100% compliance with
IDEA through a data audit
of the Special Education
Information System.
By June 2020, site
administrators to effectively
lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction
in litigation expenditures
compared to prior year.

[Ins By June 2020, all special
education teachers will provide
a program for students that is
100% compliant with IDEA,
including IEP paperwork and
implementation.
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivation Construction Assumed Motivation
Influence Assessment
Site administrators
understand that they are
capable of leading and
implementing special
education programs.

Self-Efficacy Surveys (e.g., belief can
positively influence instruction,
belief of eliminating barriers to
inclusion).
Site administrators need to
see the value in developing
competencies in special
education.
Utility Value Surveys and interviews (e.g,
believe have support of
specialists, believe can facilitate
inclusion, value inclusion).

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 41

Organization
General theory. The culture of an organization is the unspoken understanding of who
they are, what they value, and how they do what they do as an organization (Clark & Estes,
2018). An organization’s culture supports how the work gets done as a collective group
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The values, beliefs, and processes of an organization, the
culture, develops over time and, as such, it is powerful in how it influences employee
performance.
Schein (2010) describes culture as a shared product of shared learning (p.6).
Understanding what has already been learned, over what time period, and under what leadership
provides context to a group’s culture. Schein (2010) further states that over time, the purpose of
the group, or their reason to be, forms their identity and cohesiveness. For sustained change to
occur, a shift in the group’s underlying behavioral norms is required. Using the context of a
school and a district change, Eilers and Camacho (2007) report on notable improvements in
student outcomes as a result of collaborative leadership between the district and site. According
to Cohen (2014), success in change depends on the manager’s leadership and adaptability to
changing situations. The cultural model and cultural setting the intersection of why work or
activities are done in a certain way and the environment in which the engagement takes place.
This study examined the influence of one cultural setting and one cultural model.
Stakeholder specific factors. The first organizational influence is cultural model.
Cultural models in an educational environment as described by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
include a shared mental schema and understanding of how a group should behave and include
share environmental and event interpretations. Key to the issue of reducing litigation in special
education is the site administrators’ competency in leading inclusive special education programs.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 42

The IDEA states students with disabilities must educated to the greatest extent possible with their
non-disabled peers. The shift towards greater inclusion has led to more site administrators
leading special education programs. The philosophy of the IDEA is that children with
disabilities will be participants in the school community, just as their peers are and learn in an
inclusive community (Thompson, 2015). With this expectation, then the district is central to
fostering an inclusive culture, especially when most principals are found to have had no special
education teaching experience, leaving them poorly trained to supervise and lead special
education programs (Wakeman et.al, 2006). Principals need to have a strong working knowledge
of special education laws and regulations if they are to be successful as site leaders and support
general and special education teachers with inclusion, as mandated by IDEA (Cohen, 2015;
Wakeman et. Al, 2006). There is also the need for professional development and support from
district-level leadership in special education and inclusion as has been established by Roberts
(2017), Waldron and McLesky (2013), and Wakeman et al. (2006). Research illustrates
principals with an adequate understanding and knowledge based of special education and
inclusion are more effective leaders at the school site (Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014;
Wakeman et al., 2006; Waldron, McLesky, & Redd, 2011). To meet the overarching stakeholder
performance goal of effectively lead special education programs, supporting the special
education and inclusion competency of principals are a consideration.
The second organizational influence is cultural setting. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
describe the cultural setting as the place where culture exists. The cultural setting is also the
place where groups come together and engage in activities that are around what is valued by the
group. As the district shifts to building capacity of site administrators to oversee special
education programs and take on greater role in reaching the performance goal of reducing
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 43

litigation in special education, a system of support will be needed in addition to training. A strong
district-school connection indicates district leadership believes in building the capacity to
develop effective site leadership. Research by the National Association of Secondary School
Principals and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (2013) revealed that
shifting from accountability and oversight to providing capacity-building support strengthened
the district-school partnership. As site administrators expand their special education
competencies, they will require a system of support that provides updates and ongoing access to
information and assistance during and after training. Aligning a system of support with other
district-wide resource systems, such as coaching or mentoring, can assist principals with meeting
overall performance expectations in special education.
Table 4 illustrates an overview of how cultural models and cultural settings influences of
the principals leading special education programs and the methods to assess for gaps cultural
gaps impacts the mission, organizational goal, and stakeholder goal.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments

Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Special Education
Administrators’ Goal
Site Administrators’ Goal Teachers’ Goal
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 44

By June 2020,
administrators will ensure
100% compliance with
IDEA through a data audit
of the Special Education
Information System.
By June 2020, site
administrators to effectively
lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction
in litigation expenditures
compared to prior year.
By June 2020, special
education teachers will provide
a program for students that is
100% compliant with IDEA,
including IEP paperwork.
Assumed Organizational
Influences

Organizational Construct Assumed Organizational
Influence Assessment
The district must lead the
movement toward a culture
of inclusion so that site
administrators are motivated
to develop competencies to
lead special education
programs.
Cultural Model
Surveys and interview (e.g.,
environment of inclusion,
expand capacity of inclusive
practices, prioritize learning
for student with disabilities).
The district needs to provide
a system of support specific
to supervising and
implementing special
education programs and
services.
Cultural Setting
Surveys (e.g., district facilitate
trainings, district considers the
needs of students with
disabilities).

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method which helps to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization. Rueda (2011) highlights Anderson and
Krathwohl’s (2001) identification of four types of knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Factual knowledge gaps are
deficits of facts and foundational knowledge to understand and solve problems. Conceptual
knowledge is understanding of categories, structures, and principles. Procedural knowledge is
comprehension of the methods or steps to complete a task or activity. Metacognitive knowledge
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 45

is the awareness of when and why a person is engaging in an activity and use of strategies to
problem-solve (Rueda, 2011). Identifying the knowledge influence by type of knowledge
provides a framework for addressing knowledge and skills gaps. Identifying individual
knowledge and skill development needs and ensuring attainment transfers into organizational
knowledge and skills, provides a pathway to meeting performance goals. Knowledge and skill
enhancements can be addressed by providing additional information, job aides, training or
education. When lack of knowledge and skills exists related to how to meet a performance goal,
suggested remedies to close the gap include additional information, job aides, or training,
although these are not inclusive of all remedies available. When there is a lack of knowledge and
skills to solve novel problems, further education is one possible solution (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Site Administrators to Effectively Lead Special Education
Programs provides a visual representation of the interaction of the CSD, principals, and the
stakeholder goal.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 46

Figure 1
Framework for Principals to Effectively Lead Special Education Programs
Site administrators effectively lead
special education programs

Figure 1 assists with understanding the conceptual framework used for this study. The
site administrators are in the center of the circle reflecting the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. In addition to the influences on the stakeholder group, there is a
Organizational
Influences
Cultural Model
Cultural Setting

Knowledge
Influences
Factual
Conceptual
Procedural
Metacognitive
Motivational
Influences
Self-Efficacy
Utility Value

Stakeholder
Group
Site
Administrators
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 47

relationship between influences. Factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge
influences are assumed to impact the principals’ ability to effectively lead special education
programs. Secondly, site administrators’ self-efficacy and utility value are identified as assumed
influences preventing principals from achieving their stakeholder goal. Finally, the cultural
model and cultural setting influences, under the umbrella of organizational influences are
assumed to impact site administrators’ ability to meet their stakeholder goal.
Conclusion
The literature review in this chapter reveals multiple factors which impact a principal’s
ability to effectively lead special education programs and ensure compliance with IDEA.
Research also illustrates the challenges principals face in implementing IDEA which includes the
preparation principals engage in to lead special education, the turnover of principals, and finally
ensuring students with disabilities are educated in the LRE. Further, this chapter explored the
lens being used in the study as the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Finally, the principals’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were explored
concluding with a presentation of the relevant conceptual framework. Chapter Three continues
the research on the problem of practice by describing methodological approach for the study.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 48

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to gain an understanding of the
root causes for the organizational failure to meet its goal of 100% compliance with IDEA. An
analysis of site administrator capability to effectively lead special education programs was
performed and focused on gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The CSD’s mission is to support the academic and personal development
of every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who
achieves success and fulfillment in a global environment. An organizational performance goal of
achieving 100% compliance with IDEA prioritizes the education of students with disabilities. In
the CSD site administrators were the instructional leaders and supervisors of the special
education programs at school sites. Literature related to the principal and site leadership of
special education programs was presented in Chapter Two to link the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences impacting a principal’s ability to successfully lead
special education.
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model was used to identify and measure
indicators of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences which contribute to
the performance of site administrators. Using a gap analysis model supports a systematic
approach to solving problems are related to improving performance and achieving an
organization’s goals. Rueda (2011) believes gap analysis supports targeting resources toward
the factors which cause the gaps in performance.
Chapter Three describes the participating stakeholders, data collection and
instrumentation, data analysis, credibility and trustworthiness, validity and reliability, ethical
considerations, and limitations and delimitations. The conceptual framework of the Clark and
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 49

Estes (2008) gap analysis studied the following questions guiding this improvement study:
1. What is the site administrators’ knowledge and skills and motivational factors related to
the CDE meeting its organization goal of 100% compliance with IDEA?
2. What knowledge and skills and motivational factors do site administrators use in leading
special education programs related to achieving the organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between the district (organization) culture and context and site
administrator knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
Once a problem of practice was identified, the next step was to determine the research
project’s participants, the size of the sample, and method of data collection (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The stakeholder group which was the focus of this research project is
CSD’s site administrators. CSD is a school district with enrollment of 7,034 students across nine
elementary and middle school sites providing special education services to 847 students from
birth to eighth grade. The site administrators worked daily at their respective schools and
received support and oversight from the district office. One of the primary responsibilities of site
administrators was to directly supervise, provide instructional leadership to, and implement
special education programs and services at their assigned school sites. The district office has a
special education department which provided support to the site administrator, as needed. As the
school district was small with only nine schools, all the of site administrators were invited to
participate in the research study to provide data for analysis.
Directors of special education throughout the county were also invited to participate in
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 50

the research study. Due to the limited research in the last ten years on specific principal
competencies needed to lead special education programs, directors of special education were
included in the study design to assist with identifying site administrators essential competencies
of focus (Edwards, Thomas, Rosenfeld, and Booth-Kewley, 1997). The directors of special
education provided oversight to special education programs from the district level, had a
responsibility for compliance with IDEA, and managed compliance complaints and litigation
arising from non-compliance and disagreements regarding special education. Directors of special
education are in the unique position of having a broad understanding of the root causes as the
basis litigation and complaints which arise out of special education conflicts. Research on legal
case studies reveals central to most litigation are school site issues confirming the importance of
collecting data from the directors (American Association of School Administrators, 2016;
Mueller, 2009). Upon confirmation of essential of site administrator competencies using the
directors’ perceptions as indicated in their survey, a gap analysis framework was applied to
identify principal knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences which impact
achievement of organizational and stakeholder performance goals.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The first survey instrument was administered to directors of special education to further
assist with answering the research questions.
Criterion 1. Study participants must be current employees of districts located in the
county where the CSD is located.
Criterion 2. Study participants must be directors of special education and supervise
special education programs from a district level.
The second survey instrument was administered to the site principal and assistant
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 51

principal stakeholder group who were the primary focus of this study.
Criterion 1. Study participants must be current employees of the CSD.
Criterion 2. Study participants must be principals or assistant principals.
Criterion 3. Study participants must be supervising special education programs at their
school sites.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The participants in this study were selected using purposeful sampling (Merriam &
Tisdell (2016). Purposeful sampling as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) is the selection
of participants based on particular settings, persons, or activities to intentionally provide the
information is relevant to answering the study questions. Random sampling and demographic
variables including gender, race, or age were not utilized as a specific school site supervisory role
was necessary to the study and the potential participants accounted for a small number at only
thirteen site administrators and twenty-eight directors of special education.
Of the thirteen site administrators across nine school sites in the CSD, thirteen of them
were identified as meeting the criteria for this study. The survey for site administrators assessed
their perceived levels of knowledge of special education as well as motivational and
organizational factors. An initial email was sent by the researcher to the thirteen principals and
assistant principals requesting participation in the voluntary study. Ten of the site administrators
responded to the first email request and completed the survey. A second email was sent to the
site administrators one week later with no further response to participating in the study. A third
email was sent to the site administrators three weeks after the first email with no further response
to participating in the study.
The survey for the directors of special education assessed perceptions of what principals’
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 52

essential knowledge levels in leading special education programs should be and the importance
of motivation and organization factors. An initial email was sent by the researcher to the twenty-
eight directors of special education requesting participation in the voluntary study. Nine of the
directors responded to the first email request and completed the survey. A second email was sent
to the directors one week later with three directors responding and completing the survey. A
third email was sent to the directors three weeks after the first email with six additional directors
completing the survey.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Interview criteria is noted below for site administrators.
Criterion 1. Study participants must be current employees of the CSD.
Criterion 2. Study participants must be principals or assistant principals.
Criterion 3. Study participants must be supervising special education programs at their
school sites.
Interview criteria is noted below for directors of special education.
Criterion 1. Study participants must be current employees of districts located in the
county where CSD is located.
Criterion 2. Study participants must be directors of special education and supervise
special education programs from a district level.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Participants who indicated interest in participating in the study and completed a survey
were interviewed. Random sampling and demographic variables including gender, race, or age
were not utilized as a specific school site supervisory role was necessary to the study and the
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 53

potential participants accounted for a small number at only thirteen site administrators and
twenty-eight directors of special education.
Johnson’s (2015) research provided an overview of Patton’s Classification Types of
Interviews and the researcher utilized standardized open-ended interview questions during the
third phase of data collection. Standardized open-ended questions ensure respondents answer the
same questions and allows for data comparability as well as reducing interview bias and effect
(Johnson, 2015, p230).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The method for data collection, survey, interview, and document analysis, was chosen for
this study. Utilizing tests, focus groups, and observations, was anticipated to not yield the data
needed and in a format that could be analyzed to answer the research questions. Tests were
considered and then disregarded as a data collection method as they would limit the responses of
the participants answers to defined responses as conceived by the researcher. Data collected
through focus groups has the potential to be skewed based on the site administrators’ feeling
vulnerable reporting a lack of knowledge of special education in front of their peers, and
therefore was not considered an effective method. Observations were anticipated to provide
skewed data as the site administrator’s behavior may be influenced by the presence of the
researcher, also district personnel, in confidential meetings and parents may not allow attendance
at the IEP meeting.
This study used a convergent parallel mixed methods design for data collection (Figure
2). The mixed method design was comprised of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting
quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, 2014; Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Quantitative
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 54

and qualitative data was collected concurrently in a multi-phase approach. Phase one comprised
of the collection of data through self-administered surveys. Surveys provided to site
administrators’ assessed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in leading special
education programs at their school sites. Surveys provided to directors of special education
assessed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences essential in leading special
education programs at the school sites. Phase two, a single interview, lent further insight into a
special education director’s perception of the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational
influences in leading special education programs. Each method of data collection provided a
richer understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences than just one
data set alone. The two phases of data collection were analyzed independently. The results of
data collection in each of the phases was compared and interpreted.
Figure 2

Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Design

The sample size consisted of ten site administrators and eighteen directors of special
education. The mixed methods approach was necessary to use in this study as there was a small
sample size. Studies which are limited to quantitative data are typically intended to generalize
1. To what extent is the
CSD meeting its goal of
100% compliance with
IDEA.

