Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Table 1.
Practice
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
92.2
4.6
3.2
87.1
8.6
4.3
84.0
11.2
4.9
81.9
16.4
1.7
81.1
15.8
3.2
76.7
20.7
2.6
74.6
17.1
8.3
(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
159
Table 2.
Factor
Item
Mean Rank
10
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
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
2.18
17
.69
Program evaluation
2.13
19
.64
1.96
24
.60
Alternate assessment
2.03
21
.60
17
2.02
22
.54
16
2.35
.88
15
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
3.63
Note: FBA = functional behavioral assessment; PBS = positive behavior support; NCLB = No Child
Left Behind; IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
160
Table 3.
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
.10
.05
.05
.06
.02
progress status
Special education certification
.11*
.18**
.14**
.15**
.18**
Personal experience
.15**
.14**
.07
.13**
.14**
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).
161
Table 4.
Access to general
Access to general
3
4
.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
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**
162
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.
163
164
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.
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.
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.
168
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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
171
172
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