Leadership Preparation for Special Education and Inclusive Schools: Beliefs and Recommendations From Successful Principals

Disabilities

Each principal learned very little about disabilities. Principal Reyes noted, “I don’t think we discussed disability once, like what it means or a certain disability once in my program.” Principal Cabrera recalled a few discussions but not details. Principal Carrola, who was also a school psychologist, believed his program discussed students with learning disabilities (LD). He recalled raising a question about students with autism that went unaddressed. Most principals described learning about disability classifications in a law course outlining aspects of IDEA. Principal Willis, who worked with students with LD as an inclusion teacher asked, “Why don’t we learn anything basic about LD students? We know they are the most common, right? So, shouldn’t all principals get some training in this area before they get on the job?” Others felt it would have been helpful to learn about reading interventions that support students struggling with reading. Principal Cabrera said, “I have a lot of teachers come to me after exhausting their own skillset, like, they ask, ‘What do I do now?’ I wish I knew a little more about where I can point them, like what’s out there.” Principal Willis highlighted schools were at risk of misidentifying students of color into the LD category and concluded, “You’d think, at a minimum, we’d learn more about this issue.” This example reflects a common theme: Programs discussed inclusion and equity issues generally but did not give specifics as to how to support students with or without LD who are having academic difficulty in ways that might address racial disproportionality or how to utilize RTI to ensure all students receive the supports they need and are not misidentified into special education.

Other principals identified autism, intellectual disabilities, and emotional and behavioral disabilities as IDEA disability classifications and as areas where more preparation was needed. Principal Reyes felt, “If we knew more, maybe we could do a better job serving them in the gen ed classroom, or I’m thinking, be able to question placements more.” Principal Gonzalez said, “I know each kid is unique, but it would have been helpful to know some basic characteristics about different disabilities if there are some basic best practices, and some things to know not to do.” Principal Cabrera openly acknowledged she would never know “enough about disabilities” but felt it would have been helpful to know about “resources that are available to teachers, or, trainings and seminars that could be part of professional development.”

Several principals recalled learning “tough lessons” on the job as a result of limited preparation. Principal Saenz shared an experience with a student having frequent and significant outbursts: “The episodes were violent, like breaking things, screaming, cursing, spitting.” She described her feelings after observing one instance: “I could not believe this. I was like, ‘There is no way this kid could stay here.’ I thought we aren’t equipped for this.” She called the district’s autism expert, parent, and teacher for a meeting. They met and redeveloped the student’s IEP and BIP. The expert found a failure to follow protocols. The student’s behaviors dramatically improved after a new BIP was implemented. Principal Saenz said, “I was shocked by the change in behavior. He’s doing so much better now. It’s amazing. Like you wouldn’t believe it was the same child.” Her reflection underscored the importance of understanding disabilities. She said, “I should have known to look into the student’s routines . . . I could have known the basics that might have allowed me to help.” Each principal shared a similar story about not fully understanding a student’s disability and miscalculating his or her fit for inclusion.

Inclusion

Each principal recalled that “inclusion” was a topic discussed in multiple classes, such as “school law,” “the principalship,” “supervision,” and “instructional leadership.” Professors who discussed inclusion did so positively. Principal Reyes said,

In our school law class, we discussed the least restrictive environment . . . what our role is in an [IEP meeting], to make sure the student are in the right placement . . . we also talked about [adequate yearly progress] and [the No Child Left Behind Act].

Several principals reported class discussions allowed them to recognize they had an advocacy role in IEP meetings. Professors mentioned No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) as a critical reason for ensuring students with disabilities had access to the general education curriculum, given that all students were expected to pass state assessments.

Some principals recalled discussing articles on inclusion in instructional leadership and supervision courses. Principal Carrola summed up how several principals felt about their preparation:

I think we learned about it, like values, but not really how to do it . . . I walked in knowing inclusion was what I wanted to do [as a principal], but I didn’t know how to do it.