2. What is the stakeholder
knowledge and motivation
related to achieving this
organizational goal?

3. What is the interaction
between the organizational
culture and context and
stakeholder knowledge and
motivation?

Quantitative
Date
Collection
Qualitative
Data
Collection
Analysis
Interpretation
of Results
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 55

the data across a larger population (Creswell, 2014). This study was not intended to be
generalized to other school districts. Further in this study, both qualitative and quantitative data
were necessary to collect to provide the greater depth and understanding of information in
answering the research questions. Creswell (2014) stated that a purposive sampling approach in
qualitative research allows the researcher to reflect more on whom to sample. Weiss (1994) also
stated that there are situations, similar to this study, that necessitate using convenience sampling
as the only feasible way to proceed. Quantitative data collected through surveys supported
gathering information from the principals and assistant principals to identify knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps while qualitative data collection provided insight into
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that influence a site administrator’s
performance. Table 5 summarizes the two phases of data collection and analysis timeline.
Table 5
Data Collection Timeline

Data Collection Phase Duration
Phase One: Surveys 4 weeks
Phase One: Analysis 2 weeks
Phase Two: Interview 2 weeks
Phase Two: Analysis 2 weeks
Comparison and Interpretation 2 weeks

Surveys
A literature review led to themes in knowledge, motivation, and organization theory that
was then applied to the selected stakeholder group of focus, the site administrators. Knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences were developed from assumed needs. Forty-six
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 56

survey questions were aligned with each assumed need and utilized a Likert-type rating scales
were used to focus on directors of special education perceptions of essential principal
competencies in leading special education programs. The survey protocol for the directors of
special education can be found in Appendix D. Likert-type rating scales were further used to
ascertain site administrators’ perceptions of their level of competency in leading special
education programs. Data from principal essential competency levels will be analyzed using the
gap analysis framework to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
the stakeholder performance goal.
Directors of special education were appropriate participants as they have a broad
understanding of the root causes basis litigation and complaints that arises out of special
education conflicts. Directors of special education were the personnel in school districts who
resolve compliance and litigation issues related to special education. As such, it was deemed
they would provide valuable information to identify the key essential competencies site
administrators should possess in leading special education programs. Due to the researchers’
familiarity with the organization, the optimum survey tools appeared to be email of an on-line
survey tool would result in a significant response rate as both were frequently used by the
organization to gather information and input from principals and assistant principals. It was also
decided that a spring data collection period would yield rich data as that is the time of year which
typically requires increased attention by the site administrator to special education programs with
assessments, IEP Meetings, and discussions about students transitioning to the next grade level
for the following school year.
Site administrators are the instructional leaders on a school campus and, often, they are
the only school administrator assigned to supervise special education at a school site. site
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 57

administrators are the appropriate stakeholder group for this study to participate in the survey and
interview questions as they are primarily responsible for the programs on their school sites,
including special education programs in CSD.
Interview
This study consisted of one interview with a principal. One site administrator participant
agreed to a follow up interview after completing the survey. The final question on the survey
asked all the participants to indicate if they were willing to participate in a brief follow up
interview and mark yes or no. A follow up email was sent to the survey participant who
indicated a willingness to be interviewed. Of the ten site administrators who participated in the
survey, one indicated a willingness to participate in an interview.
The interview was conducted by the researcher in a semi-structured format and included
the use of an interview guide protocol as recommended by Patton (2002) and can be found in
Appendix F. The interview was designed to elicit a deeper understanding of the site
administrator competencies to lead special education programs.
The interview was consented to by the participant by signing a waiver and also included
an agreement to be audio recorded. The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes and was
conducted at the participant’s workplace, providing a familiar, convenient, and comfortable
location for the participant. The intent of the location was to increase the likelihood of
participation in the interview and encourage the participant to speak openly. The audio recording
was transcribed by the researcher and safeguarded on an external hard drive.
The transcription was coded (Appendix G) for the purposes of data analysis. The
researcher was the sole originator of the codebook. The codebook was constructed using the
responses which aligned with the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 58

identified in Chapter Two.
Data Analysis
The study utilized descriptive statistics to analyze survey data and articulated in an
analytical format. Data analysis began at the conclusion of the survey window as delineated in
phase one and at the end of the interview as delineated in phase two. Upon the completion of the
analysis of the surveys, transcription, coding, and analysis of the one interview, synthesized into
patterns and themes which were used to articulate observations and findings. Standardized
deviations and frequencies were not utilized due to the small size of the participant groups.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness of data was ensured using three strategies. The study was
designed to keep the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants. Data collected was
analyzed and coded using anonymity to protect the identity of the participants. Additionally,
confidentiality was emphasized with all participants throughout the study. Next, triangulation of
the data as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “is a powerful strategy for increasing the
credibility …of your research” (p. 245). Triangulation ensured the findings did not rely on a
single source but rather multiple sources of data to confirm or negate findings.
Validity and Reliability
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state that to have any effect on a field, the study must ring
true with its audience, with measures of validity and reliability to assure confidence in the study.
Validity is measuring the accuracy of the phenomena being studied while the reliability measures
consistency and the ability to replicate results. Validity and reliability are further described by
Creswell (2014) as the data collection instrument, a survey for this study, as measuring what it
was intended to measure. The surveys were designed to measure the assumed knowledge,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 59

motivation, and organizational influences of site administrators and directors of special education
in leading special education programs. Two principals who were not employed by the CSD
previewed and provided feedback on the site administrator survey prior to distribution to
participants. Principals possess specialized knowledge of school site responsibilities, including
special education. Two directors of special education reviewed the director survey provided
feedback prior to distribution. Directors of special education possess specialized knowledge in
special education and work directly with principals in leading special education programs. To
further ensure reliability, the survey was piloted with two principals outside of the district who
are not participants and two directors of special education outside of the county for this research.
Extra measures were implemented as the sample size of thirteen site administrators and twenty-
eight directors of special education was fewer than is typical for a quantitative study. An
additional strategy for ensuring validity and reliability, was all principals and assistant principals
and directors of special education who met survey and interview criteria were invited to
participate in the survey in the same manner, given the same time frame to complete the survey,
and provided with the same questions in the survey and in the same format. Finally, all
participant responses were monitored and, when there was no response to the survey request,
email reminders were sent at seven and twenty-one days after the initial request for participation.
It was determined there were enough responses to use the data collected.
Ethics
The researcher used a mixed methods approach in conducting the study. Glesne (2011)
describes the ethical considerations when conducting a study with human participants including
informed consent by the study subjects, participation is voluntary, the right to privacy, and the
role of the researcher. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) further confirm ethical protections must be
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 60

explored prior to the research commencing and not during the study through trial and error. In
this study, surveys and an interview were utilized, and organizational data was analyzed. Human
participants signed informed consent statements prior to an interview. The researcher did not
supervise any research participants although the researcher is employed by the same organization
as the site administrator participants within the county as the directors of special education. It
was deemed there were no repercussions from participants’ supervisors for participation in the
study. Rapport was established with the site administrators and established with the directors of
special education prior to soliciting participants to joining in the study. Participants completed
an electronic consent form for the survey and written consent forms for the interview and
confirmed their participation was voluntary. To guarantee the protection of human participants,
the researcher submitted the research project for review by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and abided by their approval guidelines. Safeguards were
implemented including assigning participants pseudo numbers and electronic data was password
protected.
The researcher addressed any perceived assumptions and biases by using
standardized questions for surveys and provided an explanation of the role of researcher and
study participation (Glense, 2011). Participants were not provided incentives to participate nor
were they coerced to participate. At the end of the study, thank you notes were sent to all
participants.
Limitations and Delimitations
There may be several limitations and delimitations in this study. The two limitations that
affect validity are truthfulness of the respondents as well as the accuracy of survey. The survey
was based on self-reporting and may not accurately reflect the entirety of respondents’
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 61

experience and competencies. Site administrators and directors may also have felt pressured to
participate in the study as the researcher works for the same organization as the site
administrators and within the same county as the directors of special education. Finally, site
administrators and directors may not answer accurately as they do not want to reveal they lack
certain skills.
Delimitations of the study are the use of the format of a survey and the design of the
questions. An interview provided a participant the ability to share a greater depth of information
than a survey alone. Additionally, the number of potential participants is limited to the principals
and assistant principals in the small sized-district and the directors in the were limited to the
county in which CSD resides. The decision to focus the study on the principals and assistant
principals in the CSD was intentional as their roles and responsibilities are similar. The result is
the lack of breadth found in a much larger school district.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 62

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Quantitative and qualitative data was collected through two rounds which included
surveys and an interview. Data was then analyzed to develop an understanding of principal
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences in leading special education
programs. All the results were then compared with the assumed influences of the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational influences discussed in Chapter Three, to establish validity
or invalidity. Recommendations will be discussed for validated data and invalidated data will be
rejected as a root cause for gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, or organizational
influences.
This improvement study was important to conduct to advance understanding of principal
competencies in leading special education programs as related to the CSD’s performance goal.
The research questions guiding this improvement study are the following:
1. What is the site administrators’ knowledge and skills and motivational factors related to
the CDE meeting its organization goal of 100% compliance with IDEA?
2. What knowledge and skills and motivational factors do site administrators use in leading
special education programs related to achieving the organizational goal?
3. What is the interaction between the district (organization) culture and context and site
administrator knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
In this chapter, the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO framework was used to organize the results
of the data in the following sections;
● Results and findings for knowledge influences;
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 63

● Results and findings for motivation influences; and
● Results and findings for organizational influences.
The results and findings for each section of influences will emphasize the validated and
invalidated influences. Chapter Four will conclude with a synthesis of how each validated
influence supported answering each research question presented.
Participating Stakeholders
The first set of study participants included ten site administrators. The ten site
administrators were all employed by the CSD during the 2019-20 school year held administrative
credentials authorizing them to supervise teachers and lead school sites. The site administrators
were assigned throughout the nine schools with representation from each school site and all were
responsible for leading special education programs at their school sites. Having site
administrators from each school site participate in the study facilitated an understanding of the
experience and essential competencies across the district. One site administrator agreed to an
interview although the depth and breadth of the responses did not contribute information across
all assumed influences. It is anticipated that lack of response to a follow up interview was due to
the researcher working for the same district as the site administrators and that the site
administrators were revealing their levels of competency through the survey. A follow up
interview may further highlight a lack of skill leaving the site administrator to feeling vulnerable.
Table 6 represents the site administrators who participated in this study as related to the
established criteria from Chapter Three and includes years of service as site administrator,
credentials held, and how the study participant obtained their administrative credential.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 64

Table 6
Demographic Information of Site Administrators

Survey Participant Years of Service as Credentials Held Administrative
Site Administrator Credential

Participant #1 1-4 years MS Exam
Participant #2 First year MS University Pgm
Participant #3 First year MS University Pgm
Participant #4 First year SE University Pgm
Participant #5 10 or more years MS Exam
Participant #6 1-4 years MS Exam
Participant #7 10 or more years MS/ES Exam
Participant #8 5-9 years MS Exam
Participant #9 1-4 years MS Exam
Participant #10 5-9 years MS University Pgm

MS=Multiple Subject Credential, SE=Special Education Credential

The second set of study participants, the directors of special education, were employed in
districts throughout the county where CSD is located during the 2019-20 school year. All
directors of special education were from different districts. Each director of special education
oversaw all special education programs throughout the district they were employed by at the time
of the study. Additionally, the directors of special education held administrative credentials
authorizing them to supervise teachers and lead school sites. Table 7 represents the directors of
special education who participated in this study as related to the established criteria from Chapter
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 65

Three and includes years of service as director of special education, credentials held, and how the
study participant obtained their administrative credential.
Table 7
Demographic Information of Directors of Special Education

Survey Participant Years of Service as Credentials Held Administrative
Director of Special Credential
Education

Participant #1 5-9 years ES Exam
Participant #2 1-4 years PPS Exam
Participant #3 First year MS/ES University Pgm
Participant #4 5-9 years PPS University Pgm
Participant #5 1-4 years ES University Pgm
Participant #6 10 or more years ES University Pgm
Participant #7 First year PPS Exam
Participant #8 10 or More years MS/PPS University Pgm
Participant #9 5-9 years PPS Exam
Participant #10 5-9 years ES University Pgm
Participant #11 5-9 years PPS Exam
Participant #12 1-4 years MS University Pgm
Participant #13 1-4 years MS University Pgm
Participant #14 5-9 years MS Exam
Participant #15 10 or more years ES University Pgm
Participant #16 1-4 years SLP Exam
Participant #17 5-9 years MS/PPS Exam
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 66

Participant #18 5-9 years ES University Pgm

MS=Multiple Subject Credential, SE=Special Education Credential, PPS=Pupil Personnel
Services Credential, SLP=Speech-Language Pathologist Credential

Determination of Assets and Needs
Sources of data for this research study were the directors of special education in the
county which the CSD resides and the CSD site administrators. Data collected was analyzed to
identify and develop a comprehensive understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps.
The directors of special education surveys assisted in focusing on the key essential
competencies site administrators should process in leading special education programs. Surveys
included questions related to competency levels for knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors. The purpose of surveying the directors of special education was to establish baselines or
key essential compete3ncies for principal knowledge, motivation factors, and organizational
barriers which may be prohibiting the principals from achieving 100% compliance with IDEA.
Further, the researcher worked as a director of special education in the same district as the site
administrators and sought to avoid bias in the site administrator survey questions as there was an
awareness of areas of growth and strengths for the site administrators.
The following sections for results and findings for knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational influences all begin with the directors’ survey results to focus on essential
competencies and either confirm or nullify the principal competencies site administrators should
possess in leading special education programs.
As results are analyzed, the influence will be validated or invalidated. If the influence is
validated it will be deemed a need of the site administrator to effectively lead special education
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 67

programs. If an influence is invalidated, it will be deemed an asset to the site administrator in
leading special education programs.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The study included four assumed knowledge influences. Table 8 shows that the assumed
factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge influences were validated. The metacognitive
assumed influence was not validated.
Table 8
Knowledge and Skill Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not Validated
(Asset)
Factual Site administrators need to understand
special education laws, education code,
and regulations (i.e., technical
competencies).
√

Conceptual
Site administrators need to be prepared
to lead special education programs.
√

Procedural
Site administrators need to know how to
promote and facilitate inclusion.
√

Metacognitive
Site administrators need to know how to
identify their areas of strength and
growth related to leading special
education programs.
√
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 68

Findings for knowledge influences were organized using Krathwohls’ (2002) four
knowledge dimensions: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. The first assumed knowledge influence, factual knowledge, stated as “Site
administrators need to understand special education laws, education code, and regulations (i.e.,
technical competencies),” was validated by the site administrators through survey questions
related to special education laws, IDEA components, and inter-agency coordination.
Directors’ survey results. The survey results for the directors of special education
indicated that all the survey questions related to factual knowledge are confirmed as moderately
or most essential competencies that principals should possess to effectively lead special
education programs (Table 9).
Table 9
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Factual Knowledge for Principals

