Responsibility for Supervision of Special Education Programs

and Students: A Principal’s Nightmare Come True

E. Jane Irons
Lamar University

Earnestine Broyles
Texas Woman’s University

Abstract
Changes brought about by current education reforms have highlighted the
leadership role of public school principals. Many authors have identified the instructional
leadership of the principal as the most influential variable associated with effective
school (Collins & White, 200l; DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Goor, Schwenn, &
Boyer, 1997; Hamill, Jantzen, & Bargerhuff, 1999). As the instructional leader of the
campus, principals have inherited responsibility for ensuring implementation of individual
education plans for children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, the
general classroom (DiPaola & Tschannen-Morgan, 2003; Schroth & Littleton, 2001).
This paper examines results of a research project investigating principals’ perceptions
of their level of responsibility for special education programs. Results suggest principals
perceive themselves highly responsible for special education, and in need of trainin

Introduction and Background

Current federal mandates emphasizing the placement and assessment of students with disabilities
in general education is creating interesting challenges for public school principals as well as principal
preparation programs. During the 1970s and 1980s campus principals had little, if any, responsibility
for supervision of section education programs or students with disabilities on their campuses. With
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, and 1997, national and
state mandates and funding allocations have favored placement of students with disabilities in the general
education classrooms (Boyle & Weishaar, 2001; Slavin, 2003; Yell & Drasgo, 2000). In addition, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 2001 commonly referred to as the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act provides support for both assessment and placement of students with disabilities in
general education settings by National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2003 (Walker, 2003).
Implementation of both IDEA and NCLB mandates currently challenge the role of the principal nationwide
(Praisner, 2003). This paper discusses a research study that examined principals’ perceptions of their
competence and responsibility for special education students and programs on their campuses. The
framework for this presentation includes the following topics: the sample, the design, analysis and results,
limitations, and conclusions.
The Sample
Principals were randomly selected from states clustered in each of four different quadrants of
the United States and the state of Texas. The United States Census Bureau data base of schools in the
United States was used for selecting school addresses. The surveys were addressed to the principal
of the school without knowledge of the principals’ names. Three hundred fifty survey instruments were
distributed. Forty-five surveys were received from Texas principals, 18 surveys were received from
principals in the Northwest states, 15 were received from Northeast principals, 16 were received from
Southwest principals, and 15 were received from Southeast principals. One hundred nine completed
surveys were returned, yielding a return rate of about 30%.

The Design
The research design for this study was quasi-experimental because, although the schools were
randomly assigned, the respondents were the principals who were working in the selected schools who
chose to complete and return the survey instrument. Survey methodology was selected for the study.