Principal Reyes noted, “I had a professor, he talked about changing your master schedule and having regular meetings with special education staff . . . I had no idea what that meant in terms of real actions when I started.” Several principals noted it would have been helpful to practice revising master schedules and school policies (e.g., who gives grades in a co-taught classroom and how are grades determined), making decisions about co-teaching assignments, and deciding how to distribute special education teachers and students with disabilities across several classes per grade. Instead, principals reported learning the “nuts and bolts” of inclusion on the job. Principal Willis said, “Inclusion requires flexibility and paying attention to things.” She added, “To make things work, you have to be responsive . . . challenges come up, or they need new resources or a training.” Several principals felt it took “trial and error” or “special attention” throughout multiple years to make inclusion work.

Parent engagement was one aspect of inclusion principals felt prepared. Principal Willis remembered a meme shared in class that said, “Dear IEP Team Members: The other word for Pain-in-the-Ass Parent is Advocate.” She shared the meme with her teachers and said, “I know it’s kind of funny, but it’s important to remember difficult parents want what is best for their children . . . I know some parents have to fight for their kids.” Principal Carrola said, “I felt prepared to reach out to parents and build relationships.” Principal Saenz shared, “I had some hands-on experience in my internship engaging with the community . . . Yes, I was able to apply what I learned to special ed, because parents are such an important part.” Two principals reported how their school–community course conducted neighborhood studies and read about challenges to parent engagement in low-income communities of color. As Principal Willis put it, “Recognizing going in [to the principalship] that it was my job to connect with families helped with inclusion.” As the principals recognized that parents were essential partners in special education, they each valued their learning experiences on parent and community engagement.

Special education law

The six principals learned about special education law in one to three classes during a school law course. They recalled learning about FAPE and zero reject, the LRE, the eligibility and IEP process, and issues related to student discipline and manifestation determination reviews. They felt LRE was not explicitly taught. Principal Willis said she “learned a lot” but left with many unanswered questions:

You leave knowing that inclusion is a strong preference [of the law] and students should be pulled out or separated only when appropriate, but how do you go about discussing and considering this for a student and with a group of parents.

She added, “What I’m getting at, what I don’t think I was prepared to do at all, was help myself or others look at the data, discuss what we know, and come to a logical and data-driven decision.” Three principals noted a statewide problem in special education identification and felt they could have learned more about identification processes (see DeMatthews & Knight, 2019).

Five of six principals reported leaving their programs not fully aware of IDEA requirements. Principal Cabrera said when trying to move toward inclusion, “You get a lot of pushback sometimes.” She recalled an encounter, which she felt unprepared to address:

I had a school psychologist tell the IEP team what her decision was [about a student’s eligibility] . . . She knew a lot more about special ed than I did, but I knew it was a team decision . . . And I do remember learning that you don’t just make a placement decision on one piece of data . . . So, I challenged the team to think more holistically . . . The school psychologist was angry and we had a big disagreement after the meeting.

Principal Reyes’ story reflected the importance knowing the law and feeling confident. She felt that even knowing a “just a little” would have empowered her to advocate for the student.

Five of six principals reported learning very little about disciplining students with disabilities. Principal Carrola said, “What I would tell a new AP [assistant principal], is know how to discipline special ed kids . . . You have to know MDRs [manifestation determination reviews] and BIPs . . Those are what get you in trouble.” ² Several principals found that their school did not appropriately conduct MDRs and wished their programs provided knowledge and opportunities to practice conducting MDRs. ³ Principal Saenz said,

When I arrived [as principal], MDRs were happening, but they were always concluding it [student’s misconduct] was not a function of their disability . . . I said, “always?” I knew this wasn’t right, but didn’t know what I didn’t know . . . I reached out to the SPED director and I learned we were not following the right procedures.

Principal Cabrera had a different experience. Her school consistently concluded a student’s behavior/misconduct related directly to his or her disability regardless of circumstances, especially for students with emotional disabilities. She said,

Teachers were under the assumption that an ED student [student with an emotional disability] could not be held accountable for their misconduct . . . I knew right away this was wrong . . . It wasn’t something I learned, it was just common sense to me . . . It would have been helpful to know more about the law, but this was something I just looked up and called some colleagues on.

