Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

Principals Knowledge

of Fundamental and Current


Issues in Special Education
Shawnee Y. Wakeman, Diane M. Browder,
Claudia Flowers, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell

The purpose of the study is to determine the comprehensive knowledge


base of national secondary principals related to special education
issues. Using a survey developed from the empirical and conceptual
literature for assessing fundamental and current issues in special education, data were collected from a national sample of secondary school
principals. Overall, principals report being well informed in fundamental
issues. Although the relationship between demographics and knowledge
produced mixed results, principal practices have a positive relationship
with knowledge of special education issues.
Keywords:

principal knowledge; special education; survey; secondary school principals

Principals have an increasingly complex role for providing leadership at the


school level that requires them to be more than operational managers. Shellard
(2003) stated that research from the past decade has suggested that effective principals need to be instructional leaders as well as managers of the school. Principals are
expected to establish a climate that provides consistent and frequent opportunities
for the growth and development of all students.
Several studies (Cole-Henderson, 2000; Hallinger, Bickman, & Davis, 1996;
Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witzers, Bosker, & Kruger, 2003) have evaluated the relationship between the principal and student achievement. Overall, these studies demonstrate that principals do have a direct and indirect effect on student achievement

Support for this research was funded in part by Grant No. H324C010040 of the U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs, awarded to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, and
no official endorsement should be inferred.
Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to: slwakeman@email.uncc.edu.
NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90, No. 2, June 2006 153-174
DOI: 10.1177/0192636506288858
2006 by the National Association of Secondary School Principals
http://bul.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

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

153

through the setting of expectations, the establishment of the school climate, and the
demonstration of leadership to stakeholders.
Not only does this research highlight the importance of the principals role, but
special education legislation has also affected principal performance expectations.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997) mandated the inclusion of students in state and district assessments and provision of access to the general curriculum. This mandate was reinforced within the reauthorization of IDEA
(2004). In the Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress (2002), the Office of
Special Education Programs reported that special education students are more likely to be educated in regular schools and regular classrooms as a result of IDEA. No
Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) required principals to analyze the performance of
special education students, teachers, and programs. Principals are held accountable
for the adequate yearly progress of all students within their schools including those
with disabilities. It is critical that principals are knowledgeable about the needs of
special education students as more general education teachers will need guidance
and support for teaching all students. However, Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett (2003)
found that 48% of the principals surveyed in 2001 and 2003 identified the requirement to demonstrate adequate yearly progress with special education and English
as a Second Language learners as unreasonable. As student annual performance
scores are disaggregated by disability status, the impact of the performance of
students with disabilities may have serious consequences for students, schools, and
administrators.
The need for professional development for principals in special education has
been well established (Collins & White, 2001; DiPaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003;
Goor, Schwenn, & Boyer, 1997; Lasky & Karge, 1995; Monteith, 2000; Sage &
Burrello, 1994; Smith & Colon, 1998; Strahan, 1999; Valente, 2001; Valesky &
Hirth, 1992). To be considered competent, principals should have fundamental
knowledge of special education as well as knowledge of current issues in special
education. Unfortunately, research has also demonstrated that many principals are
receiving little to no formal preservice or inservice training. Many states do not
require any course work in special education to earn a principals license (Kaye,
2002; Valesky & Hirth, 1992). In fact, Valesky and Hirth (1992) found that only five
states had a specific course dedicated to special education as a part of their licensing
program for administrators.
Survey research has also indicated that principals are aware of these deficits or
gaps in their training related to special education. Monteith (1998) surveyed 120
administrators in South Carolina and found that although 75% had no formal training
in special education, 90% indicated that formal special education training was needed to be an effective leader. In a study of preservice principals in North Carolina,
Davidson and Algozzine (2002) found that most respondents were not satisfied with
their training in special education law. When DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003)

154

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

surveyed principals in Virginia, more than 75% identified special education law and
implementation as a problem area.
Although these surveys provide some evidence of principals concern with their
knowledge in special education, there are limitations. First, the majority of studies
had small sample sizes and only included principals within one state. The studies also
limited their focus on a single aspect of principal knowledge related to special education. For example, several studies focused on the principals knowledge of inclusion
(Avissar, Reiter, & Leyser, 2003; Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Brotherson,
Sheriff, Milburn, & Schertz, 2001; Praisner, 2003). Other studies focused on special
education law (Davidson & Algozzine 2002; Davidson & Gooden, 2001).
The purpose of the current study is to determine the comprehensive knowledge
base of national secondary principals related to special education issues and the
factors that are associated with that knowledge. The two research questions for the
study are the following: (a) What level of understanding do secondary principals
have related to fundamental and current special education issues? and (b) What is the
relationship between the principals level of understanding to demographics, experience and training, school performance, and their beliefs and practices?