Analysis and Results

Descriptive statistics were used to identify the sample. Results may be found in Table 1.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare mean differences between Texas principals’
perceptions and those of principals from across the United States. Results of descriptive statistics will
be summarized to discuss the characteristics of participants followed by significant findings concerning
comparison of means.
The majority (44%) of the respondents’ ages ranged between 46 and 55 years. Representation
of males and females was similar, with females slightly higher at 54%. Eighty-seven percent of the
respondents were Caucasian. African American and Hispanic respondents represented about 11% with
each group having 5.5% of the respondents. The majority (48%) reported having between 1 and 5 years
experience as a principal. Fourteen percent reported having between 11 and 15 years experience as
a principal. About 20% of the respondents reported special education teaching experience and 25%
reported having special education certification.
The majority (64%) reported having 1 to 6 clock hours of special education training during the
past year, while all other respondents reported having more clock hours. Almost 15% reported having 13
to 18 clock hours of special education in the past year. The majority of principal respondents (41%) were
from smaller districts with an average daily attendance (ADA) of up to 2,000 students. One-fourth of the
respondents’ districts had an ADA from 2,001 to 7,000 and 22% represented districts with ADA ranging
from 7,001 to 30,000. Only 12% of the principals were from schools with an ADA over 30,000. The
majority of the principals (48%) led elementary schools, 25% led secondary schools, and 28% reported a
combination of elementary and secondary configurations. Over half of the principals reported that 97% or
more of their special education students took the state accountability text as required in the No Child Left
Behind legislation. Twenty-seven percent of those responding reported that less than 50% of their special
education students took the state accountability test.
Table 2 shows principals’ responses by percent of agreement with opinion statements. The
majority of respondents (47%) believed their principal preparation programs did not prepare them to
supervise special education programs. The majority (85%) believed they enforced and adhered to due
process procedures for special education, although 47% were not familiar with the Buckley Act. The
majority (86%) felt they were familiar with discipline, expulsion, and suspension rules for special education
students. Forty-three percent believed they needed additional training in special education. Forty percent
indicated they were responsible for all special education issues on their campus, while 32% stated they
delegated responsibility for special education multidiscipline meetings to special education personnel.
Forty-seven percent delegated responsibility for special education multidisciplinary meetings to other
campus administrators. The majority of the principal respondents (66%) disagreed with NCLB mandates
that 97% of the special education students should take state accountability tests.
An analysis of variance was conducted to examine mean differences between Texas principals
and out-of-state principals. Table 3 shows ANOVA results for out-of-state principals versus Texas
principals. Based on responses to the ANOVA analysis, both Texas and out-of-state, principals perceived
that they were competent in the areas of special education compliance, curriculum/instruction, and
parents/community. Texas principals rated their levels of competency significantly higher in the areas of
supervision of special education and management/finance with respect to special education than principals
from out-of-state suggesting differences between a mean of 35.3 and a mean of 31.5 in supervision, and
a mean of 23.7 and 20.6 in management/finance. Comparison of means between Texas principals and
out-of-state principals clearly show that Texas principals perceived their level of responsibility for special
education to be significantly higher across all areas than out-of-state principals.
Review of the analysis of variance results depicted in Table 4 reveals no significant mean
difference among the principal respondents from the four quadrants of the United States and Texas with
respect to feelings of competence in the area of special education. A subsequent post hoc comparison
of means was conducted to determine specific differences using the Newman-Keuls statistic procedure.
Results are shown in Table 5. No two means are significantly different, but the two means of 28.78 for
the Northwest and Northeast together are significantly lower than the Texas mean of 34.36, suggesting
that principals from the northern quadrants of the United States perceive themselves less responsible for
supervision of special education than do Texas principals.

Limitations of Study
Major limitations of this study center around limitations of survey research. Specifically,
responses were perceptions of respondents and may not represent actuality. The respondents may not
represent the general population of principals who either failed to complete the questionnaire or failed
to receive one. The survey represents only one point of time; and survey research has a low response
rate. Additionally, the principals who chose to respond may have either specific interest or biases toward
special education. This study is limited to the population of public school principals and will not generalize
to other populations. The respondents of this study were primarily Caucasian.

Conclusion
In general, Caucasian principals across the United States and Texas perceive themselves as
having a high level of competence concerning special education compliance, supervision, program and
funding management, parent interaction, and curriculum and instruction. Similarly, these principals perceive
themselves as having a high level of responsibility across all areas with the exception of supervision of
curriculum and instruction. Principals in the Northern tier rated themselves significantly lower with a mean
of 28.78 when compared to Texas principals with a mean of 34.36. The focus upon inclusion in general
education classrooms and provision of special education training in both university and alternative principal
preparation programs in Texas may account somewhat for the difference, although the majority (65%) of
the respondents indicated a minimum of 1 to 6 clock hours of training in special education.
With implementation of the No Child Left Behind legislation, half of the respondents indicated
they failed to meet the requirement that 97% or more of their special education students take the state
accountability assessment. State accountability requirements have been problematic for the special
education population in the past because of the high numbers of students being exempted from state
accountability tests by their multidisplinary team, with special education students taking a below-grade
alternative test that is not comparable. As the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation
become implemented, there are many indications of emerging conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
Table 1 Principal Characteristics (N = 109)

Age
Principal’s Age Range N Percent
25-30 years old 1 1
31-35 years old 13 12
36-45 years old 20 18
46-55 years old 48 44
Over 55 27 25