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential
Factual Knowledge for Principals
Not Essential Minimally Essential Moderately Essential Most Essential
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 69

Site administrators’ survey results. The results of the site administrators’ surveys in
Table 10 revealed three areas of gaps in factual knowledge identified in questions 2, 3, and 21.
The survey results for the three questions indicated less than 50% of the site administrators
possess the necessary competencies to lead special education programs. The survey data further
revealed that all site administrators have varying levels of factual knowledge competency with
self-rating as highly proficient in each category for at least 20% of the site administrators
answering the question.
Table 10
Site Administrators’ Perceptions of Their Factual Knowledge

Summary. The data collected through surveys and an interview revealed most of the site
administrators have some factual level of knowledge although a gap exists in factual knowledge.
Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2006) found the principals with greater
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Their Factual Knowledge
Beginning Proficiency Developing Proficiency Proficient Highly Proficient
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 70

special education knowledge are involved at a greater level in special education programs. It is
important for principals to have a comprehensive understanding of factual knowledge of special
education which includes understanding federal and state laws, IDEA components, timelines, and
IEP processes to perform the basic function of and meet their stakeholder goal of effectively
leading a special education program. An increased level of factual knowledge by the principals
can support the CSD to meet its organizational goal of 100% compliance with IDEA.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 2. The second assumed knowledge influence, conceptual knowledge, stated as
“Site administrators need to be prepared to lead special education programs,” was validated
through survey questions related site administrators responses on questions related to alternative
curriculum, creating effective special education programs, evaluating the effectiveness of special
education programs.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education confirmed that all the
conceptual knowledge competencies presented in the survey questions for principals are deemed
essential. Table 11 reflects the directors’ perceptions of essential conceptual competencies with
almost all areas marked as moderately essential or highly essential in leading special education
programs. Of note are the directors’ survey responses which emphasized creating effective
special education programs and knowledge of instructional practices are deemed key
competencies as 80% of the directors rated the two competences as most essential. Of additional
note is at least 70% of the directors rated all the conceptual competencies to be moderately or
most essential.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 71

Table 11
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Conceptual Knowledge for Principals

Site administrators’ survey results. Site administrators self-reported varying levels of
competency related to procedural knowledge. For consideration, one of the competencies which
80% of the directors identified as most essential, creating effective special education programs,
was the competency which 70% of the site administrators indicated either beginning or
developing proficiency. The second greatest area of growth for site administrators as indicated
by 70% of the participants, was knowledge of how to evaluate the effectiveness of special
education programs (Table 12). The survey results indicate three substantial conceptual
knowledge gaps in the areas of utilization of alternative curriculum, creating effective special
education programs, and evaluation of the effectiveness of special education program.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential
Conceptual Knowledge for Principals
Not Essential Minimally Essential Moderately Essential Most Essential
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 72

Table 12
Site Administrators’ Perceptions of Their Conceptual Knowledge

Summary. Knowing what to do in leading special education requires conceptual
knowledge of how to ensure equitable access to curriculum, identifying effective teaching
methods, and securing appropriate resources to create effective learning environments Angelle &
Bilton; 2009, Lynch, 2012). Voltz and Collins (2010) confirmed in their research that central to
a principal’s effectiveness in leading special education programs is their ability to deliver
instructional programs which will meet the needs of students with disabilities. Cobb (2015) and
Lynch (2012) both state principals are the first line of support for special education and must be
prepared to navigate complex laws and implement programs. Site administrators require
conceptual knowledge to meet their stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education
programs and for the CSD to meet its organizational goal of 100% compliance with IDEA. Data
analysis of survey results indicate the site administrators have a conceptual knowledge gap.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Their Conceptual Knowledge
Beginning Proficiency Developing Proficiency Proficient Highly Proficient
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 73

Procedural Knowledge
Influence 3. The third assumed knowledge influence, procedural, “Site administrators
need to be prepared to lead special education programs,” was validated through survey questions
related site administrators’ responses on questions related to utilization of paraeducator support
in general education.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education confirmed that all the
conceptual knowledge competencies presented in the survey questions for principals are
essential. Drawing attention to questions 23 and 25, the directors were 100% in agreement that it
is most essential that principals have knowledge of cultivating an inclusive culture and 90% of
directors in agreement that it is most essential to have knowledge of inclusive practices. Table
13 reflects the directors’ perceptions of essential procedural competencies with established with
almost all areas marked as moderately essential or highly essential in leading special education
programs.
Table 13
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Procedural Knowledge for Principals
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 74

Site administrators’ survey results. Table 14 illustrates that site administrators report a
greater level of perceived competency in cultivating an inclusive culture, 80% of participants,
and knowledge of inclusive practices, 70% of participants. Survey results reveal the greatest area
of growth for the site administrators is in how to utilize paraeducator support in the general
education learning environment. Hoppey and McLesky (2013) found that to lead a change and
promote and facilitate inclusion, requires a principal who values inclusion, creates a vision for
inclusion, and acquires the skills necessary to lead inclusive programs.
Table 14
Site Administrators’ Perceptions of Their Procedural Knowledge
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q23 Inclusive Culture Q25 Inclusive Practices Q26 Utilize Paras/Spec
Ed
Q27 Utilize Paras/Gen
Ed
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential
Procedural Knowledge for Principals
Not Essential Minimally Essential Moderately Essential Most Essential
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 75

Summary. If site administrators are expected to be compliant with the IDEA, the must
have a knowledge of educating a student in the LRE. Walden and McLesky (2011) confirmed in
their research that if a school is to have an inclusive culture, the principal must lead the change
starting with valuing inclusive classrooms, creating a vision for inclusion, and acquiring the
necessary skills to support teachers. Students with disabilities can be educated in the LRE and
may require the support of a paraeducator. Based on the site administrator survey results, there is
a substantial procedural knowledge gap in how to utilize paraeducator support in the general
education learning environment which can interfere with the site administrator meeting their
stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education programs and ultimately inhibit the CSD
of meeting its organizational goal of 100% compliance with IDEA.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 4. The fourth assumed knowledge influence, metacognitive, “Site
administrators need to be prepared to lead special education programs,” was not validated
through survey questions related site administrators’ responses on questions related to identifying
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q23 Inclusive Culture Q25 Inclusive
Practices
Q26 Utilize
Paras/Spec Ed
Q27 Utilize Paras/Gen
Ed
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Their Procedural Knowledge
Beginning Proficiency Developing Proficiency Proficient Highly Proficient
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 76

their own areas of strength and growth in leading special education programs.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education confirmed that all the
metacognitive knowledge competencies presented in the survey questions for principals are
essential. Table 15 reflects the directors’ perceptions of essential procedural competencies with
established with all areas marked as moderately essential or highly essential in leading special
education programs. Focusing on question 29, knowledge of one’s own strengths, and question
30, knowledge of one’s areas of growth, the directors were 100% in agreement that both
competency areas were moderately and most essential for principals.
Table 15
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Metacognitive Knowledge Principals

Site administrators’ survey results. Table 16 illustrates that for both metacognitive
knowledge influence areas, 40% of site administrators indicated they are proficient and 60% of
site administrators indicated they are highly proficient in identifying their own strengths and
areas of growth. The ability to identify one’s own areas of strength and growth is imperative as
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q29 Identify Strengths Q30 Identify Areas of Growth
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential
Metacognitive Knowledge Principals
Not Essential Minimally Essential Moderately Essential Most Essential
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 77

special education evolves and shifts. Principals will be faced with addressing a variety of
situations which may be novel although will requires the addition of skills (Bilton, 2009).
Table 16
Site Administrators’ Perceptions of Their Metacognitive Knowledge

Summary. Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) found that metacognitive knowledge
supports the ability for one to understand what causes things to happen. An analysis of survey
and interview data indicate that site administrators possess the knowledge to identify their own
areas of strength and growth and that a metacognitive knowledge gaps does not exist. In fact, it
is an area of skill strength for site administrators and will support advancement of stakeholder
and organizational goal achievement.
Site administrator interview findings. The interview with Site Administrator Participant
#3, disclosed that there is a level of factual and metacognitive knowledge by the site
administrator although without a background in special education for this participant, there is
confirmation of a need for development of factual and metacognitive knowledge:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q29 Ident Areas of Strengths Q30 Identify Areas of Growth
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Their Metacognitive Knowledge
Beginning Proficiency Developing Proficiency Proficient Highly Proficient
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 78

I learned a lot from being in IEP meetings, emails that I get from OCDE and educational
lists I’m on. Oh, and the IEP tips that your department sends out each week. Also talking
with special ed teachers, the SLP, and the psych. I didn’t teach special ed so, like, I really
depend on the sped teachers to follow the processes. I also have been reading more about
sped. You [the researcher] send out emails with articles about cases and I find them
really interesting. I always want to improve and learn.”
Four assumed knowledge influences were presented in Chapter Two. Table 17 shows a
summary of the validated assumed knowledge and skill influences through the site administrator
survey analysis.
Table 17
Summary of Validated Assumed Knowledge and Skill Influences
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Factual Site administrators need to understand special
education laws, education code, and regulations
(i.e., technical competencies).
√
Conceptual
Site administrators need to be prepared to lead
special education programs.
√

Procedural
Site administrators need to know how to promote
and facilitate inclusion.
√

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 79

Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
There were two assumed motivation influences presented in Chapter Two. Table18
shows that both assumed motivation influences were validated.
Table 18
Motivational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not
Validated
(Asset)
Self-Efficacy

Utility Value
Site administrators understand that they
are capable of leading and implementing
special education programs.

Site administrators need to see the value
in developing competencies in special
education.

√

√

Self-efficacy. The first assumed motivation influence, self-efficacy, “Site administrators
understand that they are capable of leading and implementing special education programs,” was
validated through survey questions related to site administrators seeing the value in students with
disabilities being included in general education programs and that the site administrators can
successfully facilitate inclusion.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education survey results illustrate
there is 100% agreement that it is important or very important for principals to believe they can
positively influence instruction for students with disabilities, confirming that the competencies
are essential for principals. For the competency of principals believing they can eliminate
barriers for students with disabilities to be included in the general education classroom, 90% of
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 80

the directors rated the competency as important or very important. Table 19 reflects that
competencies related to self-efficacy were both confirmed as essential for principals.
Table 19
Directors’ Perceptions of Principal’s Sense of Self-Efficacy

Site administrators’ survey results. The site administrators survey results establish 80%
rated their perceived levels of competency related to the belief they can positively influence
instruction is lightly important with 20% stating it is important. Regarding the belief that
principals and assistant principals can eliminate barriers for students with disabilities to be
included in the general education classroom, 80% rated it as important or very important (Table
20). Veraland and Erickson (2017) found principal self-efficacy is important to school change
and developing the technical knowledge to make the change.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q32 Support of
Specialists
Q34 Support of
Teachers/Facilitate
Inclusion
Q36 Value Inclusion Q37 Can Ask for help
Directors’ Perceptions of Principal's
Sense of Self-Efficacy
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 81

Table 20
Site Administrator’s Sense of Self Efficacy

Summary. The site administrators’ survey results related to self-efficacy were inconsistent
with the directors’ perceptions of the importance of self-efficacy. The collective response
contrasts with the directors’ perceptions of 90% believing it is very important competency as a
motivation influence indicating a motivation gap for the site administrators. Urton, Wilbert, and
Hennemann (2014) discovered principals with higher self-efficacy are more effective at leading
inclusive schools. Site administrators who are more effective at leading inclusive schools, have a
greater opportunity to meet their stakeholder goal of effective leadership of special education and
meet the organization’s goal of 100% compliance with IDEA which includes a mandate for
education in the LRE.
Utility value. The second assumed motivation influence, utility value, “Site
administrators need to see the value in developing competencies in special education,” was
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q32 Support of
Specialists
Q34 Support of
Teachers/Facilitate
Inclusion
Q36 Value Inclusion Q37 Can Ask for help
Site Administrators' Sense of Self-Efficacy
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 82

validated through survey questions related to site administrators seeing the value in students with
disabilities being included in general education programs and that the site administrators can
successfully facilitate inclusion.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education survey responses indicated
that all the motivation competencies related to utility value presented in the survey questions for
site administrators are important or very important. The directors were in 100% agreement that it
is highly important for principals to be able to ask for help from the special education
department. Table 21 reflects the directors’ perceptions of essential utility value competencies as
related to motivation with established with agreement that all three areas represent essential
competencies in leading special education programs.
Table 21
Directors’ Perceptions of Principal’s Sense of Utility Value

Site administrators’ survey results. Table 22 encompasses questions that probed site
administrators’ belief in inclusion, that they have the support of general and special education
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q33 Positively Influence Instruction Q35 Eliminate Barriers
Directors’ Perceptions of Principal's
Sense of Utility Value
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 83

teachers in leading special education programs and that they can ask for help from the special
education department. Utility value as related to site administrators’ competencies supports that
site administrators see the value in developing the skills to effectively lead special education.
Table 22
Site Administrators’ Sense of Utility Value

Site administrator interview findings. In an interview with Site Administrator
Participant #3, the site administrator stated, “Megan [program specialist, special education
department] helps me a lot and I feel like I have learned from her. I have probably learned the
most from her.” The statement indicates the site administrator has asked for help from the
special education department, and, in fact, welcomes the assistance
Summary. Data analysis of surveys demonstrates there is a motivation gap in the area of
the site administrators having the support of the specialists in leading special education programs.
Site administrators need to see the value of garnering support from the special education staff in
order to meet their stakeholder goal of effectively lead special education programs. If garnering
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q33 Positively Influence Instruction Q35 Eliminate Barriers
Site Administrators' Sense of Utility Value
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 84

support from the teachers is a skill which is lacking, the site needs to see the value in developing
that skill. A principal who is leading a successful and inclusive school site has to want to
develop the necessary skills to implement inclusion (Thompson, 2015). If the site administrators
are to meet their stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education programs, it is essential
they value developing their skills in the areas needed.
Two assumed motivation influences were presented in Chapter Two. Table 23 shows a
summary of the validated assumed motivation influences through the site administrator survey
analysis.
Table 23
Motivational Influences Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not Validated
(Asset)
Utility Value

Self-Efficacy
Site administrators need to see the value
in developing competencies in special
education.

Site administrators understand that they
are capable of leading and
implementing special education
programs.
√

√

Results and Findings for Organization Causes
There were two assumed organizational influences presented in Chapter Two. Rueda
(2011) categorizes organizational culture into two themes, culture models and cultural settings.
Findings will be presented using these two themes. Table 24 shows that both assumed
organizational influences were validated.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 85

Table 24
Organizational Influences Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not
Validated
(Asset)
Cultural
Model

Cultural
Setting
The district must lead the movement
toward a culture of inclusion so that site
administrators are motivated to develop
competencies to lead special education
programs.