Conceptual Framework
The study focuses on special education knowledge in two domainsfundamental
and current issues. Fundamental knowledge is that knowledge that is core to the
basic understanding of the functioning and history of special education and the
students it serves. The perspectives of Cochrane and Westling (1977), Council for
Exceptional Children (2002), and Monteith (1998) identified five common areas for
principal knowledge: (a) professional practice, (b) all teachers teaching all students,
(c) characteristics of disabilities, (d) legislation, and (e) learning differences.
Professional practice includes principal use of collaboration and reflection. The
second area, all teachers teaching all students, concerns the historical consideration
of the responsibility of general education teachers to teach students with exceptionalities, especially as separate educational systems are no longer appropriate for
students with disabilities. The third common area of principal knowledge, characteristics of disabilities, requires an understanding of the perspectives and indicators
of disabilities as described in the foundational development of special education.
The implications of historical legislative acts as well as recent legislative initiatives
define legislative fundamental knowledge. Finally, the influence of diversity and
assessment establish the meaning of learning differences.
The second knowledge domain of the study is current issues. Current issues are
those that drive the development of research, the writing of policy, and the practices
in special education. This type of knowledge for principals is usually preceded by
innovations that are supported in recent reform movements, research initiatives, and
legislation. Many of these issues began as remedies to deficits in how students were
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

155

being served. For example, the issue of positive behavior support began in response
to the belief that some atypical behavior of individuals with severe disabilities may be
related to communication. Donnellan, Mirenda, Mesaros, and Fassbender (1984) proposed that it was important as professionals to assess the function of those unusual
behaviors as a means of communication. From that proposal, positive behavioral support grew to its current form that is used with students with and without disabilities
to help address the function of behaviors and create constructive ways to change maladaptive behavior patterns (Sugai & Horner, 2002).
Analyses of expert organizations newsletters (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2001-2003) and reports (Berdine, 2003) have identified several recurring
current issues that principals should understand. A combined consideration of this
information provides three prevailing themes of current issues in special education.
These are (a) the issues of accountability, (b) effective and early interventions, and
(c) access to the general curriculum.
The theme of accountability includes ideas related to outcomes for individuals
with disabilities. Effective interventions define what is currently considered as best
practice in teaching strategies for students with disabilities. Early intervention
explores the process of identification and proactive remediation and support provided to young children at risk for having a disability. Finally, access to the general curriculum examines the use of effective curriculum design and tracks changes in the
adopted curriculum for students with moderate and significant disabilities.

Method

Participants
The participants were current secondary school principals in the United States
who are members of the National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP) and on the 2004 mailing list of this organization. Secondary principals
were selected as participants because the 12- to 17-year-old student age-group
demonstrated the greatest growth (40.5%) of students identified as exceptional
children from 1991-1992 to 2000-2001 (Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress,
2002).
To obtain a representative sample of principals, a systematic sampling method
(Creswell, 2005; Fowler, 1993) was used to select participants from the sampling
frame. The sampling frame included the 2004 mailing list of principals from NASSP
of approximately 15,286 principals from across the nation. Using the Krejcie and
Morgan (1970) sample size table, an acceptable sample size for the study was 375.
Typical response rates to mail surveys have been estimated at one third of the sample (Fowler, 1993), so a random sample of 1,000 participants was selected from the
sampling frame. The sample included principals from all 50 states and the District
of Columbia.

156

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

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

Instrumentation
The instructions of the survey were written in italics, and questions were written
in standard type as recommended by Fowler (1993). The survey had four sections.
The first section comprised 8 questions regarding personal and school demographic
information. Responses were either a fill-in-the-blank type (i.e., age, number of
students with disabilities served) or a closed-ended forced choice (i.e., gender). The
second section had 6 questions related to the principals training and experiences (i.e.,
number of higher education classes or trainings attended related to special education).
The third section had 7 questions about beliefs and 7 about practices. The principals
were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statements using a scale of
agree, disagree, and no opinion. The fourth section had 14 questions about fundamental knowledge and 12 questions about current-issue knowledge. In this section,
principals were asked to indicate their level of knowledge using a 3-point scale where
1 = limited, 2 = basic, and 3 = comprehensive.
To ensure alignment between the items in the survey and the conceptual framework from the literature, the researchers compared the definitions of each indicator
or element to the questions about fundamental and current-issue knowledge. The
content of the survey was externally evaluated by several groups. A pilot of the survey was conducted using seven certified principals who were not participants in the
study to determine the clarity of questions and ease of completion of the survey.
Each item on the survey was also analyzed for content validity by one expert in
special education and one expert in educational leadership. This analysis included
the relevance of questions and the accuracy with which it was presented. Finally, the
survey was analyzed for clarity and word selection by a research coordinator. All
three groups were asked for suggestions for further development. As a result of the
examinations, one forced-choice response was altered for clarity. No items were
eliminated.