Both scenarios underscore how a lack of special education legal knowledge perpetuated inequities.

Complexities of co-teaching

The principals learned little about co-teaching/co-planning in their programs. Principal Willis’ comment reflected comments by other participants:

To close achievement gaps we need inclusive classrooms that work, you can’t learn grade-level curriculum if you are not in the classroom . . . Inclusion requires great co-teaching and they [general education and special education teachers] have to work together . . . That’s a relationship that doesn’t come easy for a lot of teachers . . . My job is to help facilitate that.

Principal Saenz described one of her biggest challenges is supporting co-teaching: “There is so much that can go wrong . . . Yes, there are lots of training, we had them, but really, it’s about relationships and time to work together . . . It really is a relationship thing.” Principals could not recall receiving any preparation on co-teaching/co-planning. They also did not recall training on how to foster a positive relationship between teachers assigned to work closely together.

The principals learned to facilitate and support co-teaching on the job. Principal Carrola said,

I wasn’t prepared for co-teaching . . . Initially, we sent some teachers to [a regional] co-teaching professional development . . . [The teachers] came back and did a train the trainer thing . . . We decided as a faculty to adopt the model.

However, Principal Carrola found many teachers struggling to follow the model and needed coaching. He reflected,

It would have been helpful to learn more about co-teaching, especially in understanding the difficulties that arise . . . A lot of what went wrong early on was my fault as principal, but it would have been nice to know more about co-teaching so I could have predicted our challenges and been a bit more prepared and responsive.

Several other principals reported that their preparation provided them with basic insights into professional development, which included prioritizing and focusing on a set of skills over a long period of time with ongoing coaching and support.

Creating a collaborative school culture

Preparation programs provided principals with opportunities to think about and practice building a collaborative school culture. Principal Gonzalez noted, “I think culture is something we discussed in every class.” Principal Willis described how a field supervisor in her clinical internship prompted her to reflect on her school’s culture and challenges that make change difficult. Principal Reyes recalled a course project that included a teacher climate survey to facilitate discussions on race and equity. Five principals reported receiving training to conduct one-on-one coaching conversations with teachers. Several principals recalled reading the book Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High (Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, & Switzler, 2002), engaging in difficult coaching conversations in classes, role-playing, and observing conversations in internships. Principal Saenz said,

These conversations are never easy, but having a little bit of a script in my head from practicing and seeing a principal do it, it helped for my first time . . . I wasn’t shy and I didn’t avoid it, which I’ve seen people do before.

She felt the conversations “paid off for school culture in the long run.” Principal Gonzalez added, “having difficult conversations is something that makes me really uncomfortable . . . Practicing helped . . . Once, I had a really toxic person. I needed to address it . . . I felt confident.” Principal Gonzalez felt inclusion was promoted by “challenging people with deficit mind-sets” because “word gets out when you have difficult conversations with resistant teachers.” These reflections highlight how principals were prepared to communicate with teachers.

All principals considered developing teacher teams as part of creating a collaborative school culture. Teacher teams were described as engaging in the following actions: (a) engaging in collective inquiry, (b) providing high-quality professional development to support team processes, and (c) collaborating inside and outside of classrooms to locate resources and help address student needs/difficulties. Their preparation provided adequate or sufficient training. Principal Reyes said,

I was able to apply a lot of what I learned to support inclusion . . . Like, how do you build a team and the cohesion, so people can work together, that’s really what you do as a principal, manage people.

Principal Carrola said, “We worked in groups a lot, we role played, we did things to practice leadership and working collaboratively.” Principal Willis said, principals need to know how to “get each grade level or special ed and gen ed teachers on the same page . . . Talking is so important, and having teachers being able to listen to one another.” She added, “I model talking, questioning, and people skills and respect . . . I think this helps build teams and it’s important for me to model it.”