The district needs to provide a system of
support specific to supervising and
implementing special education
programs and services.
√

√

Cultural Model. The first assumed organizational influence, cultural model, “The
district must lead the movement toward a culture of inclusion so that site administrators are
motivated to develop competencies to lead special education programs.” was validated through
survey questions related to site administrators belief that the district needs to cultivate an
environment of inclusion, prioritize student learning, and design classroom instruction which
considers the needs of students with disabilities.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education survey results illustrate
there is agreement that all four of the competencies related to cultural model are important for
principals. The competency related to the district prioritizing learning for students with
disabilities, received the lowest rating at only 50% of the directors in agreement it is important or
very important. There was 100% agreement on two competencies indicating it was important or
very important for the district to cultivate an environment of inclusion and for the district to
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 86

consider the needs of students with disabilities in designing classroom instruction. Table 25
reflects that competencies related to cultural model were confirmed as important for principals.
Table 25
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Cultural Model Factors

Site administrators’ survey results. Table 26, survey question 38, the district needs to
cultivate an environment of inclusion, was rated by 60% of the site administrators as slightly
important in contrast with the directors rating of 90% as very important. Question 43 related to
the district considering the needs of students with disabilities when designing classroom
instruction, 60% of the site administrators rated it as slightly important and 100% of the directors
rated it as important or very important. According to the survey, there is an organizational gap
related to organization’s cultural model.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q38 District Cultivate
Environment of
Inclusion
Q39 District Dev.
Culture of Inclusion
Q40 Prioritize Stud.
w/Disabilities
Q43 District Design
Instruc. for Stud.
w/Disabilities
Directors’ Perceptions of
Essential Cultural Model Factors
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 87

Table 26
Site Administrator’s Perceptions of Cultural Model Factors

Site administrators’ survey results. When asked about inclusion, Site Administrator
Participant #3 stated, “I think the district supports inclusion. We all have students on our campus
that have disabilities and get sped services. I do think that some schools are more inclusive than
others. Your department [special education] talks about inclusion all the time, but, like, I don’t
ever hear anyone else talk about inclusion. I think it is just what we do.”
Summary. IDEA (2014) states children with disabilities are to be included in the LRE. A
site administrator who is leading special education programs necessitates having a district which
supports inclusion and alignment between the site administrator and the district in philosophy in
educating students with disabilities. Analysis of the survey results and interview findings
indicate there is not a district-wide highlighting or emphasis placed on inclusion that is apparent
to the site administrators. Furthermore, there is not a clear support for site administrators leading
special education to expand their capacity and skills in the area of inclusion. With the societal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q38 District Cultivate
Environment of
Inclusion
Q39 District Dev.
Culture of Inclusion
Q40 Prioritize Stud.
w/Disabilities
Q43 District Design
Instruc. for Stud.
w/Disabilities
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Cultural Model Factors
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 88

shifts towards more inclusion, principals must feel supported in cultivating an inclusive
environment from a district level and have the support of district-level leadership (Roberts,
2017). An organizational gap exists in support of the principals to effectively lead special
education programs as confirmed by the site administrators’ survey and interview data revealing
the lack of formalized statement and support by the district with inclusion.
Cultural Setting. The second assumed organizational influence, cultural setting, “The
district needs to provide reference documentation specific to supervising and implementing
special education programs and services,” was validated through survey questions related to site
administrators having a shared agreement that engaging in activities which support leadership of
special education programs is important.
Directors’ survey results. The directors of special education survey responses indicate
90% believe it is important or very important for site administrators to a have a shared value of
support from the district in educating students with disabilities. The directors have confirmed
with their responses that the site administrators related to cultural setting are appropriate to have
included in the survey (Table27).
Table 27
Directors’ Perceptions of Essential Cultural Setting Factors
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 89

Site administrators’ survey results. The site administrators’ surveys indicated 90%
agreement it is important or very important that the district provide or facilitate access to
trainings for special education. The site administrators were split on the importance of the
district providing coaching or mentoring in leading special education programs with 40% of the
respondents stating it’s important and no respondents indicating it is very important (Table28).
Table 28
Site Administrators’ Perceptions of Cultural Setting Factors
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q41 District Provide/Facilitate Trainings for Sp Ed Q42 District Provide Coaching
Directors’ Perceptions of
Essential Cultural Setting Factors
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 90

Site administrators’ survey results. In an interview with Site Administrator Participant
#3 and when asked about special education training by the district, the respondent stated, “I like
how you copied the mock IEP for the leadership meeting that we saw at the legal training last
month. It was good to, like, see the problems and then talk about them as a group. We could all
take that information and bring it back to our sites and use it right away.” The interviewee
confirms the leadership group values learning together at a district level and finds it useful.
Summary. Analysis of the site administrators’ survey results and interview findings
indicates there is agreement in the importance of the district providing access to training and an
organizational gap in the need for coaching or mentoring. Site administrators do not believe the
district needs to provide coaching or mentoring for site administrators as they lead special
education programs and, in fact, rated it at the lowest level of importance in the entire survey. As
principals expand and shift their responsibilities to lead special education, a system of support
they will require a system of support for during and after training (National Association of
Elementary School Principals (2013).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Q41 District Provide/Facilitate Trainings for
Sp Ed
Q42 District Provide Coaching
Site Administrators' Perceptions of
Cultural Setting Factors
Not Important Slightly Important Important Very Important
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 91

There were two assumed organizational influences presented in Chapter Two. Table 29
shows that the two assumed organizational influences were validated, and no assumed
organizational influences were invalidated.
Table 29
Organizational Influences Validated
Category Assumed Influences
Validated
(Need)
Not Validated
(Asset)
Cultural
Model
The district must lead the movement
toward a culture of inclusion so that site
administrators are motivated to develop
competencies to lead special education
programs.
√
Cultural
Setting
The district needs to provide a system of
support specific to supervising and
implementing special education
programs and services.
√

Summary of Validated Influences
In researching the stakeholder performance goal of effectively leading special education
programs, the results indicate site administrators do not possess all the competencies identified
by the directors of special education and supported through literature that would support effective
leadership of special education and increased compliance with IDEA (Table 30). Analysis of
survey results and interview findings indicate knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps
which interfere with the stakeholder group to reach their performance goal. Knowledge gaps in
understanding special education laws, preparation for leading special education, and how to
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 92

promote and facilitate inclusion were confirmed. Motivation gaps in site administrators’ belief
they can lead special education programs and see the value in developing competencies to lead
special education were identified. Finally, organizational gaps in district support of cultivating a
culture of inclusion, building site administrators capacity to lead special education, and providing
support during and after training, were revealed through survey and interview analysis.
Table 30
Summary of Validated Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
Category Assumed Knowledge Influences Validated (Need)
Factual Site administrators need to understand special
education laws, education code, and
regulations (i.e., technical competencies).
√
Conceptual
Site administrators need to be prepared to lead
special education programs.
√

Procedural
Site administrators need to know how to
promote and facilitate inclusion.
√

Category Assumed Motivation Influences Validated (Need)
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 93

Self-Efficacy

Utility Value
Site administrators understand that they are
capable of leading and implementing special
education programs.

Site administrators need to see the value in
developing competencies in special education.

√

√
Category Assumed Organization Influences Validated (Need)
Cultural Model
The district must lead the movement toward a
culture of inclusion so that site administrators
are motivated to develop competencies to lead
special education programs.
√
Cultural Setting
The district needs to provide a system of
support specific to supervising and
implementing special education programs and
services.
√
Through analysis of the results and findings and the research questions presented, the site
administrators’ role in leading special education programs has been clarified. The purpose of the
study was to better understand the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
influences of the Site administrators in leading special education programs. The data collected
validated that the influences do matter to the Site administrators that are responsible for special
education at their school sites. Table 31 represents the responses to the research questions posed
in the study as they relate to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 94

Table 31
Research Questions Aligned to Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational Validated
Influences
Research Questions KMO Validated Influences (Needs)
What is the site
administrators’ knowledge
and skills and motivational
factors related to the CDE
meeting its organization
goal of 100% compliance
with IDEA?

Site administrators need to understand special education laws,
education code, and regulations. (Factual Knowledge)

Site administrators need to be prepared to lead special
education programs. (Conceptual Knowledge)

Site administrators understand that they are capable of leading
and implementing special education programs. (Self-Efficacy
Motivation)
What knowledge and skills
and motivational factors do
site administrators use in
leading special education
programs related to
achieving the organizational
goal?

Site administrators need to know how to promote and
facilitate inclusion. (Procedural Knowledge)

Site administrators need to see the value in developing
competencies in special education. (Utility Value Motivation)
What is the interaction
between the district
(organization) culture and
context and site
administrator knowledge
and motivation?

The district must lead the movement toward a culture of
inclusion so that site administrators are motivated to develop
competencies to lead special education programs. (Cultural
Model)

The district needs to provide a system of support specific to
supervising and implementing special education programs
and services. (Cultural Setting)

Chapter Four presented the results and findings data of the collected and summarized
validated influences. The chapter concluded with alignment of the research questions and
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter Five provides
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 95

solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations
for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions. The fourth and final research
question will be answered, What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources?

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 96

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPELMENTAITON, AND EVALUTION
This study investigated the root causes for the organizational performance problem
preventing the CSD from meeting its goal of 100% compliance with IDEA. An analysis of site
administrator capability to effectively lead special education programs focused on gaps in the
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational barriers. The results reveal there is a need
for systematic program for site administrators to develop essential knowledge and leadership
skills if schools, and districts, are motivated to reduce the burden of lengthy and expensive
special education litigation.
Modeled after Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method was
used to clarify organizational goals and identify gaps between the actual performance level of site
administrators and the preferred levels of performance within CSD. Surveys were administered
to directors of special education to establish site administrators’ competencies in leading special
education programs. Site administrators of the CSD then completed surveys to document their
perceived levels of knowledge and skills and perceptions about motivational and organizational
factors. An interview was conducted with a site administrator who provided additional
information to the researcher related to leading special education programs. Data was analyzed
and categorized into knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed influences and a
determination was made if each assumed the influence is interfering with the stakeholder group
of focus, the site administrators, in meeting their stakeholder performance goal of effectively
leading special education programs. Chapter Five will explore recommendations for validated
influences identified in Chapter 4.
Recommendations for validated influences will use the Clark and Estes (2008) categorical
framework for knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Kirkpatrick and
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 97

Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model’s framework was used to design an
integrated implementation and evaluation plan to address the validated influences. The New
World Kirkpatrick Model uses four levels that address reaction, learning, behavior, and results,
starting with the end of the plan as the beginning.

Organizational Context and Mission
The CSD, located in Southern California, and one of four elementary school districts
serving the city of Coastline. The surrounding area is affluent and with coastal beachfront
homes. The district enrollment is 7,034 students across nine elementary and middle school sites.
CSD provides special education services to 847 students from birth to eighth grade. The mission
of the school district is to support the academic and personal development of every student so
that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves success and
fulfillment in a global environment. There are ample teachers and support staff including site
administrators, maintenance, custodial, fiscal, bus drivers, clerical, and district office
administrators.
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance problem for this study is to identify was to increase
compliance with IDEA to 100% as measured by a reduction in special education litigation
expenditures. This goal was established by the superintendent after a review of district
expenditures and identification that special education litigation has the greatest negative fiscal
impact to the district budget. The fiscal impact of litigation is devastating to district budgets and
can lead to larger class sizes, fewer school site staff, and scarce instructional resources.
Improved student outcomes for a student with disabilities increases the likelihood of reduced
litigation.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 98

Description of Stakeholder Groups
The CSD has several stakeholder groups who contribute to overarching goal of consistent
compliance with IDEA. Three groups of stakeholders who have a direct effect on compliance are
teachers, principals, and district special education administrators. The teachers are the
stakeholder group with a direct link to IDEA compliance. They assess students, prepare IEP
paperwork, are the primary implementer of the IEP, and collect data that is reported to the state.
Principals and assistant principals are the designated instructional leaders at the school site and
supervise special education programs on their sites. Related to special education, the CSD
designated site administrators as the role that was primarily responsible for the supervision and
evaluation special education teachers, delivering professional development to all teachers, and
are the local education agency (LEA) administrator in individualized education program (IEP)
meetings. As the site supervisor of special education programs and LEA administrator at IEP
meetings, site administrators bear the greatest responsibility for compliance with IDEA. Special
education administrators are the stakeholders who provide support to all special education
programs across the district which included federal and state compliance, data reporting,
professional development, assignment of special education personnel, and program development.
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
Table 32 characterizes the goal for the site administrator’s stakeholder group.
Table 32
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 99

Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Site Administrators’ Goal

By June 2020, site administrators to effectively lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction in litigation expenditures compared to prior year.

[Ins

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a gap analysis to gain an understanding of the
root causes for the organizational failure to meet its goal of 100% compliance with IDEA. An
analysis of site administrator capability to effectively lead special education programs was
performed and focused on gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational barriers. The study first focused on a list of assumed influences and then examine
each influence for validation. A more comprehensive study of all stakeholders is suitable for
follow-up research based on the findings of this study, which concentrates on site administrators.
The research questions guiding this improvement study are the following:
1. What is the site administrators’ knowledge and skills and motivational factors related to
the CDE meeting its organization goal of 100% compliance with IDEA?
2. What knowledge and skills and motivational factors do site administrators use in leading
special education programs related to achieving the organizational goal?
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 100

3. What is the interaction between the district (organization) culture and context and site
administrator knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method was used to clarify
organizational goals and identify gaps between the actual performance level of site administrators
and the preferred levels of performance within CSD. In responding to Research Question 4,
“What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?” the researcher used the findings and results from
examining the CSD to develop recommendations. An analysis of the principals’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences in leading special education programs revealed
validation of three knowledge influences, two motivation influences, and two organizational
influences.
Knowledge Recommendations
Rueda (2011) based a study on Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) definitions of four types
of knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Identifying the knowledge influence by type of knowledge provided
the framework for addressing the site administrators’ knowledge and skills gaps. Identifying
individual knowledge and skill development needs in the site administrators provided a pathway
to meeting stakeholder goals. Knowledge and skill gaps can be addressed by providing
additional information, job aids, training or education (Clark & Estes, 2008).
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 101

The knowledge influences and recommendations noted in Table 33, represent a list of
assumed knowledge influences which were validated, their priority in achieving the stakeholder
goal, and the recommendation along with the theoretical principle.
Table 33
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence

Validated
(Need)
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Site administrators need
to understand special
education laws, education
code, and regulations.
(Factual)

V Y Help individuals connect
new knowledge to prior
knowledge and to
construct meaning
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide a job aid
that contains the
special education
laws, education
code, and
regulations that are
referenced at a high
frequency.

Site administrators need
to be prepared to lead
special education
programs. (Conceptual)
V Y Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors
improves self-efficacy,
learning, and
performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Provide training that
includes practice and
modeling to site
administrators to
prepare them to lead
special education
programs.
Site administrators need
to know how to promote
and facilitate inclusion.
(Procedural).
V Y To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and
know when to apply what
they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide district
training specific to
inclusive practices
and evaluating the
effectiveness of an
inclusive classroom.