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

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

157

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

Results

Description of Respondents
One thousand surveys and reminder postcards were sent to the sample participants. Of those 1,000 surveys, 362 were returned, resulting in a 36% return rate.
Although the response rate for the survey is lower than what is recommended for
survey design (Dillman, 2000; Fowler, 1993), this rate is comparable to many survey studies in special education (Mitchell & Arnold, 2004) and with principals
(DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; McCray, Wright, & Beachum, 2004). The
majority of the respondents (75.1%) were male. Most respondents also indicated
their age range to be 51 to 60 years (45.0%) or 41 to 50 years (29.7%). The majority of principals (92.3%) indicated serving students with high-incidence disabilities
at their school site, and 69.6% of principals reported serving students with lowincidence disabilities. Many principals (70.7%) reported that they worked in schools
that had met their adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals, but more than half of the
respondents (51.2%) indicated that they did not have a subcategory for students with
disabilities in relation to NCLB. The most frequent work experience was at the high
school (74.7%) and middle school (54.8%) levels. The most frequent percentage
ranges of enrollment of students with disabilities at their school were either 11 to 15
(33.2%) or 6 to 10 (29.2%).
Principals described their training and experiences with students with disabilities. Most principals (92.0%) reported not having a special education teaching
license or certification. The most frequent number of higher special education classes
completed by respondents was zero (57.1%) or one (16.9%) at the undergraduate
level, zero (45.9%) or one (27.8%) in their administrator training program, and zero
(66.4%) or one (12.5%) in other graduate training. Principals also noted that they
received a little (47.8%) or some (37.6%) information about special education in
their principal licensing program. In addition, principals reported that they had participated in two (23.5%), zero (19.7%), or one (16.2%) trainings or workshops about
special education in the past 2 years. Principals most often reported using resources
related to special education within their system or district (73.9%) or school
(59.1%). Finally, almost half of the respondents (49.0%) identified having personal
experience with a person with a disability. Those respondents who indicated having
a relationship with an individual with a disability most frequently identified the relationship of an extended family member (41.0%).
Principals were asked to indicate their beliefs about special education issues
given the current diversity of students in schools and accountability levels. Principals
overwhelmingly agreed that all students are the responsibility of the principal

158

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 1.

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

Practice

Agree

Disagree

No Opinion

Consistently promote a culture of inclusion

92.2

4.6

3.2

Provide resources for instructional practices

87.1

8.6

4.3

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

84.0

11.2

4.9

Regularly (once a month or more) meet with program

81.9

16.4

1.7

81.1

15.8

3.2

Participate regularly in student IEP meetings.

76.7

20.7

2.6

Consider myself a risk taker.

74.6

17.1

8.3

for inclusive teachers

teachers and staff.


Participate regularly (once a month or more)
in program decisions.

Note: IEP = Individualized Education Program.

(98.6%) and all teachers (94.9%), are welcomed regardless of diversity (94.3%), have
access to the general curriculum (92.9%), are held to high expectations (92.3%), and
have access to instruction in a general education classroom (81.5%). Most principals
did not agree, however, with the statement that all students assessment scores should
count in school accountability scores; only 30.8% agreed with this statement.
Finally, principals were asked to indicate their practices with regard to special
education programs and students with disabilities at their schools. Results can be
seen in Table 1. The level of agreement for all items ranged from 74.6% to 92.2%,
indicating high levels of agreement with all the practices. Principals denoted the
practice of promoting a culture of inclusion most often (92.2%) and the practice of
being a risk taker (74.6%) least often.
Question 1: What is the level of understanding by principals of special education
issues? The first research question inquired about the level of knowledge principals
reported related to fundamental and current special education issues. An exploratory
factor analysis with an orthogonal rotation (varimax) was performed to assist in the
interpretation of the principals knowledge. The 26 knowledge items, means, ranks,
and results of the exploratory factor analysis are reported in Table 2. The scree test
(Cattell, 1966) was employed and indicated that five factors should be extracted,
which accounted for 59.36% of the variance. Items with factor coefficients greater
than .4 were selected for inclusion in each of the five factors. In cases where an item
loaded on more than one factor (for two items), the item was included in the factor
for which it had the highest standardized coefficient.
Factor 1 was labeled Daily Routine as the items were related to activities that principals engage in on a daily basis during the year, such as discipline, collaboration,
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

159

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

Table 2.

Factor
Item

Mean Rank

10

Collaboration with teacher

Collaboration with parents

2.78

.80

Advocate

2.65

.64

11

2.82

.82

18

Discipline

2.75

.60

13

Referral process

2.57

.51

21

Transition

2.07

20

.76

20

FBA

1.92

25

.76

22

Self-determination

1.78

26

.67

23

Nondiscriminatory evaluation

2.15

18

.61

26

Inclusion in general education

2.20

15

.57

25

Curricular modifications

2.32

10

.53

19

PBS

2.38

.44
.44

and accommodations

24
7

Data-based instruction

2.24

14

Curriculum-based measure

2.00

23

.78

Best instructional practice

2.18

17

.69

Program evaluation

2.13

19

.64

Universal designed lesson

1.96

24

.60

Alternate assessment

2.03

21

.60

17

Types of inclusion programs

2.02

22

.54

16

Impact of NCLB teachers

2.35

.88

15

Impact of NCLB students

2.32

11

.88

14

IDEA principles

2.37

.53

Characteristics of disability

2.19

16

.69

Key legislation

2.27

12

.58

Inclusive climate

2.68

.47

Communicate special

2.24

13

.45

12

education issue
Eigenvalue

3.69

Percentage of variance accounted

3.63

3.63 2.44 2.04

14.20 13.97 13.94 9.41 7.83

Note: FBA = functional behavioral assessment; PBS = positive behavior support; NCLB = No Child
Left Behind; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