Supporting teacher teams was also related to providing teacher leadership support and feedback. Principal Carrola discussed how he initially facilitated or co-facilitated grade-level meetings, IEP meetings, and professional learning communities (PLCs) because resistant teachers disrupted or hijacked meetings. He said, “early on, some groups just couldn’t get along . . . or meetings were just so unproductive.” His program prepared him for “knowing how to work together and build teacher leaders.” He recalled,

A professor told me that each system is designed perfectly to get its current results . . . If teachers were fighting or not collaborating, there is something wrong with the system . . . I learned to help coach teachers to collaborate . . . Now, a lot of my teachers coach new teachers . . . Things just flow.

Principal Gonzalez found many IEP teams were dysfunctional. She said, “I stepped in, made sure each meeting had an agenda, and that it was followed . . . I observed it, just like it was a class, and I gave them feedback afterwards.” Principal Saenz felt similar, stating, “When you have strong teams, inclusion can really work well for everyone.” The other principals agreed with Principals Gonzalez and Saenz’s comments and shared stories of how they cultivated teacher leadership to support inclusion.

Beyond supporting teacher teams, most principals recognized that proactive teacher leadership was necessary to advance inclusion. Principal Willis explained that cultivating teacher leadership was vital to inclusion and supporting students with disabilities. She said,

You need people to stand up and to have a voice . . . I say this because I think we are not always going to make the right decision . . . We come to the table already knowing what we think is right . . . Sometimes, you need someone to call you out or to challenge . . . you need dialogue and that’s why having teachers able to be empowered is so important.

Principals reported learning how to cultivate teacher leadership in coursework. Principal Reyes recalled her professor saying, “You can’t be in all places at all times, you need help and you need other leaders.” This professor’s comments prompted her to focus on teacher leaders to advocate for special education: “I asked some of my strongest teachers to go out and get trained on co-teaching and bring it back to the school. I wanted them to lead the charge, because people respected them.” Principal Gonzalez acknowledged that inclusion in her school was successful mostly because of these teacher leaders and the way they worked with their peers. She said, “It’s [inclusion’s success on the campus] really not something I can say is of my doing, it’s about these teachers stepping up.”

Using data

All principals described how their programs promoted data to “drive” or “inform” decisions. They recalled courses on “data-driven decision-making” and “instructional leadership” which considered special education data (percentages of students with disabilities, ratios of special education teachers to students with disabilities, and discipline and academic achievement data disaggregated by race and disability). Principals described using data as relevant to addressing schoolwide special education issues. Principal Willis said,

We were taught the value of using data, but not just superficially . . . It’s important I pay close attention to how students with IEPs are doing . . . also, I like to look at their [IEP] progress reports.

Principal Reyes learned in her program to set a schedule for reviewing IEP quality, progress monitoring on IEP annual goals, and to review progress for students with disabilities. She said,

I definitely learned that I needed to be mindful and watch over special education. I remember one of my professors telling me, you can get away with doing a poor job in special ed if nobody pays attention . . . I see my monitoring role as key.

Principal Gonzalez recalled learning about the importance of paying close attention to data. She made valuable connections that enhanced her belief in inclusion. She stated,

We have reading interventions on campus and it’s funny, when you look at the data, some of our SPED kids and some of our gen ed kids are struggling in the same places . . . It makes me think kids are kids. They need the same types of instruction and support.

Principal Saenz recalled initially over-relying on standardized tests. She said, “I overemphasized [state assessment] data in meetings . . . If a student wasn’t passing [the state assessment], something must be really wrong.” ⁴

The principals reported having to learn about how to use data on the job, and in some cases making mistakes early in their tenure. Four of the six principals felt they did not have a “full awareness” of all data types that could facilitate special education decisions. Several principals, including some who were special education teachers, felt they lacked a basic understanding of different types of special education assessments, IEP progress monitoring, and how an IEP’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance should describe the student’s abilities using a broad range of data. Principals Reyes and Cabrera, having no special education experience as teachers, felt the least prepared to consider a wide array of data to inform special education–related decisions. Similarly, each described learning little about RTI, which is a process that can potentially inform special education decisions. Principal Cabrera said,

I was unfamiliar with the different types of data available to make eligibility decisions . . . I thought it was just the school psychologist’s job to conduct an assessment and make a decision . . . Now I know their assessments have certain limits and assumptions, and I know how RTI is supposed to work, I’m clearer on how to use data to support individual students. I also see a bigger picture, of using data to drive improvement across the school.