Principals need to understand special education laws, education code, and
regulations. The first assumed knowledge influence, factual knowledge, stated as “Site
administrators need to understand special education laws, education code, and regulations (i.e.,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 102

technical competencies),” was validated by the site administrators through survey questions
related to special education laws, IDEA components, and inter-agency coordination. As
indicated in Chapter 4, Results and Findings, the data revealed a gap in the site administrators’
understanding of special education laws, education code, and regulations. For site administrators
to effectively lead special education programs, they require foundational knowledge in laws,
codes, and regulations, the development of leadership skills specific to special education, and
expertise in supporting inclusion. Information processing theory, as described by Schraw and
McCrudden (2006), is recommended to address the gap as it connects new knowledge to prior
knowledge for the purpose of constructing new meaning. Providing principals with knowledge
specific to special education would allow them to apply the information in their daily work. The
recommendation is to provide a job aid in the form of electronic, searchable reference documents
for areas of compliance that frequently arise.
Compliance with IDEA primarily rests with the school principal as they are charged with
the responsibility of effectively implementing IDEA and ensuring access to educational
opportunities for all students (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Cobb, 2015: Correa & Wagner, 201;
DiPaola, 2003). Research demonstrates principals must have legal knowledge to effectively lead
special education programs, and principals have reported it as one of their lowest areas of
knowledge (Roberts & Guerra, 2017). The evidence supports providing site administrators with
a job aid of an electronic reference system to access legal references inclusive of laws, education
codes and regulations may address site administrators’ knowledge gap.
Principals need to be prepared to lead special education programs. The second
assumed knowledge influence, conceptual knowledge, stated as “Site administrators need to be
prepared to lead special education programs,” was validated through survey questions related site
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 103

administrators responses on questions related to alternative curriculum, creating effective special
education programs, evaluating the effectiveness of special education programs. Data collected
through surveys demonstrated that not all site administrators are prepared to effectively lead
special education programs. Effectively leading special education programs requires the
application of skills as they relate to social cognitive theory. Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2009)
stated that social cognitive theory rests on several concepts including modeling-to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and performance. In the two approved
paths to obtain an administrative credential, coursework or pass an exam, neither provides nor
assesses for substantial knowledge development in the area of special education. Site
administrators do not benefit from modeling of the strategies or behaviors which they are
expected to exhibit when leading special education programs. The recommended solution to
address the lack of preparation to lead special education programs is to provide modeling of
skills and training. Site administrators could expand skills through engagement in a mentor
program where skills are modeled principals demonstrate competencies modeled, and feedback is
provided to support skill development.
Research has revealed principal preparation programs are failing to prepare graduates to
be instructional leaders for students’ with disabilities as the coursework, if there is any, is
minimal regarding educating students with special needs (Lasky & Karge, 2006; Lynch, 2012;
Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010). DiPaola and Walther-Thomas (2003) further confirm that
appropriate and relevant content is vital to the success of a principal in leading special education
programs. Lasky & Karge (2006) proposed in their research that principals who engage in
coursework in preparation for school leadership, specifically special education, have a higher
degree of effectiveness in leading special education. This confirms that providing modeling of
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 104

to-be-learned strategies and behaviors using training, may increase effectiveness in leading
special education programs.
Principals need to know how to promote and facilitate inclusion. The third assumed
knowledge influence, procedural, “Site administrators need to be prepared to lead special
education programs,” was validated through survey questions related site administrators’
responses on questions related to utilization of paraeducator support in general education. Site
administrators’ responses on surveys signal they do not have the skills to promote and facilitate
inclusion at their school sites. Information processing theory as characterized by how the brain
understands information, manipulates it, and stores it for future application is the recommended
theory to address the knowledge gap related to inclusion. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) report
that the way individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they
know.
If site administrators are to effectively lead special education programs, they must have
the knowledge to promote and facilitate inclusion or risk have a segregated student population
and they need to know how to apply the knowledge. Providing training to site administrators on
how to support inclusion and provide inclusive opportunities through practice and feedback is the
recommended solution to address the knowledge gap.
Ryan (2010) and Cohen (2015) found establishing inclusive practices in schools is a
challenge as it requires a principal who knows how to promote inclusion, shift attitudes towards
inclusion, and lead inclusive programs. The knowledge of how to include students of all abilities
requires a site administrator who has been afforded the opportunity to learn in an inclusive
environment and they apply the knowledge as part of their training. Developing site
administrators’ capacities to lead inclusive schools is imperative if the district is to meet its goal
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 105

of educating students in the LRE and central to developing capacity is site administrators who
can learn and apply their knowledge. District provided training on how to promote and facilitate
inclusion is the correct response to remediate the gap of site administrators’ knowledge.
Motivation Recommendations
Motivational influences must be addressed for the stakeholder group to achieve their
stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) articulated three facets of motivation as active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when a person chooses (or does not choose) to
actively work on a goal. Persistence is when a person continues to work even when distracted or
is managing several goals at the same time. After choosing a goal and working persistently
towards the goal, a person determines the level of mental effort to exert based on the goal. A
familiar goal, or routine, requires less mental effort while a challenging, novel goal necessitates
greater mental effort. Understanding the motivational influences of site administrators can
address closing a performance gap. The application of two motivation influences, self-efficacy
theory and expectancy value theory, support understanding of the principals’ motivation levels
and progress towards meeting the stakeholder of prioritizing development of competencies, as
denoted in Table 34.
Table 34

Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
(Need)
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Site administrators
understand that they are
capable of leading and
implementing special
education programs.
(Self-Efficacy)
V Y Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Site administrators
will participate in
job-alike groups of
administrators to
share ideas and
expand capacity and
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 106

confidence to lead
special education
programs.

Site administrators need
to see the value in
developing competencies
in special education.
(Utility Value)
V Y Learning and motivation
are enhanced if the
learner prioritizes the task
(Eccles, 2006).
Identify and review
special education
cases with principals
that resulted in
settlement
agreement payments
that reduced funds
available to the
district that were
directly related to
errors and oversights
at the site level.

Principals understand that they are capable of leading and implementing special
education programs. The first assumed motivation influence, self-efficacy, “Site administrators
understand that they are capable of leading and implementing special education programs,” was
validated through survey questions related to site administrators seeing the value in students with
disabilities being included in general education programs and which the site administrators can
successfully facilitate inclusion. Data collected through surveys demonstrated that not all site
administrators prioritize the development of special education competencies. When applying
utility value, site administrators need to see the value in prioritizing developing skills to
effectively lead special education programs and support the organization in achieving its goals.
Rueda (2011) and Wigfield and Cambria (2010) summarized two of the dimensions of attainment
as the value one places on the importance of a task and that learning and motivation are enhanced
if the learner prioritizes the task in an effort to achieve a greater goal. Mueller, Singer, and
Draper (2008) found most of the conflicts which arose between parents and the school are a
result of the IEP Meeting. The recommended solution to address the lack of site administrators’
prioritization to develop special education competencies incorporates the identification and
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 107

review special education cases which resulted in settlement agreement payments that arose out of
mistakes and oversight at the site level. The evidence supports that reviewing special education
legal cases which arose out of errors and oversights at the site level can connect the purpose of
prioritizing the development of special education competencies.
Principals need to see the value in developing competencies in special education. The
second assumed motivation influence, utility value, “Site administrators need to see the value in
developing competencies in special education,” was validated through survey questions related to
site administrators seeing the value in students with disabilities being included in general
education programs and that the site administrators can successfully facilitate inclusion. Survey
responses signaled that the site administrators do not deem themselves capable of leading and
implementing special education programs at their school sites. Effectively leading special
education programs requires principals to exhibit a strong sense of self-efficacy, which indicates
a principle grounded in self-efficacy theory would be an appropriate intervention to close the
stakeholder gap. Pajares (2006) stated high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation.
The recommended solution to addressing principals’ lack of self-efficacy is to facilitate
participation in job-alike groups, sharing ideas and expanding capacity and confidence to lead
special education programs.
Wigfield and Cambria (2010) reviewed the expectancy value theory model by how values
and expectancies relate to an individual’s performance, choice of tasks, and emotions. Lynch
(2012) confirmed that the principal’s role in supervision and accountability of special education
programs has heightened as more students with disabilities are educated in public schools. Site
administrators are called upon to collaborate with families and specialists to develop an IEP and
ensure its implementation. This confirms that providing site administrators’ opportunities to
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 108

participate in job-alike groups for the purpose of sharing ideas and developing confidence to lead
special education programs may advance site administrators ' self-efficacy in leading special
education programs.
Organization Recommendations
The culture of an organization is the unspoken understanding of who they are, what they
value, and how they do what they do as an organization (Clark & Estes, 2018). An
organization’s culture supports how the work gets done as a collective group (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). The values, beliefs, and processes of an organization, also known as the
culture, develop over time and has a powerful influence on employee performance. The cultural
model and cultural setting are the intersection of why work or activities are done in a certain way
and the environment in which the engagement takes place. Table 35 examines the assumed
organizational influences, the theoretical principles, and the recommendations as related to
supporting developing site administrators’ special education competencies.
Table 35
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations

Assumed
Organizational
Influence

Validated
(Need)
Yes, No
(V, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
The district must lead
the movement toward a
culture of inclusion so
that site administrators
are motivated to
develop competencies
to lead special
education programs.
(Cultural Model)

V Y Effective change begins
by addressing motivation
influencers; it ensures the
group knows why it
needs to change. It then
addressed organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and skills
needs (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Meet with site
administrators to
review
circumstances that
have led to the
current state, provide
examples of areas of
improvement (cases
that were settled or
litigated cases),
share ideas for
improvement, listen
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 109

to their concerns,
and then develop a
professional
development plan to
expand special
education
competencies and
inclusive practices.

The district needs to
provide a system of
support specific to
supervising and
implementing special
education programs and
services. (Cultural
Setting)

V Y Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) to
do their job and that if
there are resource
shortages, then resources
are aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Meet with site
administrator to
review
organization’s goals
and priorities as
established by the
Board Members.
Discuss areas of
concurrence and site
administrators’
priorities. Work
together to establish
where special
education
competencies are
prioritized and
provide principals
access to resources,
including coaching
and mentoring.

The district must lead the movement toward a culture of inclusion so that site
administrators are motivated to develop competencies to lead special education programs.
The first assumed organizational influence, cultural model, “The district needs to cultivate a
culture of inclusion so that site administrators develop competencies to lead special education
programs” was validated through survey questions related to site administrators belief that the
district needs to cultivate an environment of inclusion, prioritize student learning, and design
classroom instruction which considers the needs of students with disabilities. Results and
findings revealed a gap between the organization and the site administrators in the area of district
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 110

leadership providing training in special education competencies. The effectiveness of a principal
to lead special education requires a high level of competency as education code, laws, and
litigation shifts how districts implement programs and services (Roberts & Guerra, 2017). To
sustain and expand site administrators’ capacity to lead special education programs, the district
must consider how to address the on-going need to stay informed of shifts in mandates and best
practices, including inclusive practices. Clark and Estes (2008) state that effective change begins
by addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it needs to change. It then
addresses the organizational barriers and then the knowledge and skill needs. The
recommendation is to meet with the site administrators to review circumstances which have led
to current state, provide examples of areas of improvement (e.g., cases which were settled or
litigated cases), share ideas for improvement, listen to their concerns, and then develop a
professional development plan to expand special education competencies
As federal and state mandates increase, the result is an influence on how educational
programs are operated and reliant on the knowledge and resources of the principal (Keith, 2011).
Site administrators need to have a strong working knowledge of special education laws and
regulations if they are to be successful as site leaders and support general and special education
teachers with meeting mandates, inclusion, and complying with IDEA (Cohen, 2015; Wakeman
et. al, 2006). There is theoretical support for the recommendation of the district to provide time
to meet with site administrators, review recent cases, discuss inclusive practices, and design a
professional development program to expand site administrators’ special education
competencies.
The district needs to provide a system of support specific to supervising and
implementing special education programs and services. The second assumed organizational
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 111

influence, cultural setting, “The district needs to provide reference documentation specific to
supervising and implementing special education programs and services,” was validated through
survey questions related to site administrators having a shared agreement that engaging in
activities which support leadership of special education programs is important. Results and
findings revealed a gap between the organization and the site administrators’ access to reference
documentation specific to supervising and implementing special education programs. A
principal’s effectiveness in leading a special education program is reliant on current and
accessible information (Roberts & Guerra, 2017). Gaps in access to resources needed to work
may result in a site administrator mis-communicating information to parents during the IEP
process. Effective change efforts ensure everyone has the resources to do their job and if there
are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with the organizational priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008). To support site administrators’ ability to effectively lead special education
programs, the district must consider how to address the on-going need to provide special
education reference resources. The recommendation is to develop a system of support which
includes meeting with principles to review organization’s goals and priorities as established by
the Board of Trustees, discuss areas of concurrence and site administrators’ priorities, work
together to establish where special education competencies are prioritized, and provide principals
access to resources, including coaching and mentoring.
Bateman and Bateman (2014) stated it is essential that principals have the necessary
resources and guidance to lead special education as the complexities and volumes of special
education court decisions have a direct impact on the principals’ daily work. Site administrators
would benefit from having quick access to current reference documentation when presented with
an issue which requires decisions that may leave the district open to litigation. There is
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 112

theoretical support for the recommendation to provide access to ra system of support specific to
supervising and implementing special education.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model was the framework
used to design an integrated implementation and evaluation plan. Don Kirkpatrick’s original
model with four levels has long been established as the model for industries to measure training
programs:
Level 1 – Reaction
Level 2 - Learning
Level 3 – Behavior
Level 4 - Results
The New World Kirkpatrick Model, based on the same concepts, is updated to address the
changing needs in the working and learning organizations and starts with the end as the
beginning. The New World Kirkpatrick Model proposed starting with level 4 results, then
working in reverse order to level 3 behavior, level 2 learning, and level 1 reaction. Level 4
focuses on results, the desired outcomes from the training implementation. Level 3 emphasizes
behavior, the extent that training participants are applying what was learned in the training to
their work. Level 2 shifts attention to learning and the degree that the training participants
attained the knowledge and skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Level 1, reaction,
centers on the degree that the training is received by the participants and the relevance to their
work.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 113

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
This study investigated the root causes for the organizational performance problem
preventing the CSD from meeting its goal of 100% compliance with IDEA. An analysis of site
administrator capability to effectively lead special education programs focused on gaps in the
knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational barriers. Special education is the most
complex area of laws in education with compliance and implementation of IDEA continually
shifting as new case law is established. As most of the special education litigation is related to
activities at the school sites, developing site administrator competencies to effectively lead
special education programs was explored as it is anticipated to correlate to reducing litigation
expenditures.
The literature review and data collected through surveys and interviews revealed seven
influences which were identified as problems resulting in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps. To address the gaps, the proposed solution is the implementation of training
and job aids.
In Table 36, the organizational mission, organizational performance goal and stakeholder
goals are revisited. The findings in this study indicate that site administrators have gaps which
may be remediated through the following recommendation which the site administrators’
stakeholder can be achieved of effectively leading special education program.
Table 36

Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals (revisited)

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 114

Organizational Mission
The Coastline School District’s mission is to support the academic and personal development of
every student so that each student becomes a responsible, well-rounded individual who achieves
success and fulfillment in a global environment.