160

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Information and Knowledge Factors


(N = 362)
Daily
Routine Current Evaluation Legislation Fundamental

Gender

.02

.08

.03

.06

.02

.12*

.01

.05

.04

.02

Years of experience

.06

.06

.02

.04

.10

Percentage of students

.15**

.08

.11*

Age

.16**

.13*

with disabilities
Elementary experience
Middle experience

.02
.11*

.08

.00

.16**

.01

.03

.07

.07

.08

High experience

.10

.08

.06

.11*

.06

NCLB adequate yearly

.10

.05

.05

.06

.02

progress status
Special education certification

.11*

.18**

.14**

.15**

.18**

Personal experience

.15**

.14**

.07

.13**

.14**

Note: NCLB = No Child Left Behind.


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

and advocacy ( = .81). Factor 2 was labeled Current Issues as these items related
to many of the current topics identified in the literature, such as transition, positive
behavior supports, and inclusion ( = .88). Factor 3 was labeled Evaluation as these
items related to best-practice instructional strategies, program evaluation, and universally designed lessons ( = .84). Factor 4 was labeled Legislation as these items
related to NCLB and IDEA ( = .86). Factor 5 was labeled Fundamental Knowledge
and included items such as characteristics of disabilities and inclusive school climate
( = .62).
All three items had a mean at or above 2.0, suggesting that, on average, but
respondents reported a basic level of knowledge for 23 of the 26 items. The three
highest rated items were collaborating with teachers (Item 10), collaborating with
parents (Item 9), and discipline (Item 18). The three lowest rated items were train
teachers (a) to develop universally designed lessons (Item 3), (b) to conduct functional behavioral assessments (Item 20), and (c) how to include self-determination practices in instruction (Item 22). The five items related to the daily routine (Factor 1) had
the highest ranked items (ranked 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6). Knowledge of legislation (Factor 4)
had the next highest ranked items (ranked 8, 9, and 11). The items related to evaluation (Factor 3) had the lowest ranked items (ranked 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24).

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

161

Table 4.

Correlation Coefficients for Beliefs and Practices With Knowledge Factors


(N = 362)

Item Beliefs and Practices


1

Access to general

Access to general

3
4

Routine Current Evaluation Legislation Fundamental


.02

.07

.14**

.05

.11*

.05

.02

.09

.06

.06

High expectation

.02

.03

.04

.04

.04

Responsibility of

.09

.05

.03

.09

.05

curriculum

education instruction

all teachers
5

Principal responsible

.00

.10

.09

.04

.12*

Diversity welcomed

.06

.03

.03

.04

.08

.06

.01

.00

All scores count

Regularly meet

Reflect on actions

.02

.00

.15**

.20**

.23**

.14**

.15**

.26**

.30**

.25**

.19**

.20**

teachers
.05

.01

10

Promote inclusion

.13*

.03

11

IEP meetings

.09**

.06**

.05**

.13*

.02
.07

12

Program decisions

.19**

.26**

.22**

.18**

.17**

13

Provide resources

.11*

.17**

.20**

.19**

.11*

14

Risk taker

.13*

.22**

.23**

.11

.22**

Note: IEP = Individualized Education Program.


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

Question 2: What is the relationship between principal demographics, training and


experiences, school performance, and beliefs and practices and the five factors of
principal knowledge of special education? The scores of the knowledge items that
loaded on each factor in the previous factor analysis were averaged for further analytic purposes. Demographic information such as gender, level of experience, AYP
status, special education certification, and personal experiences was analyzed for a
relationship with the knowledge factors using a biserial correlation. A Pearson productmoment correlation was calculated for demographic information including age and
percentage of students with disabilities.
Table 3 shows the correlation results for knowledge and demographics. Three
demographic items (percentage of students with disabilities, special education certification, and personal experience) had statistically significant positive correlation

162

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

coefficients with at least four factors. The percentage of students with disabilities in
a principals school was related to daily routine (r = .15), current issues (r = .16),
knowledge of legislation (r = .11), and fundamental knowledge (r = .13). Special
education certification was related to daily routine (r = .11), current issues (r = .18),
evaluation (r = .14), knowledge of legislation (r = .15), and fundamental knowledge
(r = .18). Personal experience of a principal with an individual with a disability was
related to daily routine (r = .15), current issues (r = .14), knowledge of legislation
(r = .13), and fundamental knowledge (r = .14). A negative significant correlation
was found for age and the daily routine factor. However, all significant correlations
were categorized as weak, with a range of r = .11 to .18.
Statistical analysis of principal beliefs (Items 1-7) about special education and
their knowledge resulted in only three significant outcomes (see Table 4). The
belief of access to the general curriculum had a significant relationship with the factors Evaluation (r = .14, p < .01) and Fundamental Knowledge (r = .11, p < .05).
The belief that the principal was responsible for the education of all students was
also found to have a significant relationship with fundamental knowledge (r = .12,
p < .05).
Finally, statistical analysis of the seven principal practices related to special education and their knowledge (Items 8 to 14) resulted in 26 significant findings with a
range of r = .11 to .30 (see Table 4). Four of the seven practices had significant findings for all five knowledge factors. One additional factor had significant findings for
four of the five knowledge factors. The practice of reflection had the highest correlation scores (r = .19 to .30). The practices of being involved in special education
program decisions (r = .17 to .26) and regularly meeting with teachers (r = .14 to .23)
also had moderate correlations.