Principal Reyes also reported learning on the job about RTI. She did not feel she was prepared with a holistic understanding of student progress or how to consider other data points relevant to placement decisions.

Improving instructional quality

Each principal felt they learned instructional leadership skills to implement programs and improve instruction, but not specific to special education. They reported learning little about Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) co-teaching models, RTI or Multitiered System of Supports (MTSS), universal design for learning, restorative justice, BIPs, and evidence-based mathematics and reading instruction. While these programs and interventions are not directly related to special education, they are effective for students with diverse needs. In many cases, the district expected principals to implement these programs or practices. Principal Gonzalez did not translate her lack of specific training to an inability to lead these programs. She stated, “We didn’t get any technical details [related to special education programs], but we have like a generalist hat. I applied a lot of the general stuff we learned to special education.” Principal Willis similarly noted, “Yes, I could definitely know more, we could have covered more areas, but I felt prepared to implement any program . . . The skills and how to lead, it’s transferable.”

Principals found that supporting inclusion had a lot to do with creating a culture where teachers felt comfortable adopting new practices. Principal Willis said, “it is a cultural shift to do PBIS or restorative justice . . . not all teachers. You are talking about not only changing practices but changing beliefs.” The degree to which these programs required change necessitated a focus on structures. Principal Carrola said,

RTI, BIPs, whatever it is, it takes a team approach . . . No, you can’t have one person doing all the work . . . So as a principal, you need to learn to be intentional about building schoolwide capacity.

They reported relying on teacher teams and leaders with expertise to help facilitate a discussion on the challenges to inclusion.

To improve instructional quality, four principals discussed relying heavily on their instructional leadership team or campus improvement teams. They reported meeting with a team of administrators and staff to change the school’s master schedule to allow for common planning time and PLCs that include special education and general education teachers. Principal Carrola said,

[School name] wasn’t set up for inclusion or co-teaching of any sort, so it was a big change . . . If you’ve ever done a master schedule, when you make a change it affects a lot of people . . . So, to make inclusion possible, you literally are changing the way you deploy your teacher resources and how teachers spend time together . . . It’s a major change.

Principal Reyes recalled one of her professors emphasizing the master schedule and implored students to get experience during internships or through volunteering to help. She felt that learning how to facilitate discussions on the master schedule, gathering teacher input, and adjusting it was vital to inclusion because time and opportunities for teacher inquiry and collaboration could be established. Principal Gonzalez noted,

Having the confidence and experience with the master schedule made me comfortable in changing it up . . . I think some principals are scared to really change things because they are fearful of resistance or making a mistake . . . What I learned from my previous principal was that if you are thoughtful about redeveloping the master schedule, you get feedback, a lot of feedback, you can really make a positive difference in your school.

Other principals reported learning how to do the master schedule after their program and struggling to get the schedule right and in ways that promoted inclusion.

To improve instructional quality, the principals also felt that their instructional leadership training helped them think about the structural changes to inclusion and the changes needed. For example, Principal Saenz specifically recalled reading the seminal text, Reframing Organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2017), but initially being unable to fully comprehend the changes that needed to be made to facilitate inclusion. Principal Saenz said,

I remembered the human resource frame and the political frame and the structural frame. I knew that I wanted a more flat school where we work in teams. I knew I needed to create some structures to ensure special ed tasks were getting done and that kids were just included physically, but not really . . . I didn’t know how to plan to do that work early on as a principal.

She added,

Early on I tried to change too much, and I really frustrated some staff. I think I lost some good people in that year . . . I guess, what I was missing was like foresight . . . I had a really poor pulse of my school early on.

Her recall of Reframing Organizations made clear she had a framework for thinking about leadership for inclusion and emphasized a shared or distributed leadership approach to inclusion, but she also reported a lack of awareness of details and what the change process should look like at different stages.