Gender
Principal’s Gender N Percent
Male 50 46
Female 59 54

Ethnicity
Principal’s Ethnicity N Percent
African American 6 5.5
Asian 1 .9
Caucasian 95 87.2
Hispanic 6 5.5
Native American 1 .9

Principal’s Years of Experience

Principal’s Years of Experience N Percent
1-5 years 52 47.7
6-10 years 25 22.9
11-15 years 15 13.8
16-20 years 6 5.5
21-30 years 9 8.3
31+ years 2 1.8

Principal’s Certification
Principal’s Certification N Percent
With Special Education 27 25
Without Special Education 80 75

Number of Clock Hours of Special Education Training in the Last Year’

Principal’s Special Education

N Percent
Training Last Year (Clock Hours)
1-6 hours 66 63.5
7-12 hours 10 9.6
13-18 hours 15 14.4
19-24 hours 4 3.8
25+ hours 9 8.7

Number of College Semester Credit Hours Received in the Area of Special Education in the Last Year
 Principal’s Special Education Training
N Percent
Last Year (College Credit)
None 92 85
3 credits 7 6
6 credits 4 4
9 credits 2 2
12+ credits 3 3

District Size by Average Daily Attendance

Principal’s District Size N Percent

1 to 2,000 students 45 41
2,001 to 7,000 students 27 25
7,001 to 30,000 students 24 22
Over 30,000 students 13 12

Grade Levels Worked as a Principal

Grade Levels Worked as a Principal N Percent
Elementary Grade Level 52 47.7
Secondary Grade Level 27 24.8
Elementary and Secondary Grade Levels 60 27.5

Percentage of Principals Who Completed the Survey by District Size Comparing Texas to the Nation
1-2,000 2,001 to 7,001 to Over 30,000
Texas v. Nation Students 7,000 30,000
Students Students Students
Texas 49% 24% 18% 8%
Nation 36% 25% 25% 14%
Table 2 Principals’ Opinions Concerning Special Education Issues (N = 109)
Principals Opinions
Percentage
Principals’ Opinion Statements
Disagree Agree
My principal preparation program adequately prepared
me to supervise special education programs 47 22

I am familiar with the federal rules and regulations

governing special education (IDEA) 6 71

I am familiar with the rules and regulations governing

special education in my state 8 66

I need additional training in the area of special education 31 43

I attend at least one legal conference each year on
special education 42 39
I attend staff development each year on special
education 24 60
I am familiar with the Buckley Act 47 37
I am responsible for enforcement of the Buckley Act 39 42
I enforce and adhere to due process rights for special
education 3 85

I enforce and adhere to special education timelines 0 84

 Percentage
Principals’ Opinion Statements
Disagree Agree
I agree with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

mandate that 97% of students in special education 66 29

should take the state assessment
I have a clear understanding of how special education is
funded 26 48
I am familiar with discipline, expulsion, and suspension
rules and regulations for students in special education 7 86

As a part of my internship for principalship, I interfaced

with special education students and staff 42 47

I need additional training in dealing with parents of 57 24

special education students
I handle ALL special education issues on my campus 40 40
Each year I delegate special education issues such
as IEP meetings or discipline to a special education 47 32
supervisor, director of special education or other special
educators
Each year I delegate special education issues
such as IEP meetings or discipline to other campus 39 47
administrators
Table 3

ANOVA Table for National Principals versus Texas Principals Responses

(N = 109)
Survey Response
Principal Level
Groups Level of
Competency Mean Responsibility Mean
of Sig. Sig.

Compliance Issues 32.8 .10 Compliance Issues 33.5 .05*

Curriculum/ Curriculum/ .04*

24.9 .40 26.9
Texas Instructional Instructional
.01*
(N = 45) Supervision 35.3 .04* Supervision 34.4
Management/ .03*
Management/Finance 23.7 .01* 21.7
Finance
.03*
Parents/Community 12.4 .16 Parents/Community 11.8

Compliance Issues 31.1 .10 Compliance Issues 31.3 .05*

Curriculum/ Curriculum/ .04*

23.8 .40 24.1
National Instructional Instructional
.01*
(N = 64) Supervision 31.5 .04* Supervision 30.4
Management/ .03*
Management/Finance 20.6 .01* 19.1
Finance
.03*
Parents/Community 10.9 .16 Parents/Community 9.6

*p < .05
Table 4
MANOVA Table of Mean Differences with Respect to Regional Principals and Texas Principal’s Survey
Responses of Competency and Responsibility Issues with Levels of Significance (N = 109)
Survey Response

Principal Level
Level
Groups of
Competency Mean of Responsibility Mean
Sig.
Sig.

Compliance Issues 30.6 .52 Compliance Issues 31.0 .36

Curriculum/ 24.9 .20 Curriculum/ 22.5 .16
Instructional Instructional
Northwest
(N = 18) Supervision 29.4 .11 Supervision 28.8 .05*
Management/Finance 20.6 .10 Management/Finance 18.9 .10
Parents/Community 10.1 .49 Parents/Community 8.4 .06

Compliance Issues 31.8 .52 Compliance Issues 31.1 .36

Curriculum/ 23.7 .20 Curriculum/ 23.9 .16
Instructional Instructional
Northeast
(N = 15) Supervision 29.9 .11 Supervision 28.8 .05*
Management/Finance 19.6 .10 Management/Finance 16.9 .10
Parents/Community 12.3 .49 Parents/Community 8.5 .06

Compliance Issues 31.1 .52 32.3 .36

Compliance Issues
Curriculum/ 23.8 .20 24.5 .16
Curriculum/
Instructional
Instructional
Southwest
Supervision 33.8 .11 33.3 .05*
(N = 16) Supervision
Management/Finance 22.0 .10 20.7 .10
Management/Finance
Parents/Community 10.6 .49 11.9 .06
Parents/Community
Compliance Issues 30.9 .52 31.1 .36
Compliance Issues
Curriculum/ 26.7 .20 25.9 .16
Instructional Curriculum/Instruction
Southeast
Supervision 33.5 .11 31.1 .05*
(N = 15) Supervision
Management/Finance 21.0 .10 19.9 .10
Management/Finance
Parents/Community 10.7 .49 9.8 .06
Parents/Community
Compliance Issues 32.8 .52 26.9 .36
Compliance Issues
Curriculum/ 24.9 .20 26.9 .16
Curriculum/
Instructional
Instructional
Texas
Supervision 35.3 .11 34.4 .05*
(N = 45) Supervision
Management/Finance 23.8 .10 21.7 .10
Management/Finance
Parents/Community 12.4 .49 11.8 .06
Parents/Community
*p < .05

Table 5

Newman-Keuls Post Hoc Mean Comparisons (N = 109)

Responsibility for Supervision Issues

Region N Subset for alpha = .05

Northwest 18 28.78b
Northeast 28.78b
14
Southeast 31.14
14
Southwest 33.27
15
Texas 34.36a
44

Sig. .23
a
> b p = .003
 References
Boyle, J. R., & Weishaar, M. (2001). Special education law with cases. Needham Heights, MD: Allyn &
Bacon.
DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (March, 2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the
conditions and concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals,
87(634), 43-65.
Goor, M. B., Schwenn, J. O., & Boyer, L. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special education.
Intervention in School & Clinic, 32 (3), 133-142.
Hamill, L. B., Jantzen, A. K., & Bargerhuff, M. E. (1999). Analysis of effective educator competencies in
inclusive environments. Action in Teacher Education, 21(3), 21-37.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-45.
Schroth, G., & Littleton, M. (2001). The administration and supervision of special programs in education.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Walker, D. (2003). CAN report. Council for Educational Diagnostic Service: A Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children, 31(2), 3-4.
Wilcox, D., & Wigle, S. E. (2001). Through different eyes: The ability of general education administrators
to serve at-risk students. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 7(3), 39-47.
Yell, M. L., & Drasgo, E. (2000). Litigating a free appropriate public education: The Lovaas hearings and
cases. Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 205-215.