Organizational Performance Goal
CSD will be 100% compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Act

Special Education
Administrators’ Goal
Site Administrators’ Goal Teachers’ Goal
By June 2020, special
education department
administrators will ensure
100% compliance with
IDEA through a data audit
of the Special Education
Information System.
By June 2020, site
administrators to effectively
lead special education programs
demonstrated by 50% reduction
in litigation expenditures
compared to prior year.

[Ins By June 2020, all special
education teachers will provide
a program for students that is
100% compliant with IDEA,
including IEP paperwork and
implementation.

Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 37 illustrates the Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s (2016) level 4 proposed results and
leading indicators and specifies the desired outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and
internal outcomes. If the proposed level 4 external outcome is met, the result would be training
and organizational support in the development of a district system of support for site
administrators to support supervision and implementation of special education programs and
services. If the first proposed level 4 internal outcome is met, the result would be training and
organizational support for increased percentage of time students with disabilities are included in
the general education learning environment. The second proposed internal outcome, if met,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 115

would result in an increase in site administrators’ participation in professional development
related to compliance and implementation of special education programs.
Table 37

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome
Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes

1. Increase in the number of
students with disabilities
participating in the general
education environment.
Run report to identify
information from the student’s
IEPs through the Special
Education Information System
(SEIS)
[Ins Review and analyze the data for
trends that indicate increased
participation.

2. Decrease in special
education litigation
expenditures.
Log data related to Office of
Administrative Hearing filings
and analyze for trends.
District will collect data on
Office of Administrative
Hearing filings and analyze for
trends.
Internal Outcomes

3. Increase in site
administrators’ participation
in professional development
related to compliance and
implementation of special
education programs.
Capture and log the dates, types,
and number of trainings site
administrators attend.
Rev District will track and analyze
data collected on the types,
numbers, and frequency of
trainings site administrators
attend.

4. District developed a
system of support for site
administrators that is
specific to supervising and
implementing special
education programs and
services.
Special education department
administrators take the lead on
this initiative and are assigned
to support site administrators by
identifying trainings, creating
and maintaining a special
education database of reference
material, and provide mentoring
[Ins District personnel gather data
on site administrators’ current
skill levels and experience in
leading special education
programs. Review data
collected on identified areas of
strength and growth. Document
number of times site
administrators access support
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 116

and coaching to site
administrators.

and compare to the
effectiveness of their
performance.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Table 38 outlines the critical behaviors needed for the site
administrators to meet their stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education programs.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) have found that critical behaviors are actions the group of
focus must consistently perform on the job to meet outcomes. The first critical behavior site
administrators need to perform is to exhibit increased knowledge and skills as the LEA
administrator in an IEP meeting to support compliance with IDEA. Site administrators bear the
responsibility of accountability at the site level with IDEA implementation and must ensure the
IEP is comprehensive of the student’s learning needs and is legally defensible. The second
critical behavior, site administrators exhibit increased knowledge and skills related to inclusion
(LRE). IDEA states students with disabilities are to be educated to the maximum extent
appropriate with children who are non-disabled. Site administrators must have the skills to
cultivate an inclusive environment, support inclusive classrooms and practices, and evaluate the
effectiveness of special education programs. The third critical behavior is site administrators will
report out highlights from professional development. Sharing out newly acquired knowledge
supports site administrator’s self-efficacy and reinforces concepts which can be later applied in
their daily work supervising special education programs at their school sites. The fourth critical
behavior is site administrators will work closely with special education administrators. Special
education administrators have extensive knowledge, skills, and experience in leading and
supporting special education programs. Understanding there is system of support in navigating
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 117

the complexities of special education should help site administrators in fulfilling their site
responsibilities with special education.
Table 38

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behaviors Metrics
Methods
Timing
1. Site administrators
exhibit increased
knowledge and skills
as the LEA
administrator in IEP
meetings

Number of IEP files
with no compliance
errors.
Special education
administrator shall
conduct file reviews to
check
On-going, every
month.
2. Site administrators
exhibit increased
knowledge and skills
related to inclusion
(LRE).

Number of students
included in the
general education
environment.
Special education
administrator shall
conduct reviews of data
in the Special Education
Information System
(SEIS).
On-going, every
month.
3. Site administrators
will report out
highlights from
professional
development.
Number of leadership
meetings, name of
reporting site
administrator, and the
topics.
Special education
administrators review
and analyze data
collected and identify
additional areas of
growth and/or support.

On-going, every
month.
4. Site administrators
will work closely with
special education
administrators.

Number of site
administrators
assigned to work with
special education
administrator and the
number of hours spent
together and number
of inquiries logged.
Mentoring or coaching
arrangement, district
level special education
database of information
accessed.
On-going, and as
needed.

Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe drivers as the processes
and systems which will reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward the performance of critical
behaviors, an additional level of support and accountability. Required drivers are vital to
ensuring the implementation of the knowledge and skills learned by site administrators in the
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 118

training and ultimately support change implementation. Table 39 shows the recommended
required drivers to support the critical behaviors of site administrators.
Table 39
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3
Reinforcing
Job Aid, including online
special education reference
materials related to special
education laws, education
code, procedures, and
compliance with IDEA.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Provide materials, including
professional development
handouts, presentations, links
to webinars, and special
education resources on
disabilities, legal, inclusion,
LRE, assessment, shared
decision making, and services.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Job Aid that details
professional learning
opportunities on the topic of
special education.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Job Aid that visually
represents the IEP process

Beginning of the year and as
needed for new administrators
1, 2
Encouraging
Provide continuum of
professional learning in the
area of special education
giving principals choice in
their skill development.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from
special education
administrators.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 119

Meet with site administrators
individually to review cases
that were resolved
successfully and areas of
improvement.

Rewarding
Acknowledgement at
Leadership Meetings for the
appropriate management of
complex special education
cases.

Monthly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Ongoing need and progress
assessment to calibrate site
administrators’ successes in
leading special education and
identify the need for support.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Meet with site administrators
to review district priorities
and goals and connect the site
supervision responsibilities to
the achievement of the goals.
Quarterly 2, 3
Ongoing IEP file reviews and
analysis of compliance.

Monthly 1, 2
Organizational support. The CSD is committed to supporting site administrators in
achieving their stakeholder goal of effectively leading special education programs. The first step
is to establish expectations about knowledge and skill development in special education. Next,
the CSD must provide training opportunities and prioritize learning for site administrators. If
training is not prioritized, it is likely that the site administrators may not value the professional
development opportunities. Finally, the organization must ensure that site administrators are
provided support by the special educational department administrators through coaching and
mentoring to aid in the IEP process and supervision of inclusive programs.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), learning is the degree
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 120

to which training participants acquire the knowledge, skills, attitude, and commitment. After
implementation of the recommended solutions, site administrators will be able to:
1. Understand and be knowledgeable of compliance and implementation of laws, education
code, and regulations related to special education. (Factual Knowledge)
2. Articulate responsibilities of leading special education programs. (Conceptual
Knowledge)
3. Articulate the responsibilities of cultivating, promoting, and facilitating inclusive
programs. (Procedural Knowledge).
4. Demonstrate that they are capable of leading and implementing special education. (Self-
Efficacy)
5. Value the process of developing competencies in special education. (Utility Value)
Program. The learning goals outlined above can be achieved through a series of
monthly professional development sessions held during a 30-minute block during the monthly
established leadership team meetings. Site administrators will be provided job aids, district
training, and coaching by the special education department administrators. Site administrators
are often shifted to other districts sites after a few years and new site administrators on-boarded,
as needed, resulting in the program being ongoing. Site administrators will be taught using
multiple modalities.
In the first training during the monthly leadership team meeting, the session will comprise
of site administrators being given a job aid which contains the special education laws, education
code, and regulations referenced at a high frequency as well as a visual of the IEP process. All
site principals have some knowledge of special education and the intent of the first training is to
connect new knowledge to prior knowledge and to construct meaning (Schraw & McCrudden,
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 121

2006). Site administrators will also be provided a list of professional development opportunities
put on by law firms, regional agencies, county offices of education, and other districts. Site
administrators will be asked to identify trainings which they deem to be most relevant to their
self-identified and encouraged areas of learning. The special education department will then
facilitate attendance by processing all the necessary paperwork for site administrator’s attendance
at the training.
During the second monthly leadership team meeting, site administrators will be shown an
online shared folder of resources with pre-loaded special education resources on disabilities,
legal, inclusion, LRE, assessment, and links to webinars. Site administrators will be advised that
the resource will be expanded with relevant and updated information based on the latest
practices, case decisions, CDE procedures, and recent training materials. All the information will
have been organized in a manner which facilitates quick access.
The subsequent monthly leadership team meetings will begin with a group analysis of
IDEA’s LRE mandate. Site administrators will then break into small groups discussing what
inclusion looks like at their school sites and share how they cultivate an inclusive environment
and the inclusive practices at their school sites. According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), to
develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned. Inclusion is expected to be an on-going topic of
discussion and learning as students with disabilities are vary in their learning needs and require
individualized supports to access the general education learning environment.
The next several monthly leadership team meetings will consist of principals expanding
skills in leading special education programs through a focus topic of discussion each month or a
case study. Eccles, (2006) stated learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner prioritizes
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 122

the task. The district is prioritizing the expanding of capacity of site administrators to lead
special education programs by dedicating a segment of each monthly leadership meeting to
learning. The aspiration is that site administrators will also prioritize developing and expanding
knowledge and skills to lead special education programs.
Finally, all monthly leadership team meetings will include opportunities for site
administrators to debrief and share information from professional development opportunities
Evaluation of the components of learning. Site administrators’ progress to meet their
stakeholder goal is dependent on their learning goals and engagement in training. Evaluating the
components of learning provides district leadership with an understanding of each site
administrators’ progress in expanding their capacity to lead special education programs. Table
40 provides a list of the methods and activities as well as the time frame for the implementation
of training and expanding site administrator capacity.
Table 40
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks during monthly leadership
team meetings through electronic participant
survey, verbal checks for understanding, and
participant pulse check.

Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.
Knowledge checks during case studies through
asking clarifying questions.
Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Site administrators work in groups to analyze
case studies and share ideas to address issues.
Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 123

District leaders provide feedback to groups
during case study and query analysis.
Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Site administrators reflect on how the
information learned will be applied when they
return to their school sites.

Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Demonstration of the site administrators using
the job aids to successfully implement special
education programming and procedures at their
school sites.

Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Site administrators discuss the value of what
they are being asked to learn.
Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Site administrators respond favorably to
surveys about leadership meeting segment
trainings.

After each monthly leadership team meeting.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Site administrators engage in discussions about
the application of the learned material.
Throughout each monthly leadership team
meeting segment focused on special education
training and topics.

Site administrators respond favorably about
how they will apply the information learned.

After each monthly leadership team meeting.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions after practice and feedback During monthly leadership team meeting.
Individually developed action plan During monthly leadership team meeting.
Site administrators respond positively to
surveys on follow up from trainings.
After each monthly leadership team meeting.

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 of Kirkpatrick’s New World Model is focused on customer service, defined as
the engagement and relevance that training participants intend to use the information gleaned.
Site administrators must believe that professional development is important and that expanding
their special education leadership capacity is beneficial in their work. Below is a list of methods
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 124

and the timing for each site administrators’ reaction to the training provided. Table 41 details the
engagement, relevance, and satisfaction of site administrators as they engage in the trainings.
Table 41
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Site administrators attend monthly leadership
meetings.
Monthly
Site administrators participate in professional
development opportunities outside of the
organization.
On-going
District special education administrators
observe principals engaging in learning.
Throughout the learning segment.
Relevance
Site administrators complete training
evaluation.
After each learning segment.
Survey results from training evaluations. After each learning segment.
Customer Satisfaction
Site administrators respond positively to survey
questions.
After each learning segment.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) it is important to measure site administrators’ initial reactions to the
professional development they attended to gain an understanding of the value and relevance of
the content training program. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) propose an assessment to
measure Level 1, reaction, and Level 2, learning, of the participants of a training. A survey was
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 125

developed, labeled Appendix A, specific to the topic of the training for the special education
competencies which asks the site administrators to rate their engagement, relevance of the
content, and their overall satisfaction level with the training. The first part of the survey is
intended to gain participants’ response and learning to professional development, measuring the
declarative knowledge acquired. The second part of the survey was developed to gauge the site
administrators’ attitude, confidence, and commitment post training. The results of the survey
will assist in ensuring that the following professional development activities are designed to meet
the site administrators’ skill gaps and competency development.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The New World Kirkpatrick
Model (2016) is primarily focused on meeting outcomes and the process to get to the desired
results. Delayed surveying of participants assists with measuring the learning of participants
after they have had time to implement the skills gained at the training. Appendix B contains a
second survey based on Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 3, behavior, and Level 4,
results. Level 3 specifically measures the site administrators’ application of the knowledge and
skills gained from professional development. Measuring the application of the skills when back
at the school site, the first part of the survey, will confirm if the content of the training met the
learning needs and skills gaps of the site administrators. The second part of the survey will
measure Level 4, results, the degree of the intended outcome of the professional development and
its contribution to meeting the stakeholder and organizational goals.
Data Analysis and Reporting
An effective way to measure progress towards meeting stakeholder goals is to use
evaluation tools designed for immediate and delayed feedback after program implementation.
Findings from the immediate and delayed surveys will reveal if the participants increased their
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 126

knowledge, skills, and motivation closing the gap in leading special education programs. Data
from the immediate survey will be analyzed and represented in a bar chart to demonstrate the extent
of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 1, reaction, and Level 2, learning goals. Next, data
will be analyzed from the delayed survey to establish if the participants are exhibiting Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 3, critical behaviors, and Level 4, results and indicators. Appendix
C illustrates the findings from analysis of the immediate and delayed surveys.
Summary
For this study, the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) provided the framework to
design an integrated implementation and evaluation for site administrators who are leading
special education programs. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model assists with the
improvement process using methodical steps which use data to demonstrate progress on meeting
outcomes for this study related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences which
impact the CSD site administrators’ competencies to effectively lead special education programs.
The data collected at each of the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016)
highlight the effectiveness of the improvement activities and reveal if additional support is
needed for participants to make progress towards the identified outcomes. Effective
implementation of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) will ensure that knowledge, skills,
and motivation gaps are addressed resulting in the site administrators effectively leading special
education programs.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework in combination with the Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Kirkpatrick Model provided a comprehensive approach to
identify, categorize, and validate knowledge, motivation, and influence gaps and the creation of
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 127

an evaluation plan with recommendations to mitigate the validated influence gaps. A weakness
of using a gap analysis framework for this study is the revelation of school district’s employees’
areas of growth and their concern about the organization’s awareness of the gaps.

Limitations and Delimitations

Naturally, there are limitations in this research project. The first limitation is the
researcher works for the organization at the center of the study. While the researcher did not
directly supervise any of the site administrators, there was concern about the accuracy of the self-
reporting of skills on the surveys. Additionally, directors of special education throughout the
county where CSD resides all worked for school districts with varying profiles of enrollment,
special education staffing structures, differing leadership structures, differing organizational
cultures, and varying special education service deliveries. Thirdly, there was only one interview
conducted as a part of this study due to the limited timeframe for the study. A final limitation is
the generalization of the results and findings to other school district organizations.
There were few delimitations in the research study. A delimitation is the focus on one
stakeholder group, the school site administrators in the CSD. Other stakeholder groups in the
CSD may have provided additional data which would support achievement of the organization’s
goal although they were outside the scope of this research project.