Discussion
This study investigated principal knowledge of special education and the variables that were associated with that knowledge. Through the use of statistical analyses
including descriptive information about the participants, factor analyses of survey
items, and information about the relationship (i.e., correlation) between principal
demographics, beliefs, and practices and their knowledge, reliable information can
be gleaned from the results to reveal several points of interest. First, secondary principals report being well informed, in general, of special education issues. There was
a difference, however, between levels of understanding of fundamental and currentissue knowledge. Next, relationships were found between the principals knowledge
and some of the demographic characteristics, training, and practices. The third point
of interest addressed what principals believe about special education and how
knowledge may influence those beliefs. Finally, an understanding of why principals
knowledge and beliefs matter is related to the principals practices.

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

163

Principals Report Having Knowledge of Special Education


As one purpose of this study was to determine the level of knowledge principals
have about special education, the construct of knowledge was split into fundamental
and current issues. Overall, principals reported being well informed in fundamental
issues. This outcome supports Patterson, Marshall, and Bowling (2000), who recommended that principals have a basic understanding of special education services
and laws to meet the diverse needs of all students in their schools.
One area that some principals did acknowledge limited understanding was current
issues such as self-determination practices, functional behavioral assessments, and universally designed lessons. This outcome supports DiPaola and Tschannen-Morans
(2003) presumption that although principals should be aware of the latest research on
learning and effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities, many principals
need professional development in learning how to use research for educational improvement. Principals who are unaware of the importance of self-determination practices and
transition at the secondary level can do little to support teachers and students in this critical area (Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002; Hughes et al., 1997). Although principals
reported a clear understanding of discipline requirements in IDEA, their lack of knowledge about functional behavioral assessments underlines the need for principals to
understand tools supported by research that have potential to aid in addressing the
behavior of all students with positive outcomes (Horner, 2000; March & Horner, 2002).
Although principals indicated their lack of agreement with the inclusion of student
scores in accountability, they also identified alternate assessments as one of the top five
areas of limited knowledge. As almost 70% of the principals indicated working with
students in a low-incidence disability category, the lack of knowledge about alternate
assessment is of concern. Finally, at the same time as most principals agreed that all
students should have access to the general curriculum and instruction in a general education classroom, more than 30% of the principals indicated having only limited knowledge of, or not being familiar at all with, universally designed lessons. As universal
design is an important way to make the general education curriculum accessible, principal support for its use is critical (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). As principals have recognized
their own need for professional development in special education (Davidson & Gooden,
2001; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Monteith, 1998), these current issues can
provide a springboard to higher understanding and knowledge.

Why Some Principals Have More Knowledge


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

164

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Rude & Rubadeau, 1992). As most principals were between the ages of 40 and 60 and
had 20 years or less of principal experience, participants have either been trained or had
personal experience with the development of special education in its current form.
No relationship was found between principal knowledge and the AYP status or
level of the school. This, too, is not surprising given that more than half of the principals indicated that their schools did not have a subcategory of students with disabilities for NCLB and more than 70% had met their AYP goals the previous year.
Although there is no literature to support these findings, it was interesting that more
knowledge items did not link to school demographics.
Although personal and school characteristics did not relate to principals knowledge, personal and professional activities did relate to their knowledge. Personal experience with an individual with a disability had a clear relationship with knowledge.
Principals who had personal experiences indicated an ability to understand the referral
process for special education and an ability to advocate for individuals with disabilities. They also understood the laws as they pertain to stakeholders of individuals with
disabilities. In the current study, principals, regardless of the type of relationship or
personal experience, realized an increase in knowledge as a result of the relationship.
Having a special education license was related to knowledge. Principals who
had a special education license indicated having more knowledge for all five factors
than those without a license. Principals who did not have licensure, or who had not
participated in classes, addressed their learning needs in special education in other
ways. As most principals reported receiving only a little information about special
education in their administration licensing program, it is unlikely that what principals learned about special education occurred there.

What Principals Believe About Special Education


Principals reported strong beliefs about special education. Of the seven beliefs
statements, more than 90% of the principals agreed with five of these statements. One
interesting finding was that although most principals believed that all students have
access to the general curriculum, fewer principals believed that the students were getting that access in general education classrooms. This difference may speak to the difficulty in defining inclusion (Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; King-Sears, 1997; Luster
& Ouder, 1994) or the lack of training and, therefore, use of inclusive practices and
resources (Bull, Overton, & Montgomery, 2000; Ford, Pugach, & Otis-Wilborn, 2001).
Principals also believed that all students were being held to high expectations. This
is a change from historical expectations for students with disabilities (Thurlow, 2002;
Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003) and addresses one concern of lowered expectations for students as a result of high-stakes testing (Thurlow & Johnson,
2000). As legislation has mandated a change in inclusive efforts for instruction and
assessment, a positive impact of those changes may be evidenced in these expectations.