Future Research
Due to the limitations and delimitations of this study, it is recommended to conduct a
more in-depth research which would expand the scope of the study. This study focused on one
organization and limited the generalization of the findings beyond the CSD. The same study
could be conducted again although expanding the participant pool to incorporate county-wide site
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 128

administrators allowing for more breadth in understanding the site administrators varying
demands, student populations, site responsibilities, and special education service delivery models
that site administrators lead at their schools. Another recommendation is to include special
education teachers and specialists to garner a broader perception of inclusion. A final
recommendation related to conducting the same study on an expanded participant pool is to
extend the length of the study to allow for more depth in qualitative data collection and expand
the collection of site administrator and director interview data resulting in anticipated greater
depth of understanding.
Based on the findings, an additional recommendation for future study is on administrator
preparation programs and the minimal requirement of special education knowledge development
as part of a course on education law. Special education law is the most complex area of
education law and can have the greatest negative fiscal impact to a school district when there is a
perceived compliance issue. An in-depth study exploring the administrator preparation programs
and the most effective method to prepare site administrators to lead special education programs
would provide a deeper insight into what is adequate preparation for supporting specialized
instruction.
Conclusion
The purpose of this improvement study was to gain an understanding of the root causes
for the organizational performance problem that the CSD is having of meeting its goal of 100%
compliance with IDEA. According to research, the CSD is representative of many school
districts across the county that are struggling meeting student’s learning needs with diminishing
funding. Special education, the most complex area of education law, is in state of constant flux
influenced by societal shifts in how students with disabilities should be educated and frequent
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 129

legal case decisions altering the way districts and site administrators approach their work. The
impact of special education litigation requires a considerable amount of time and resources. Site
administrators face the challenging work of leading schools with the expectation of compliance
with IDEA which includes a mandate to educate students with disabilities in the LRE. An
analysis of the CSD’s site administrator essential competencies to lead special education
programs was performed. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework the findings
revealed that the site administrators all possess some level of competency to lead special
education programs although gaps were revealed in their knowledge and motivation, and
organizational barriers exist that inhibit their ability to attain their stakeholder goal and achieve
the overarching organizational goal. Most of the assumed influences were validated and the
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World Model was used to develop an implementation
and evaluation plan encompassing the proposed recommendations of the validated influences.
Special education expenditures consume the largest portion of the general funds after
personnel expenses. Rising costs related to special education litigation take away from resources
that could be available for the education and programs for all students. Rather than make
changes in our practices and procedures as a result of litigation, districts need to shift their focus
to preventing litigation and that starts with the district cultivating a culture of improvement and
motivating the principals to expand their capabilities. As special education evolves, site
administrators must be prepared to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities while
ensuring compliance with IDEA. Successful implementation of the recommendations are
anticipated to lead to capable and effective leadership for special education programs, decreasing
special education related litigation, increasing the resources available for all students, and
ultimately lead to the accomplishment of the organization’s goal.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 130

References
American Association of School Administrators (2016). Rethinking the Special Education Due
Process System. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/rethinkingdueprocess.aspx.
America's high school graduates: Results of the 2009 NAEP high school transcript study (2009).
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/864325851?accountid=14749
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Angelle, P., & Bilton, L. M. (2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in
issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 5-9.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/61815950?accountid=14749
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of Children,
22(1), 97-122. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1353/foc.2012.0007
Bateman, D., & Bateman, C. (2014). A principal’s guide to special education (3rd edition.).
Arlington, Va: Council for Exceptional Children.
Balyer, A. (2017). School principals’ views on administration work, their “Frequent turnover”
and its effects on their work. The Qualitative Report, 22(5), 1471-1487. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1922375160?accountid=14749
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 131

Bettini, E., Gurel, S., Park, Y., Leite, W., & McLeskey, J. (2019). Principals' qualifications in
special education and students with and at risk for disabilities' reading achievement
growth in kindergarten. Exceptionality, 27(1), 18-31.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/09362835.2017.1351367
Blackwell, W. H., & Blackwell, V. V. (2015). A longitudinal study of special education due
process hearings in Massachusetts: Issues, representation, and Student Characteristics.
SAGE Open, 5(1).
Boscardin, M. L. (2007). What is special about special education administration? Considerations
for school leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 189-200.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/09362830701503537
Burke, M. M., & Goldman, S. E. (2015). Identifying the associated factors of mediation
and due process in families of students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 45(5), 1345-1353.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s10803-014-2294-4
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2018). Administrative Services Credential
Program Standards. Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-
prep/standards/asc-admin-handbook-2018.pdf
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2017). Administrative Services Credential.
Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/leaflets/cl574c.pdf?sfvrsn=8
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). California Teaching Performance
Expectations. Retrieved from
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/standards/adopted-tpes-
2016.pdf?sfvrsn=8cb2c410_0.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 132

Causton, J., & Theoharis, G. (2014). The principal’s handbook for leading inclusive schools .
Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
Cobb, C. (2014). Principals play many parts: a review of the research on school principals as
special education leaders 2001–2011. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(3),
1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354
Cohen, E. (2015). Principal Leadership Styles and Teacher and Principal Attitudes, Concerns and
Competencies regarding Inclusion. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186(C),
758–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.105
Cooner, D., Tochterman, S., & Garrison-Wade, D. (2005). Preparing principals for leadership in
special education: Applying ISLLC standards. Connections: Journal of Principal
Preparation and Development, 6, 1-14. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/62002916?accountid=14749
Cope-Kasten, C. (2013). Bidding (fair)well to due process: The need for a fairer final stage in
special education dispute resolution. Journal of Law and Education, 42(3), 501-540.
Correa, V., & Wagner, J. (2011). Principals’ Roles in Supporting the Induction of Special
Education Teachers. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 17–25.
Couvillon, M., Yell, M., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District
(2017) and special education law: What teachers and administrators need to know.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 62(4), 289–
299. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1456400
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 133

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Department of General Services, Office of Administrative Hearings, Third Annual Caseload
Statistics of Timeframe Report to the Legislature. California Information Resources and
Government Printing Office, 2016.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principal and special education: The critical role
of school leaders. Retreived from https://files-eric-ed-
gov.libproxy2.usc.edu/fulltext/ED477115.pdf.
Dunn, M., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J., & Ryan, J. (2018). Charter Schools and Students with
Disabilities: Legal and Practice Considerations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(4),
252–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217712973
EdSource (2012). Credentialing commission imposes tougher test to become school
administrator. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2012/credentialing-commission-
imposes-tougher-test-to-become-school-administrator/23925
Edwards, J. E., Thomas, M. D., Rosenfeld, P. & Booth-Kewley, S. (1997). Identifying survey
content. In How to conduct organizational surveys: A step-by-step guide (pp. 12-23).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452231563.n2
Eilers, A., & Camacho, A. (2007). School Culture Change in the Making: Leadership Factors that
Matter. Urban Education, 42(6), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304906
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 134

Frost, L. A., & Kersten, T. (2011). The role of the elementary principal in the instructional
leadership of special education. International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 6(2), 1-21. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1037909025?accountid=14749
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right” in becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed). (pp.162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gonzalez, R. A., & Firestone, W. A. (2013). Educational tug-of-war: Internal and external
accountability of principals in varied contexts. Journal of Educational Administration,
51(3), 383-406. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/09578231311311528
Grissom, J. A., & Bartanen, B. (2019). Principal effectiveness and principal turnover. Education
Finance and Policy, 14(3), 355-382. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2282415822?accountid=14749
Hammel, A. (2018). Amy and Drew: Two Children Who Helped Determine What Free
Appropriate Public Education Means. General Music Today, 31(2), 29–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1048371317735921
Hoppey, D., & McLeskey, J. (2013). A Case Study of Principal Leadership in an Effective
Inclusive School. Journal of Special Education, 46(4), 245–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910390507
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 et seq. (2004).
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 135

Jackson, C., Johnson, R., & Persico, C. (2016). The Effects of School Spending on Educational
and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J., Popham, M., Ryan, J., & Butzer, M. (2016). Litigation and students
with disabilities: An overview of cases from 2015. NASSP Bulletin, 100(1), 26-46.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1177/0192636516664827
Keith, D. (2011). Principal desirability for professional development. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 15(2), 95–128. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/886529110/
Kirby, M. (2017). Implicit assumptions in special education policy: Promoting full inclusion for
students with learning disabilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 175-191.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10566-016-9382-x
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kurz, A., Elliott, S., Lemons, C., Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Kettler, R. (2014). Assessing
Opportunity-to-Learn for Students With Disabilities in General and Special Education
Classes. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 40(1), 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508414522685
Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2006). Meeting the Needs of Students With Disabilities: Experience
and Confidence of Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1), 19–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636505283950
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 136

Lemons, C., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Kearns, D., & Sinclair, A. (2018). Envisioning an Improved
Continuum of Special Education Services for Students with Learning Disabilities:
Considering Intervention Intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3),
131–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12173
Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the Education System. The Future of Children, 22(1), 97–122.
https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2012.0007
Lyons, W. (2016). Principal preservice education for leadership in inclusive schools. Canadian
Journal of Action Research, 17(1), 36-50. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1826534331?accountid=14749
Lynch, J. (2012). Responsibilities of Today’s Principal: Implications for Principal Preparation
Programs and Principal Certification Policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2),
40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051203100205
Lynch, J. M. (2016). Effective instruction for students with disabilities: Perceptions of rural
middle school principals. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(4), 18-28. Retrieved
from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2056837676?accountid=14749
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in Leadership: The District’s Role in Managing
Principal Turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(4), 367–383.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2010.493633
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 137

Mcleskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are We Moving Toward
Educating Students With Disabilities in Less Restrictive Settings? The Journal of Special
Education, 46(3), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910376670
Mcleskey, J., & Waldron, N. (2006). Comprehensive School Reform and Inclusive Schools.
Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4503_9
McDaniel, T. R. (2010). Driving change in special education. The Clearing House, 83(1), 31-32.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/848217144?accountid=14749
McKenna, J., Solis, M., Brigham, F., & Adamson, R. (2018). The Responsible Inclusion of
Students Receiving Special Education Services for Emotional Disturbance: Unraveling
the Practice to Research Gap. Behavior Modification.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518762398
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/201197171?accountid=14749
Mendels, P. (2012). The effective principal: 5 pivotal practices that shape instructional
leadership. Journal of Staff Development. 33(1)
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 138

Mintrop, H., & Zane, R. (2017). When the Achievement Gap Becomes High Stakes for Special
Education Teachers: Facing a Dilemma with Integrity. Teachers College Record, 119(9).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1929408839/
Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 4-13.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/1044207308315285
Mueller, T. G. (2015). Litigation and Special Education. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
26(3), 135-143.
Mueller, T. G., & Carranza, F. (2011). An examination of special education due process
hearings. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(3), 131-139.
Mueller, T. G., Singer, G. H. S., & Draper, L. M. (2008). Reducing parental dissatisfaction with
special education in two school districts: Implementing conflict prevention and
alternative dispute resolution. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation,
18(3), 191-233. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/10474410701864339.
National Council on Disability. (2018). DEA Series Broken Promise: Underfunding of IDEA.
Retrieved from https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_BrokenPromises_508.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). National Assessment of Educational Progress:
An overview of NAEP. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 139

Prager, S. (2015). An “IDEA” to consider: adopting a uniform test to evaluate compliance with
the IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate. (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act). New York Law School Law Review, 59(4), 653–678.
Principal (National Association of Elementary School Principals (U.S.)). (2013). Arlington, Va:
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Roberts, M., & Guerra, F. (2017). Principals’ perceptions of their knowledge in special
education. Current Issues in Education, 20(1), 1-17. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1913351188?accountid=14749.
Rock, M. L., & Bateman, D. (2009). Using due process opinions as an opportunity to improve
educational practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 52-62. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/6
1844120?accountid=14749.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ryan, J. (2010) Establishing Inclusion in a New School: The Role of Principal Leadership.
Exceptionality Education International, 20, 6-24. Retrieved from
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol20/iss2/3
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory.
Schwartz, D., Blue, E., Mcdonald, M., Pace, D., & Schwartz, D. (2010). From inclusion to
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 140

access: Paradigm shifts in special education. US-China Education Review, 7(8),
108–114. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/758114053/
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (1973) (amended 1998).
San Mateo County Office of Education. (2019). Glossary of special education terminology.
Retrieved from http://www.smcoe.org/learning-and-leadership/special-education-local-
plan-area/glossary-of-special-education-terminology.html
Smith, D. D., Robb, S. M., West, J., & Tyler, N. C. (2010). The changing education landscape:
How special education leadership preparation can make a difference for teachers and their
students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(1), 25-43.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/0888406409358425
Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2018). A Review of the Literature on Principal Turnover. Review of
Educational Research, 88(1), 87–124. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1
166231&authtype=sso&custid=s8983984
Stetcher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B Stetcher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons from education from other sectors (pp. 1-7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Sun, M., & Ni, Y. (2016). Work Environments and Labor Markets: Explaining Principal
Turnover Gap between Charter Schools and Traditional Public Schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 52(1), 144–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616659
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 141

Thompson, C. (2015). The principals' impact on the implementation of inclusion. Journal of the
American Academy of Special Education Professionals (pp 1-6). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1895978611?accountid=14749
University of California Irvine. (n.d.). School of Education. Retrieved from
https://ce.uci.edu/areas/education/admin_services/
Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy of
principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(2).
Versland, T. M., & Erickson, J. L. (2017). Leading by example: A case study of the influence of
principal self-efficacy on collective efficacy. Cogent Education, 4(1)
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1286765
Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing special education administrators for inclusion in
diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the council for exceptional children and the
interstate school leaders licensure consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education,
33(1), 70-82. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/0888406409356676
Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’
Knowledge of Fundamental and Current Issues in Special Education. NASSP Bulletin,
90(2), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506288858
Waldron, N. & McLeskey, J. (2010). Establishing a collaborative school culture through
comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation,
20(1), 58-74
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 142

Waldron, N., Mcleskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the Direction: The Role of the Principal in
Developing an Effective, Inclusive School. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 24(2), 51–60.
Wagner, J., & Katsiyannis, A. (2010). Special Education Litigation Update: Implications for
School Administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 94(1), 40–52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636510372251
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wellner, L. (2012). Building parent trust in the special education setting. Leadership, 41(4), 16-
19.
Wigfield and Cambria (2010). Expectancy-value theory: Retrospective and prospective. In
advances in motivation and achievement 16(A), 35-70. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Yan, R. (2019). Principal turnover: How can we improve working conditions to keep our
principals? Indiana Business Review, 94(2), 1-5. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2268968215?accountid=14749
Yell, M., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J., Mcduffie, K., & Mattocks, L. (2008). Ensure compliance
with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Intervention
in School and Clinic, 44(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208318875
Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, R. (2006). Public policy, school reform, and special education: a
practical guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 143

Zirkel, P. A. (2011). Legal currency in special education law. Principal Leadership, 12(3), 50-54.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1018482336?accountid=14749

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 144

APPENDICES

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 145

Appendix A

Informed Consent

University of Southern California
Information Sheet for Research

EXAMINING PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN
LEADING SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
AN IMPROVEMENT STUDY

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Stacy Wheat at the University of Southern
California (USC). Please read through this form and ask any questions you might have before deciding
whether or not you want to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This research study aims to understand the competencies that principals should possess to effectively lead
special education programs. I seek to address the competency gaps of principals in supervising and leading
special education programs at their school sites.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participation in this study is voluntary and you may stop at any time without penalty. If there is any aspect
of the study that may affect your well-being, you may stop the process. Your well-being is of the highest
value as is your time and expertise.

If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey and participate in a follow up
interview. The survey will take approximately 15-30 minutes in which you will be asked about your role
as director of special education or principal. The interview will take approximately 30-60 minutes in which
you will be asked questions about your role in supervising special education programs. I will independently
conduct a review process after the survey and interview. Participants of interviews will be audio recorded
during interviews to best capture individual sentiments for data collection and analysis. Participants will
have an opportunity to obtain transcriptions of your audio recordings to ensure one’s voice was
appropriately captured. Additionally, you do not have to answer any questions you do not want to during
either interview, or provide documents/artifacts you do not want to provide.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment/compensation for participation in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and be kept in
a secured, locked location. At the completion of the study, direct identifiers will be destroyed and the de-
identified data may be used for future research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies,
you should not participate.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights
and welfare of research participants.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 146

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Stacy Wheat at
swheat@usc.edu or (949) 637-7951 or Dr. Angela Hasan hasan@rossier.usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the research in
general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone independent of the
research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower
Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

Thank you for your consideration!

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

______________________________________
Name of Participant

______________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

______________________________________
Name of Person Obtaining Consent

______________________________________ ____________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 147

Appendix B

Dear Director of Special Education,

My name is Stacy Wheat and I am writing to request your participation in a survey of Principal
Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs. As a doctoral student with the University
of Southern California, I am conducting research to identify the essential principal competencies
to effectively lead special education programs as identified by directors of special education.

The electronic survey will require approximately 15-30 minutes to complete and asks you to use
your knowledge and experience to rate essential principal competencies and important factors in
leading special education programs. One possible benefit from participating in this survey is that
you will have the opportunity to reflect on your district’s principal competencies as they relate to
leading special education programs. There is no compensation nor no known risk for
participation. Your participation in the survey is entirely voluntary. The survey includes some
demographic information that will assist me in understanding you background in education. All
of your responses will be kept confidential. They will only be used for statistical purposes and
will be reported only in aggregated form. If you disclose identifiable information, it will be
deleted and not used in the report of the study.

To participate in this survey, please click on the following link: (will be inserted in email)

Thank you in advance for taking the time to assist me in my educational endeavors. The data
collected will provide useful information informing Principal Competencies in Leading Special
Education Programs.

If you have any questions about this survey, or difficulty in accessing the site or completing the
survey, please contact me at swheat@usc.edu.

Sincerely,

Stacy Wheat

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 148

Appendix C

Dear Site Administrator,

My name is Stacy Wheat and I am writing to request your participation in a survey of Site
Administrators Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs. As a doctoral student
with the University of Southern California, I am conducting research to identify the essential
competencies of principals (site administrators) to effectively lead special education programs.
All building level site administrators throughout the district are being asked to participate in this
study. Your participation in this study is voluntary.

The electronic survey will require approximately 15-30 minutes to complete and asks you to use
your knowledge and experience to rate your perceived level of knowledge and factors in leading
special education programs One possible benefit from participating in this survey is that you will
have the opportunity to reflect on your own skills as it relates to leading special education
programs. There is no compensation nor no known risk for participation. Your participation in
the survey is entirely voluntary. The survey includes some demographic information that will
assist me in understanding you background in education. All of your responses will be kept
confidential. They will only be used for statistical purposes and will be reported only in
aggregated form. If you disclose identifiable information, it will be deleted and not used in the
report of the study.

To participate in this survey, please click on the following link: (will be inserted)

Thank you in advance for taking the time to assist me in my educational endeavors. The data
collected will provide useful information informing Principal Administrator Competencies in
Leading Special Education Programs.

If you have any questions about this survey, or difficulty in accessing the site or completing the
survey, please contact me at swheat@usc.edu.

Sincerely,

Stacy Wheat

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 149

Appendix D
Director of Special Education Survey Protocol
Principal Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs

Experience
First year 1-4 years 5-9 years 10+ years
Years of service as a Director of Special
Education

Credentials Held Yes No
General Education Credential
Special Education Credential
Completed university administrative credential preparation
program

Passed the California Preliminary Administrative Credential
Examination (CPACE)

Please rate your perception of the essential nature of each principal competency as it relates
to leading special education programs

Not
Essential
Minimally
Essential
Moderately
Essential
Most
Essential
Knowledge of disabilities (i.e.,
types and characteristics)

Knowledge of federal and state
laws, California education code,
and board policies related to
special education

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 150

Knowledge of general IDEA
components

Knowledge of Child Find
mandate

Knowledge of assessment
process for determining
eligibility

Knowledge of eligibility criteria
for special education services

Knowledge of the role of LEA
Administrator in IEP Meetings

Knowledge of components of a
legally defensible IEP

Knowledge of shared
decision-making strategies

Knowledge of continuum of
special education services

Knowledge of special education
placement continuum (LRE)

Knowledge of case
management responsibilities

Knowledge of how to evaluate
special education teachers

Knowledge of how to provide
instructional support to special
education teachers

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 151

Knowledge of how to structure
learning environment for
students with disabilities

Knowledge of how to support
access to Common Core State
Standards for students with
disabilities

Knowledge of all curriculum
utilized in special education
programming (i.e., alternative,
teacher-created)

Knowledge of co-teaching
practices

Knowledge of accommodations
and modifications available to
students with disabilities

Knowledge of how to
collect/analyze data specific to
IEP goals

Knowledge of inter-agency
coordination for students with
disabilities

Knowledge of how to create
effective special education
programs

Knowledge of cultivating an
inclusive culture

Knowledge of instructional
practices for students with
disabilities

Knowledge of inclusive
practices

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 152

Knowledge of how to utilize
paraeducator support in special
education classroom

Knowledge of how to utilize
paraeducator support in general
education classroom

Knowledge of how to evaluate
the effectiveness of special
education programs

Knowledge of one’s own
strengths in leading special
education programs

Knowledge of one’s own areas
of growth in leading special
education programs

Knowledge of fiscal
implications of special
education

Please rate the following items as related to principal competencies in leading special
education programs (motivational influences)

Not
Important
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important
Principals believe they have the
support of special education
teachers and specialists to lead
special education programs

Principals believe that they can
positively influence instruction
for students with disabilities

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 153

Principals believe that they
have the support of general and
special education to
successfully facilitate inclusion

Principals believe that they can
eliminate barriers for students
with disabilities to be included
in the general education
classroom

Principals see the value of
students with disabilities being
included in the general
education learning environment

Principals can ask for help from
the special education
department

Please rate the following items as related to principal competencies in leading special
education programs (organizational influences)

Not
Important
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important
The district needs to cultivate
an environment of inclusion

The district needs to develop a
shared culture of responsibility
to expand capacity for students
with disabilities in the LRE

The district needs to prioritize
learning for students with
disabilities

The district needs to provide or
facilitate access to trainings for
special education

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 154

The district needs to provide
coaching or mentoring to
principals that lead special
education programs

The district needs to consider
the needs of students with
disabilities in designing
classroom instruction.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 155

Appendix E
Site Administrator Survey Protocol
Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs

Experience
First year 1-4 years 5-9 years 10+ years
Years of service as a Site Administrator

Credentials Held Yes No
General Education Credential
Special Education Credential
Completed university administrative credential preparation
program

Passed the California Preliminary Administrative Credential
Examination (CPACE)

Please rate your perceived level of proficiency as it related to each competencies
related to leading special education programs (Knowledge Influences)

Beginning
Proficiency
Developing
Proficiency
Proficient Highly
Proficient
Knowledge of disabilities
(i.e., types and
characteristics)

Knowledge of federal and
state laws, California
education code, and board
policies related to special
education

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 156

Knowledge of general IDEA
components

Knowledge of Child Find
mandate

Knowledge of assessment
process for determining
eligibility

Knowledge of eligibility
criteria for special education
services

Knowledge of the role of
LEA Administrator in IEP
Meetings

Knowledge of components
of a legally defensible IEP

Knowledge of shared
decision-making strategies

Knowledge of continuum of
special education services

Knowledge of special
education placement
continuum (LRE)

Knowledge of case
management responsibilities

Knowledge of how to
evaluate special education
teachers

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 157

Knowledge of how to
provide instructional support
to special education teachers

Knowledge of how to
structure learning
environment for students
with disabilities

Knowledge of how to
support access to Common
Core State Standards for
students with disabilities

Knowledge of all curriculum
utilized in special education
programming (i.e.,
alternative, teacher-created)

Knowledge of co-teaching
practices

Knowledge of
accommodations and
modifications available to
students with disabilities

Knowledge of how to
collect/analyze data specific
to IEP goals

Knowledge of inter-agency
coordination for students
with disabilities

Knowledge of how to create
effective special education
programs

Knowledge of cultivating an
inclusive culture

Knowledge of instructional
practices for students with
disabilities

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 158

Knowledge of inclusive
practices

Knowledge of how to utilize
paraeducator support in
special education classroom

Knowledge of how to utilize
paraeducator support in
general education classroom

Knowledge of how to
evaluate the effectiveness of
special education programs

Knowledge of my own
strengths in leading special
education programs

Knowledge of my own areas
of growth in leading special
education programs

Knowledge of fiscal
implications of special
education

Please rate the following factors as it relates to leading special education programs
(motivational influences)

Not
Important
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important
I believe that I have the support
of special education teachers
and specialists to lead special
education programs

I believe I can positively
influence instruction for
students with disabilities

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 159

I believe that I have the support
of general and special education
to successfully facilitate
inclusion

I believe that I can eliminate
barriers for students with
disabilities to be included in the
general education classroom

I see the value of students with
disabilities being included in
the general education learning
environment

I can ask for help from the
special education department

Please rate the following factors as it relates to leading special education programs
(organizational influences)

Not
Important
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important
The district needs to cultivate
an environment of inclusion

The district needs to develop a
shared culture of responsibility
to expand capacity for students
with disabilities in the LRE

The district needs to prioritize
learning for students with
disabilities

The district needs to provide or
facilitate access to trainings for
special education

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 160

The district needs to provide
coaching or mentoring to
principals that lead special
education programs

The district needs to consider
the needs of students with
disabilities in designing
classroom instruction.

Please indicate if you would be willing to participate in a brief follow up interview: Yes or No
PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 161

Appendix E:

Site Administrator Interview Protocol
Competencies in Leading Special Education Programs

1. Where do you feel that you have learned the most about leading special education
programs?
2. How did you specifically learn about special education procedures, timelines, Child find,
etc.?
3. What district special education training do you feel had the greatest impact on your ability
to lead special education programs?
4. What trainings on the topic of special education would you like to see offered by the
district?
5. How many trainings per year would support your skill development?
6. What, if any, special education training sessions did you attend that were not offered by
the district that were most beneficial to your work?
7. How do you assess areas of strength and growth?

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 162

Appendix G

Codebook

Knowledge Influences

Site administrators need to understand special education laws,
education code, and regulations. (Factual)
I
Site administrators need to be prepared to lead special
education programs. (Conceptual)

Site administrators need to know how to promote and facilitate
inclusion. (Procedural)

I

Motivation Influences

Site administrators understand that they are capable of leading
and implementing special education programs. (Self-Efficacy)

Site administrators need to see the value in developing
competencies in special education. (Utility Value)
I

Organizational Influences

The district must lead the movement toward a culture of
inclusion so that site administrators are motivated to develop
competencies to lead special education programs. (Cultural
Setting)

The district needs to provide a system of support specific to
supervising and implementing special education programs and
services. (Cultural Model)

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 163

Appendix H
Special Education Training Program
Initial Evaluation

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
Disagree or
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree
The content
sustained my
attention.

My participation in
the training was
encouraged.

I understood the
materials and topic.

I gained new
knowledge and
skills that are
actionable
immediately in my
work.

The examples in
the material
facilitated my
learning.

The practice
exercises
contributed to my
learning.

The main presenter
was engaging.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 164

Rate the training
facility

A skill I gained from today’s training that I will apply immediately:

I would like additional assistance in the following areas:

This training is important to my work because…

What suggestions do you have to improve the training?

What topics would you like covered in future trainings?

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 165

Appendix I

Special Education Training Program
Program Evaluation

This evaluation is a tool to provide feedback on the training was recently completed. Please
indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the understanding of the skills taught in the site
administrator training.

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neither
Disagree or
Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree
I find value in the
information that I
learned in the
training.

The information I
learned has been
useful in my
practice.

The information I
learned influenced
my practice.

I have seen a
positive impact to
work as a result of
the training
program.

I have positively
impacted the
education of
students with
disabilities based
on the training
material.

PRINCIPAL COMPETENCIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION 166

Please share an example of how the training has influenced your daily work.

What additional information would strengthen your leadership of inclusive programs.

What additional training topics would you be interested in for future trainings?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Principals continue to face shifting responsibilities in the education of all students, including students with disabilities and the related accountability with Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). When a district is found out of compliance with IDEA, the consequences can result in expensive litigation. This improvement study investigated why the Coastline School District (CSD) cannot consistently meet 100% compliance with IDEA. A gap analysis framework was utilized focusing the knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational barriers of the CSD school site administrators. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected through surveys and an interview. Findings suggest site administrators need to expand their knowledge of special education, be better prepared to lead special education, further develop their skills to facilitate and promote inclusion, and the district must cultivate an environment of improvement. Successful implementation of the recommendations is anticipated to lead to capable and effective leadership for special education programs, decreasing special education related litigation, increasing the resources available for all students, and ultimately lead to the accomplishment of the organization’s goal.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study

PDF

Understanding the high school parent involvement gap in the era of local control and accountability

PDF

Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

Equitable access to culturally relevant public-school music programs

PDF

Parental participation in efforts to reduce the African-American math readiness gap at Timber Middle School: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

PDF

STATE public charter schools and extracurricular activities

PDF

Academic department chair readiness to lead toward equity: a gap analysis

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Wheat, Stacy Andrews (author)

Core Title Principal competencies in leading special education programs: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/22/2020

Defense Date 02/25/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,Special Education

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hasan, Angela (committee chair)

Creator Email stacyawheat@gmail.com,swheat@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-284267

Unique identifier UC11674865

Identifier etd-WheatStacy-8301.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-284267 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WheatStacy-8301.pdf

Dmrecord 284267

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wheat, Stacy Andrews

Type texts

Source 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 a...

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