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

165

Principals reported that the education of all students was ultimately their
responsibility and that teaching all students was the responsibility of all teachers. As
accountability and standards-based reform have forced principals to rethink how all
students are taught, one benefit of these movements has been the inclusion of
students with disabilities (Thurlow, 2002). This acceptance of responsibility may
benefit students through high expectations and improved instruction.
Most principals agreed that they had accepted responsibility for the education
of all students, but they did not believe that all students assessment scores should
count in school accountability scores. This may be due to potential unintended consequences of high-stakes testing for students. For example, Thurlow and Johnson
(2000) identified several unintended consequences including lower expectations,
off-target teaching, and the denial of responsibility for students who do poorly on
high-stakes testing. As principals ask their teachers to teach all students using
aligned content standards, the principals may be concerned that the inclusion of the
assessment scores of students with disabilities that are automatically included in
accountability systems as below standard will undermine the instructional efforts
and morale of both teachers and students.

What Influences Principals Beliefs About Special Education


The principals beliefs about school climate and instruction may have a significant
influence on the culture of the school and individual classrooms (Hall & George,
1999). Because the principals beliefs about access and inclusion may be especially
critical to a schools climate, the relationship between knowledge and beliefs is important. Principals knowledge of instructional procedures seems to be related to their
beliefs about inclusion. Principals who reported more knowledge about fundamental
information, including an inclusive school climate, also reported higher beliefs about
creating access to general education instruction. This could be interpreted to mean that
principals who supported a community of learners for all students also believed
students with disabilities should be taught using the general curriculum.
Finally, a supporting finding was that principals who believed all students
should have access to the general curriculum also understood how to provide that
access through appropriate instruction including the use of universally designed
lessons. Unfortunately, less than 28% of the principals had a comprehensive understanding of universal design. One explanation for this outcome could be that
although most principals believe in providing access, they may not support the idea
of access equating to a full-inclusion placement. Barnett and Monda-Amaya (1998)
found that although principals indicated their support for some form of inclusion for
students with disabilities, they also indicated a lack of support for full inclusion in a
general education classroom for all students. Another possible explanation of the
finding is that principals may not be aware of current information as how to promote
inclusion using universal design for general curriculum access.
166

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Why Principals Knowledge and Beliefs Matter


One of the most important findings of the study was the relationship between
principals knowledge and their practices. Outcomes support the proposition that
principals who indicated having more knowledge are involved in more aspects of
special education programs. In other words, principals who reported knowing more
also reported doing more.
The first practice that had a noteworthy relationship was that of reflection. One
interpretation of the results is that principals who were knowledgeable about special
education reflected on those situations that arose in their school and continued to
glean knowledge from those experiences. As results of this study overwhelmingly
identified the importance of this practice with the special education knowledge of
principals, support can be found for its use within all areas of principal performance.
The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 1996) created its
Standards for School Leaders, a commonly accepted set of expectations for administrators. The practice of reflection can be found embedded within these standards
from promoting lifelong learning of self and others to acting with integrity, fairness,
and in an ethical manner.
Another practice that was notable was the routine of regularly meeting with
teachers. Principals who reported more knowledge of each of the five knowledge
factors also reported regularly meeting with special education teachers. Fullan
(2001) considered the process of relationship building as one of the most important
tasks of effective leaders. As principals understand the distinctive features of the different disabilities and the most successful ways to teach students with disabilities,
the relationship between principals and teachers is critical for effective instruction.
The third practice linked to knowledge was the provision of resources for effective instructional practice. Principals who more readily understood the laws and the
needs of students with disabilities also supported special education teachers with
resources. One reason for this may be that principals who understand what teachers
need to teach and why they need it are more apt to provide resources to meet the
instructional needs of the students.
Participation in program decisions is another practice that had significant affiliation with principal knowledge. The more knowledge principals indicated, the more
involved principals were with teachers about the programs and services provided to
students with disabilities. Principals indicated their firm belief in providing access to
the general curriculum for students with disabilities and their own responsibility for
the education of all students. These beliefs were affirmed through the participation
of principals in special education program decisions.
The final practice associated with principal knowledge of special education was that
of being a risk taker. A clear link to knowledge was established on four of the factors
by principals who indicated their willingness to take risks. An interesting point to make,
however, is that the one knowledge factor not associated with the practice of risk taking
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

167

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

Limitations
Several limitations to this study must be noted. First, the response rate for the survey (36%) was be lower than expected. As principals have been identified as an elusive group of subjects (Cohen & Manion, 2000), a higher response rate may have
been achieved by other avenues. Other studies have achieved higher return rates by
making telephone calls to identified nonresponders (Bouck, 2004; Eignebrood, 2005)
or including a second or even third round of mailings (Barnett & Monda-Amaya,
1998; Bouck, 2004; Jacobson, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1992; Praisner, 2003).
As the survey was a self-report, potential for unintentional bias may occur. As a
self-report is ones perception, the data may not be an accurate representation of the
principals actual knowledge (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). For example, principals
may have known more about issues such as self-determination and functional behavioral assessments but were not familiar with the terms. Despite these limitations, the
study provides a critical foundation for principal knowledge of special education.

Recommendations for Practice and Policy


The current reality for secondary principals is that they have an adequate understanding of fundamental issues in special education. Principals, by their own account,
need support in learning about several current issues such as self-determination,
functional behavioral assessments, universal design, and curriculum-based measurements. Considering the minimal information most principals are experiencing in
their administrator training and professional development and the strong association
between practices and knowledge, it seems evident that secondary principals are
learning about special education on the job. Given this reality, the following recommendations are offered for practice and policy:
1. U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)funded
technical assistance centers need to target principals in dissemination of information. Several of the areas of information for which principals had the least knowledge are currently the focus of OSEP-funded technical assistance centers including
the Center for Access to the General Curriculum (http://www.centerforuniversaldesignforlearning.com), the National Center on Education Outcomes (http://education
.umn.edu/NCEO), the National Center on Alternate Assessment (http://www
.naacpartners.org), the National Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (http://www.pbis.org), and the National Center on Transition (http://www
.ncset.org). In disseminating evidence-based practice on these topics to principals,
the information should be focused on the types of decisions school leaders must make
and answers to frequently asked questions (e.g., Why are students with disabilities

168

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

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


how does it benefit all students?).
Principals who have special education backgrounds or family connections to individuals with disabilities are important stakeholders in policy decisions about individuals with disabilities at the state and federal level. In the current survey, principals who were licensed in special education, or who had family members with disabilities, were distinct from other respondents in their knowledge of the issues.
Principals who understand both the challenges of school leadership and the needs
of individuals with disabilities have a unique perspective in planning policy related
to the education of students with disabilities.
Special educators need opportunities to interact with their school leaders on an ongoing basis. Principals who meet with special education teachers are better prepared to
meet their needs. Special educators need opportunities to share their successes, to identify their challenges, and to receive support as full members of the school community.
Principals may benefit from training on being reflective leaders of programs for
students with disabilities. Although reflective leadership can generally increase the
effectiveness of principals, knowing how to consider the quality of the special education services can be especially important. This article mentions several areas that
principals might consider in reflecting on their schools services. For example, to
what extent do all students have access to the general curriculum? Are all teachers
trained in universal design of curriculum? What opportunities are students with disabilities receiving to learn self-determination skills? Are teachers using functional
behavior assessment to plan for complex behavior problems?
Licensing programs for administrators may need to reevaluate program requirements to include information in special education. As an overwhelming amount of
principals indicated receiving little or no training in special education in their course
work in higher education, principals may begin their career at a deficit for information. As this study identified, there was a distinct difference between the fundamental knowledge and current-issues knowledge of principals. It is important that
principals receive accurate and current information to best comply with the intent
of legislative efforts as well as to be able to provide support for the learning of
students with disabilities to both teachers and students.
Future research is needed to determine the impact of principals practices on AYP
for students with disabilities. Because this research was correlational (versus
causal) and because most respondents were in schools that did not differentiate AYP
for students with disabilities, the relationship between principals knowledge and
practices and student achievement was unclear. Future experimental research is
needed on the impact of training principals in special education on AYP. For
example, does providing technical assistance to principals on access to the general
curriculum for students with disabilities result in increased teacher use of these
strategies and in increases in students AYP scores?

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

169

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

References
Avissar, G., Reiter, S., & Leyser, Y. (2003). Principals views and practices regarding inclusion: The case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 18(3), 355-369.
Barnett, C., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998). Principals knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial & Special Education, 19(3), 181-192.
Berdine, W. H. (2003). The Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
Education: Implications for the special education practitioner. Preventing
School Failure, 47(2), 92-95.
Bouck, E. C. (2004). Exploring secondary special education for mild mental
impairment: A program in search of its place. Remedial & Special Education,
25(6), 367-382.
Brotherson, M. J., Sheriff, G., Milburn, P., & Schertz, M. (2001). Elementary school
principals and their needs and issues for inclusive early childhood programs.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(1), 31-45.
Bull, K. S., Overton, R., & Montgomery, D. (2000). Strategies from instructional
effectiveness applicable to training regular teachers for inclusion. Proceedings
of the Capitalizing on Leadership in Rural Special Education conference,
Alexandria, VA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439885)
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1(2), 140-161.
Cochrane, P. V., & Westling, D. L. (1977). The principal and mainstreaming: Ten
suggestions for success. Educational Leadership, 34(7), 506-510.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge.
Cole-Henderson, B. (2000). Organizational characteristics of schools that successfully serve low-income urban African American students. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1-2), 77.
Collins, L., & White, G. P. (2001, April). Leading inclusive programs for all special
education students: A pre-service training program for principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456604)

170

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in


secondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 169-179.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2001-2003). CEC Today, 8-10.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2002). Professional standards. Retrieved May
16, 2004, from http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/ps-entry.html
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Davidson, D. N., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Administrators perceptions of special
education law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15 (2), 43-48.
Davidson, D. N., & Gooden, J. S. (2001). Are we preparing beginning principals
for the special education challenges they will encounter? ERS Spectrum,
19(4), 42-49.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method.
New York: John Wiley.
DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads:
A study of the condition and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634),
43-67.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education:
The critical role of school leaders (COPPSE Document No. IB-7). Gainesville:
University of Florida, Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
Donnellan, A. M., Mirenda, P. L., Mesaros, R. A., & Fassbender, L. L. (1984).
Analyzing the communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of the
Association for the Severely Handicapped, 9(3), 201-212.
Eignebrood, R. (2005). A survey comparing special education services for students
with disabilities in rural faith-based and public school settings. Remedial &
Special Education, 26(1), 16-24.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about whats needed to fix public schools. Public
Agenda. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.publicagenda.org/research/
research_reports_details.cfm?list=9
Ford, A., Pugach, M. C., & Otis-Wilborn, A. (2001). Preparing general educators
to work well with students who have disabilities: Whats reasonable to the preservice level? Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 275-285.
Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goor, M. B., Schwenn, J. O., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership
in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 133-141.
Hall, G. E., & George, A. A. (1999). The impact of principal change facilitator style on school and classroom culture. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

171

climate: Measuring, improving, and sustaining healthy learning environments


(pp. 165-185). Philadelphia: Falmer.
Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & Davis, K. (1996). School context, principal leadership,
and student reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 527-549.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution
to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Horner, R. H. (2000). Positive behavior supports. Focus on Autism & Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15(2), 97-105.
Hughes, C., Eisenman, L. T., Hwang, B., Kim, J., Killian, D. J., & Scott, S. V.
(1997). Transition from secondary special education to adult life: A review and
analysis of empirical measures. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 85-104.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C.
1400 et seq.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P. L. No. 108-446,
20 U.S.C. section 611-614.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (1996). Standards for school
leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved
January 13, 2005, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf
Jacobson, J., Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1992). Reading instruction:
Perceptions of elementary school principals. Journal of Educational Research,
85(6), 370-379.
Kaye, E. K. (Ed.). (2002). Requirements for certification of teachers, counselors,
librarians, administrators for elementary and secondary schools: Sixtyseventh edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
King-Sears, M. E. (1997). Best academic practices for inclusive classrooms.
Focus on Exceptional Children, 29(7), 1-22.
Krejcie, R. L., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (1995). How principals can help the beginning special
education teacher. NASSP Bulletin, 79(568), 1-13.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Luster, J. N., & Ouder, C. (1994, November). Special educators language: Do
we understand each other? Paper presented at the meeting of the Mid-South
Education Research Association, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. 386898)
March, R. E., & Horner, R. H. (2002). Feasibility and contributions of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral
Disorders, 10(3), 158-170.

172

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

McCray, C. R., Wright, J. V., & Beachum, F. D. (2004). An analysis of secondary


school principals perceptions of multicultural education. Education, 125(1),
111-120.
Mitchell, A., & Arnold, M. (2004). Behavior management skills as predictors of
retention among South Texas special educators. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 31(3), 214-219.
Monteith, D. S. (1998). Special education administration training for rural minority school leaders: A funded proposal. In Coming together: Preparing for rural
special education in the 21st century. Conference proceedings of the American
Council on Rural Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. 471918)
Monteith, D. S. (2000). Professional development for administrators in special
education: Evaluation of a program for underrepresented personnel. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 23(4), 281-289.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Patterson, J., Marshall, C., & Bowling, D. (2000). Are principals prepared to
manage special education dilemmas? NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 9-20.
Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start. Remedial & Special
Education, 22(4), 197-203.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.
Rude, H. A., & Rubadeau, R. J. (1992). Priorities for principals as special education leaders. The Special Education Leadership Review, 1(1), 55-61.
Sage, D. D., & Burrello, L. C. (1994). Leadership in educational reform: An administrators guide to changes in special education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Shellard, E. (2003). Defining the principalship. Principal, 82(4), 56-60.
Smith, J. O., & Colon, R. J. (1998). Legal responsibilities towards students with
disabilities: What every administrator should know. NASSP Bulletin, 82(594),
40-54.
Strahan, R. D. (1999). Building leadership and legal strategies. In L. W. Hughes
(Ed.), The principal as leader (2nd ed., pp. 291-322). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide
positive behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 23-50.
Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial &
Special Education, 23(4), 195-202.
Thurlow, M. L., & Johnson, D. R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with
disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(4), 305-314.
Twenty-Fourth Annual Report to Congress. (2002). Executive summary.
Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/
2002/execsumm.html
Downloaded from bul.sagepub.com at Universiti Sains Malaysia on January 2, 2015

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

173

Valente, W. D. (2001). Law in the schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1992). Survey of the states: Special education
knowledge requirements for school administrators. Exceptional Children, 58(5),
399-406.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access
to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation.
Remedial & Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.
Witzers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Kruger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and
student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-424.

174

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

NASSP Bulletin Vol. 90 No. 2 June 2006

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi