Explicit Development of Emotional Intelligence Skills to Improve Special Education Teacher Leadership

As a general construct, emotional intelligence encompasses emotional, personal, and social abilities influential upon one’s overall capability to effectively deal with environmental demands and pressures (McCallum & Piper, 2000). Emotional intelligence was further defined by Schutte, Malouff, Bobik, Coston, Greeson, & Jedlicka (2001) as the ability to adaptively recognize, express, regulate, and harness emotions. Diverse cognitive or emotional intelligence skills vary by age, gender, and developmental level (Gardner, 1995), which thereby impacts one’s level of competency or FLOW (Csikszentmihaly, 2013).

Accountability of teacher preparation and graduate leadership programs remain an ongoing process. Both the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2019) and the Association for Advancing Quality in Educator Preparation (AAQEP, 2022) provide standards that expect teacher preparation and graduate leadership program curriculum to address leadership skill development. Emotional intelligence has been linked to effective leadership (Goleman, 2002, 2008b). Unfortunately, within too many accredited programs, emotional intelligence behaviors are implicitly presented rather than explicitly taught and thereby reliably assessed. However, a study by Anderson (2017) indicated a direct correlation between a leader’s demonstrated emotional intelligence behaviors in the workplace and stakeholders’ perceptions of optimal school climate,

Outcomes of Anderson’s (2017) research noted it is not yet known if and to what degree public schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ.  Furthermore, would such schools be more likely to then be perceived as intentionally inviting, having students with higher socio-emotional skills, or have comparatively more diverse learners receiving education in an inclusive setting?  These questions invite further research on the impact of typically demonstrated emotional intelligence and effective teacher leadership within special education settings.

 A study by Byron (2001) found institutes of higher education (IHE) that focus upon emotional intelligence behaviors produced successful outcomes. However, Cobb and Meyer (2000) cautioned that any program seeking to develop emotional intelligence skills “should be empirically defensible, measurable, and clear enough to serve as a basis for curriculum development" (18).  For instance, Sanders’ (2010) quantitative study examined the perceptions of professors that focus upon educational leadership in their work within IHE. Specifically, Sanders sought to identify the professors’ understanding of competencies related to emotional intelligence and the extent to which these competencies were being included within their IHE teacher leadership programs. Left unanswered was whether or to what extent the teacher leaders’ demonstrated emotional intelligence related to stakeholders’ perceptions of optimal school climate

Given teaching is considered one of the most stressful occupations (Palomera, Fernandez-Berrocal, & Brackett, 2008), increasing the importance of emotional intelligence skills training is crucial because professional development in emotional intelligence skills can support teachers’ coping skills within a stressful environment. Teacher burnout becomes more predictable in relation to stress. By contrast, teachers exhibiting high emotional intelligence use more positive, well-adapted, coping strategies to deal with different sources of stress at school, thereby feeling greater job satisfaction (Palomera et al., 2008).

Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform. Teacher leadership may be structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented opportunities and explicit needs within schools. Leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory encourages people to tap into their unlimited potential (Purkey & Novak, 2016). Based on her meta-analysis, Billingsley (2007) found support in the literature for the expectation that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple layers of leadership across school-wide and district-wide levels. Therefore, it makes sense that an intentionally inviting leader’s increased ability to effectively interact with diverse stakeholders would mitigate barriers that confront teacher leaders and their ability to support diverse learners.

To leverage the social, structural, and fiscal, resources beneficial for students with disabilities York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke, and Ghere (2005) suggested teacher leaders should provide the vision, direction, and plans for special education and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across multiple levels within their educational systems.  As a result, prospective teacher leaders would learn to project a concrete understanding of the correlation between the degree to which they are connected to stakeholders within the school and the degree to which they can influence diverse learners’ ability to be connected, feel supported, and optimally succeed within the culture of that school.

Through their educator and leadership preparation programs, every IHE can benefit from encouraging teaching practices that require increased competence in emotional awareness as well as cognition. The results of a study by Rojas (2012) asserted three needs for optimal emotional intelligence development among prospective teachers:

1.  Development of emotional intelligence begins with a commitment to change.
2. Application of emotional intelligence learning is optimized within environments favorable to emotional intelligence development.
3. Pursuit of an ideal allows interdependent application of all other emotional intelligence competencies.

Within the context of emotional intelligence, at least two perspectives are possible: maximal emotional intelligence performance and typical emotional intelligence performance (Gignac, 2010). Typical performance is a more reliable indicator of actual behavior (Sackett, Zadeck & Fogli, 1988). Gignac (2010) and Palmer, Stough, Harmer & Gignac (2009) suggest typical emotional intelligence is purely relevant to the actual demonstration of emotional intelligence skills. Therefore, typical emotional intelligence performance perspective grounds the Genos Emotional Intelligence inventories (Palmer et al., 2009).

Five factors that can be influenced by every leader’s demonstrated emotional intelligence provide a specific framework that contributes to school success or failure. The five powerful factors: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five P’s) become highly significant due to their separate and combined influence (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). Interdependently, the Five P’s provide limitless opportunities for evaluation and development of organizational climate. Grounded in Invitational Education theory, the Five P’s “address the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey & Siegel, 2003, p. 104). Therefore, the Five P’s contribute to the creation of a positive school climate and ultimately a healthy and successful organization (Purkey & Siegel, 2013).

As noted above, various elements produce an effective educational leader. Clearly, emotional intelligence competencies have been correlated with leadership potential (Charbonneau & Nicol, 2002; Dries & Pepermans, 2007). Yet, further examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective educational leadership remains an ongoing need. Increased understanding of emotional intelligence as a concept and development of participants' emotional intelligence will further enhance any IHE’s leadership development programs (Sadri, 2012).

The field of education would benefit from further understanding the correlation between themes such as emotional intelligence, perception of school climate, and effective leadership capable of monitoring and adjusting indicators of success that optimize and sustain educational reform. The awareness and management of emotions, as well as perception of emotions by others, provide critical elements for success as a leader (Cherniss, 2010). Ideally, this article positively influenced your acceptance that our constantly and rapidly evolving society, will benefit from resilient leaders that possess and demonstrate high levels of emotional intelligence.  Therefore, you are intentionally invited to become an advocate for explicit development of emotional development skills as part of every IHE’s teacher preparation and graduate leadership programs.

 

 

To Cite:

Anderson, C. J. (July 30, 2022). Explicit development of emotional intelligence skills to improve special education teacher leadership. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61.

 

Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

            education leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176. doi:10.1080/09362830701503503

 

Byron, C. M. (2001). The effects of emotional knowledge education in the training of             novice teachers. (Order No. 3014883, Columbia University Teachers College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 103-103 p. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/251642822?accountid=7374. (251642822).

 Charbonneau, D., & Nicol, A. M. (2002). Emotional intelligence and leadership in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1101–1113 doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(01)00216-1

 Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 110–126. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231

 Cobb, C.D., & Mayer, J.D. (2000). Emotional Intelligence: What the research says. Educational Leadership. 58(3). 14-18. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov00/vol58/num03/toc.aspx

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2019). CAEP Accreditation Standards.           Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/accreditation/caep-accreditation/spa-standards-and-report-forms

 

Csikszentmihaly, M. (2013). Creativity: The psychology of discovery and invention (Reprint edition.). New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 9780062283252.

 

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: A metacompetency perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(8), 749–770. doi:10.1108/01437730710835470

 

Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi

            Delta Kappan. 4. 200- 209. Retrieved from:

https://learnweb.harvard.edu/WIDE/courses/files/Reflections.pdf

 

Gignac, G. E. (2010). Seven-Factor model of emotional intelligence as measured by

            Genos EI: A confirmatory factor analytic investigation based on self- and rater-

            report data. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 309-316

doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000041

 

Goleman, D. (2006a). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

 

Goleman, D. (2006b). The socially intelligent leader. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 76–

            81. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept06/vol64/num01/toc.aspx

 

McCallum, M., & Piper, W. (2000). Psychological mindedness and emotional

            intelligence. In R.Bar-On & J. Parker (Ed.), The Handbook of Emotional

            Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home,

            School, and in the Workplace (pp. 118-135). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  ISBN:   0-7879-4984-1

 

Palmer, B. R., Stough, C., Harmer, R., & Gignac, G. E. (2009). The Genos Emotional

            Intelligence Inventory: A measure designed specifically for the workplace. In C.

            Stough, D. Saklofske, & J. Parker (Ed.), Assessing emotional intelligence:

            Theory, research & applications (pp. 103-118). New York: Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-88370-0_6

 

Palomera, R., Fernandez-Berrocal, P., & Brackett, M. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence

            as a basic competency in pre-service teacher training: some 135 evidence.

            Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6(2), 437-454.

            Retrieved from: http://www.investigacion-            psicopedagogica.org/revista/articulos/15/english/Art_15_276.pdf

 

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J.M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2^nd ed). The International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from: https://www.invitationaleducation.net/product-category/books/

Rojas, M. (2012). The missing link: Emotional intelligence in teacher preparation. (Order

No. 3495309, Arizona State University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 220.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/923616326?accountid=7374.

(923616326).

 

Sackett, P. R., Zedeck, S., & Fogli, L. (1988). Relations between measures of typical and

maximum job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 482–486.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.482

 

Sadri, G. (2012). Emotional intelligence and leadership development. Public Personnel

 Management, 41(3), 535-548. doi.org/10.1177/009102601204100308

 

Sanders, S.C. (2010) Emotional intelligence, a necessary component of educational

            leadership programs, as perceived by professors of educational leadership

            (Doctoral Dissertation).

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Bobik, C., Coston, T.D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., et al.

            (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social

            Psychology, 141(4), 523-536. doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600569

 

York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive

            education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal

            of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374

  

Demonstrated Leadership and the Pursuit of Ethics in Special Education

When teachers are provided on-going opportunities to learn through experiences, experiment with new ideas, and then creatively implement new programs; they are more likely to become teacher leaders in both their schools and communities.  These opportunities are beneficial by allowing prospective teacher leaders to develop broader perspectives related to the identified needs within schools and across the district.  This encourages reflection about their own practices and provides variety in their work and recognition of their expertise.  These roles and opportunities thereby influence others and serve as critical forms of ethical renewal for the field of special education.

The great divide in education may not be between general and special educators but rather between community ethics compared to professional ethics.  Although values and ethics are frequently used interchangeably, the two terms are not identical. Values pertains to beliefs and attitudes that provide direction to everyday living, whereas ethics pertains to the beliefs we hold about what constitutes right conduct. Ethics are moral principles adopted by an individual or group to provide rules for right conduct. As noted by Remley and Herlihy (2016), ethics are aspirational goals representing the maximum or ideal standards set by the profession, practiced through your professional behavior and interactions.

If you agree that it is essential to place principles before personalities, then as an ethical professional you would seek to integrate virtue ethics and principled ethics to reach better ethical decisions and policies. Let's take this moment to differentiate between principled ethics and virtue ethics. Principled ethics are a set of obligations and a method that focuses on moral issues with the goals of solving a particular dilemma or set of dilemmas and establishing a framework to guide future ethical thinking and behavior (Meara, Schmidt, & Day, 1996). By contrast, virtue ethics focus upon the professional's character traits and nonobligatory ideals to which she or he aspires rather than on solving specific ethical dilemmas.

Reflecting upon principled ethics we tend to ask, ‘Is this unethical?’ By contrast, in the pursuit of virtue ethics we might reflect upon whether one is doing what is best for his or her followers, clients, or students. Crucially, virtue ethics requires consciousness of ethical behavior. Therefore, the virtuous professional would deem it unethical to use approaches or techniques that might not result in the greatest benefit to her or his followers, clients, or students or to use any techniques to which he or she has not been thoroughly trained, even if their use might not be prohibited in practice.

Therefore, virtue ethics focus upon ideals rather than obligations and on the character of the professional rather than on the action itself. Thus, the intentional demonstration of principles before personalities.  Five characteristics of virtuous professionals were described by Meara et al (1996).  These were:

·       Virtuous agents are motivated to do what is right because they judge it to be right, not just because they feel obligated or fear the consequences.

·    Virtuous agents rely on vision and discernment, which involve sensitivity, judgment, and understanding that lead to decisive action.

·      Virtuous agents have compassion and are sensitive to the suffering of others. They are able to take actions to reduce their clients’ pain.

· Virtuous agents are self-aware. They know how their assumptions, convictions, and biases are likely to affect their interactions with others.

·  Virtuous agents are connected with and understand the mores of their community and the importance of community in moral decision making, policy setting, and character development. They understand the ideals and expectations of their community.

So, how can special educators become empowered to always demonstrate principles before personalities? Finding few references to the leadership roles of special educators, Billingsley (2007) explored potential contributions of teacher leadership for special education by reviewing select teacher literature from general education-- including the “emergence of new teacher roles in schools, the roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and potential benefits of teacher leadership” (p. 164).  Analyzed research, drawn conclusions, and provided implications for future practice or research by York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke, and Ghere, (2005); Bays and Crockett (2007); as well as Billingsley (2007) were each grounded within the conceptual framework of special education leadership and the ethical treatment of students with special needs.  While each study’s limited sample certainly restricts the ability to generalize results, the shared references amongst and between the collective researchers served to narrow the focus of each study while expanding the implications of individual results to the field of special education and educational leadership.

Conducting a meta-analysis of nearly 50 articles and studies was conducted in addition to a case-study interview with a special education teacher who possessed nearly thirty- years of experience during which time she reviewed the professional literature to develop the Supports with Imagination and Meaning (SWIM) program, Billingsley (2007) selected and reviewed teacher leadership literature in general education, including the emergence of new teacher roles in schools, roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and possible benefits of teachers as leaders.  After reviewing several examples of teacher leadership in special education, Billingsley investigated barriers to teacher leadership and ways of supporting the work of teacher leaders.  As a result, Billingsley found support in the literature for the belief that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple leaders across school-wide and district-wide levels.  Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform.  Therefore, teacher leadership may be structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented opportunities and explicit needs within schools.

Special educators become leaders by adeptly confronting barriers to the education of students who have disabilities, rather than accepting the norms and values of the status quo (Billingsley, 2007, p. 166).  Through focus group interviews with special educators selected based on documented effectiveness serving students with low-incidence disabilities York-Barr et al. (2005) found it is better to “understand their realities of practice in inclusive education and to identify supports for such practice” (p. 193). Although York-Barr et al did not specifically focus upon teacher leadership, they did discuss how special educators served as “informal leaders” (p. 200) by articulating “a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts functioned organizationally and politically” (p. 193). They also suggested that teacher leaders provided the vision, direction, and plans for special education and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across multiple levels within their educational systems, thereby leveraging the social, structural and fiscal resources beneficial for students with disabilities.  In doing so, prospective teacher leaders project a concrete understanding that the degree to which they are connected in a school influences the degree to which students with disabilities are connected, supported, and provided opportunities for success within the culture of the school (p. 211).

The invitational leadership model provides a comprehensive design that is inclusive of many vital elements needed for the success of today’s educational organizations. As cited by Burns and Martin (2010, “Invitational theory is a collection of assumptions that seek to explain phenomena and provide a means of intentionally summoning people to realize their relatively boundless potential in all areas of worthwhile human endeavor” (Purkey, 2016, p.5).  Studies by Purkey & Siegel (2013) as well as Burns and Martin (2010), posited leadership advancing Invitational Education (IE) theory would encourage people to tap into their unlimited potential. IE theory includes vital elements needed for success within today’s educational organizations (Burns & Martin, 2010). Therefore, teacher preparation and graduate programs intending to develop highly qualified teacher leaders are ethically obligated to seek to identify and optimize professional development based on correlates addressing educational leadership (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2022). Optimal educational leadership has been identified as a correlate that promotes sustained school success (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).

Clearly further research on teacher leadership in special education is required to promote the opportunities for teacher leaders in schools and optimize student learning in the least restrictive environment, which is the clearest indicator of professional ethics. Possible research questions suggested by Billingsley include:

• What is the nature of teacher leaders’ roles at the school (e.g., elementary, secondary) and district levels?
• What factors (e.g., personal, organizational, preparation) influence the exercise of special education leadership by both special and general educators?

o   How does the culture of the district and school influence teacher leaders’ work?

o   How do special education leaders learn to work within the social organization of their schools?” (173)

Additionally, related to previous research by Anderson (2017), it is not yet known if and to what degree public schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ.  Are such schools more likely to have students receiving education in an inclusive setting?  These are crucial questions that invite further research on effective teacher leadership in special education.   

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 30, 2022). Demonstrated leadership and the pursuit of ethics in special education. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 23, 35-61. 

 

Bagley, S. & Tang, K. (2018) Teacher leadership in special education: Exploring skills, roles,

and perceptions. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) 2  (1) Dec

 

Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special

            education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161. doi:10.1080/09362830701503495

 

Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

            education leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176. doi:10.1080/09362830701503503

 

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the Effectiveness of Male and Female

Educational Leaders Who Made Use of the Invitational Leadership Style of Leadership. Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 1629-55. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

 Crockett, J. B. (2007). INTRODUCTION: The Changing Landscape of Special Education             Administration. Exceptionality, 15(3), 139-142. doi:10.1080/09362830701503487

 

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework.

            Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187. doi:10.1080/09362830701503511

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the             Correlates. Solution Tree Press

Meara, N.S. Schmidt, L.D., & Day, J.D. (1996) Principles and virtues: A foundation of ethical decisions, policies, and character; The Counseling Psychologist, 24 (1), 24-31.

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J.M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education (2^nd ed). The International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

https://www.invitationaleducation.net/product-category/books/

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach yo professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from: 

http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Remley, T.P. & Herlihy, B. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Pearson

 

Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (2000). Ethical leadership and decision making in education :

            Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

            Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive

            education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal

            of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374

Special Education Leadership and the Pursuit of Ethical Practice

            Special educators who serve students in inclusive educational settings as well as those serving students with severe disabilities are more likely to experience complex and fragmented work lives.  While special education has become a major concern for school leaders, too few studies have addressed the supervisory practices or the contributions and roles for teacher leadership in special education (York-Barr, Sommerness, Duke & Ghere., 2005; Bays and Crockett,2007; Billingsley, 2007; Bagley & Tang, 2018).  This lack of knowledge related to effective supervision and promotion of teacher leaders may be a contributing factor to why special educators are more likely to depart the educational profession (Ingersoll, 2001) or why students with special needs do not always receive optimal FAPE.

Bays and Crockett (2007) found principals attempting to balance management, administrative, and supervisory duties; monitoring legal compliance; and ensuring instructional quality exhibited minimal level of interactions with teachers regarding the improvement of teaching and learning for students with special needs.  Desiring to contribute knowledge and strategies that would result in improved support of special educators seeking inclusive, high quality educational experiences for students with disabilities, York-Barr et al’s well-grounded qualitative research (2005) aligned with and extended previous findings by the Council for Exceptional Children (2001) and yielded eight major findings organized into three clusters:

·         the nature of the work of special educators,

·         special educators demonstrating leadership functions, and

·         differentiated support realized from others. 

Finding few references to the leadership roles of special educators, Billingsley (2007) explored potential contributions of teacher leadership for special education by reviewing select teacher literature from general education-- including the “emergence of new teacher roles in schools, the roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and potential benefits of teacher leadership” (p. 164).  Conducting a meta-analysis of nearly 50 articles and studies was conducted in addition to a case-study interview with a special education teacher who possessed nearly thirty- years of experience during which time she reviewed the professional literature to develop the Supports with Imagination and Meaning (SWIM) program, Billingsley (2007) selected and reviewed teacher leadership literature in general education, including the emergence of new teacher roles in schools, roots and meanings of teacher leadership, and possible benefits of teachers as leaders.  After reviewing several examples of teacher leadership in special education, Billingsley investigated barriers to teacher leadership and ways of supporting the work of teacher leaders.  As a result, Billingsley found support in the literature for the belief that serving the needs of students with disabilities requires multiple leaders across school-wide and district-wide levels.  Teacher leadership can be present in different forms for varied purposes, including management, instruction, and school reform.  Therefore, teacher leadership may be structured either formally or informally as it evolves through presented opportunities and explicit needs within schools.

Whenever teachers are provided on-going opportunities to learn through experiences, experiment with new ideas, and then creatively implement new programs then they are more likely to become teacher leaders in both their schools and communities.  These opportunities are beneficial by allowing prospective teacher leaders to develop broader perspectives related to the identified needs within schools and across the district.  This encourages reflection about their own practices and provides variety in their work and recognition of their expertise.  Therefore, these new roles and opportunities to influence others serve as critical forms of renewal for special educators.

Special educators become leaders by adeptly confronting barriers to the education of students who have disabilities, rather than accepting the norms and values of the status quo (Billingsley, 2007, p. 166).  Through focus group interviews with special educators selected based on documented effectiveness serving students with low-incidence disabilities York-Barr et al. (2005) found it is better to “understand their realities of practice in inclusive education and to identify supports for such practice” (p. 193). Although York-Barr et al did not specifically focus upon teacher leadership, they did discuss how special educators served as “informal leaders” (p. 200) by articulating “a sophisticated understanding of how their schools and districts functioned organizationally and politically” (p. 193). They also suggested that teacher leaders provided the vision, direction, and plans for special education and encouraged prospective teacher leaders to collaborate and advocate across multiple levels within their educational systems, thereby leveraging the social, structural and fiscal resources beneficial for students with disabilities.  In doing so, prospective teacher leaders project a concrete understanding that the degree to which they are connected in a school influences the degree to which students with disabilities are connected, supported, and provided opportunities for success within the culture of the school (p. 211).

Analyzed research, drawn conclusions, and provided implications for future practice or research by York-Barr, et al, (2005); Bays and Crockett (2007); as well as Billingsley (2007) were each grounded within the conceptual framework of special education leadership and the ethical treatment of students with special needs.  While each study’s limited sample certainly restricts the ability to generalize results, the shared references amongst and between the collective researchers served to narrow the focus of each study while expanding the implications of individual results to the field of special education and educational leadership. Clearly further research on teacher leadership in special education is required to promote the opportunities for teacher leaders in schools and optimize student learning in the least restrictive environment. Possible research questions suggested by Billingsley include:

•          What is the nature of teacher leaders’ roles at the school (e.g., elementary, secondary) and district levels?
•          What factors (e.g., personal, organizational, preparation) influence the exercise of special education leadership by both special and general educators?

o   How does the culture of the district and school influence teacher leaders’ work?

o   How do special education leaders learn to work within the social organization of their schools?” (173)

        Additionally, related to previous research by Anderson (2017), it is not yet known if and to what degree elementary schools that are led by leaders exhibiting high emotional intelligence (EQ) would have teachers exhibiting high EQ.  Are such schools more likely to have students receiving education in an inclusive setting?  These are all crucial questions that beg for further research on effective teacher leadership in special education.            

To Cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2020). Special education leadership and the pursuit of ethical

practice. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and

perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,

23, 35-61. 

Bagley, S. & Tang, K. (2018) Teacher leadership in special education: Exploring skills, roles,

and perceptions. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership (JoITL) 2  (1) Dec

 

Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special

            education. Exceptionality, 15(3), 143-161. doi:10.1080/09362830701503495

 

Billingsley, B. S. (2007). Recognizing and supporting the critical roles of teachers in special

            education leadership. Exceptionality, 15(3), 163-176. doi:10.1080/09362830701503503

Crockett, J. B. (2007). INTRODUCTION: The Changing Landscape of Special Education 

            Administration. Exceptionality, 15(3), 139-142. doi:10.1080/09362830701503487

 

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework.

            Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187. doi:10.1080/09362830701503511

 

Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (2000). Ethical leadership and decision making in education :

            Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

            Inc. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

 

York-Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K., & Ghere, G. (2005). Special educators in inclusive

            education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership. International Journal

            of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 193-215. doi:10.1080/1360311042000339374

 

Reliable Assessment Utilization Can Impact Inclusion Rates More Than Knowledge of Mandates

Public Law (PL) 94-142 (1975) mandated a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students identified with disabling educational conditions. Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting for part or all day. PL 94-142 certainly was enormously successful in providing students with disabilities access to a public education. However, far too many placement decisions initially foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. PL 94-142’s mechanism of LRE was often being interpreted as a legal and valid option of not placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.

Reviewing mainstreaming beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975, Lipsky and Gardner (1997) found mainstreaming is based on an assumption that a student with a disability can cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming was traditionally only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77). By contrast, inclusion signifies that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Too often mainstreaming and inclusion are used interchangeably in educational literature (Fuchs, 2010). They differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246). The p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the reauthorization of IDEA (1997) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helps ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities.  A greater understanding as to what elements denote effective progress for this inclusion movement may result from a thorough analysis of data available through the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and state educational agencies (SEA).

Through IDEA (2004) State Performance Plans (SPP) mandates, the USDE required identification, evaluation, and monitoring of each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States must also collect data on variables that may influence its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by SPP Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed by determining whether certain variables are more present in those states deemed highly successful. Understanding how to review SPP Indicator 5 data will allow stakeholders to utilize leadership principles described by Stephen Covey (1992) whereby “…good managers will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and may say, ‘This is the wrong forest’.”  

As the result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), each state was required to identify baseline data related to its local educational agencies’ special education programs performance on education-related performance indicators. In addition to other important performance indicators, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) evaluated and monitored each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This data was identified and monitored as SPP Indicator 5. Specifically, this performance indicator addresses the educational placement of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, based on the percent of the day spent in one of three diverse types of educational environments:

A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;

B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or

C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Most states initially collected and identified baseline data by analyzing LRE statistics based on the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Thereafter each state planned to collect and analyze yearly LRE data for SPP Indicator 5.  A sampling of ten initial State Performance Plans (SPP) found there was diversity in the baseline percentages identified for each state’s Indicator 5 results. The five-year progress projections were uniformly modest. For instance, the sampling revealed each of the ten states’ with approved SPP for Indicator 5, part A, established improvement as one-half of one percent (.005) per year. Therefore, it would be ten-years before a 5% increase in inclusion rates would be realized.

If USDE evaluation and monitoring of  state’s Performance Plans for Indicator 5, part A and each state’s Annual Performance Report (APR) remains deficient for pushing increased inclusion rates, then professional development may be the better hope for reform of LRE initiatives.  Research suggested professional development is most effective when teachers engage in instructional inquiry within the context of collaborative professional communities that focus upon instructional improvement and student achievement. Research suggested great value in professional development that ensures teachers support of each other in understanding policies and research that guide effective practices related to inclusive programs (Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2004; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004; and Waldron & McLeskey, 2009).  Crucially, research indicated the positive impact of creating and implementing embedded professional development intended to improve instructional practices that lead to improved outcomes for individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families (Beverly, Santos, & Kyger, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, & Ugel, 2001; Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Monteith, 2000; Powers, Rayner, & Gunter, 2001; Voltz, 2001; and Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003).

  Traditional theorists contend current teacher preparation standards are sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000). By contrast, Reformists or Substantial Re-conceptualists, contend explicit standards are requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Paul & Paul, 1996; Andrews, et. al., 2000). To improve rates of inclusive educational practices, states would benefit from requiring explicit teacher preparation standards related to the effective implementation of LRE mandates rather than merely comprehending the meaning of LRE.  However, understanding the adverse impact of assessment systems upon diverse students and how to effectively monitor and adjust instruction based on assessments FOR learning, may be more powerful for encouraging change. 

Systemic approaches that utilize diverse evaluations allow all stakeholders a better opportunity to make decisions based on holistic data.  Diverse data analysis offers the opportunity to more reliably monitor and adjust plans for student, classroom, and school-wide improvement.  This systemic approach provides an opportunity that is not reliably possible through analysis of a solitary, end-of-year test.  The latter “simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (Herman, 2010, p 3).

An embrace of the learning for all mission will be more valuable for promoting LRE initiatives.   A coherent, data-based accountability system is identified as a correlate of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). More important than understanding the continuum or cascade of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) available to diverse students is the ability to navigate or advocate for an assessment system promoting a coherent network that provides the opportunity to develop, implement, and utilize data-based accountability. The lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance results in problematic decisions that adversely effects the integrity of the placement process.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2019) Utilization of assessments options can increase inclusion better 

       than mandate knowledge. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, L.,

et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.

Connor, D. (2007). A (Brief) History of Inclusion in the USA. Supporting Inclusive

            Classrooms: A Resource. NYCTFQIS

Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons,

challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.

Eichenger, J., & Downing, J.E.  (2002). Instruction in the general education environment. 

In J. Downing (Ed.) Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms:  Practical strategies for teachers (2^nd ed.).  Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Elbaum, B.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M.T.; Moody, S.W.; Schumm, J.S. (2000).  How

            reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping

            formats:  A meta-analytic review.  In R. Gersten, E.P. Schiller, S. Vaughn (eds.),

            Contemporary special education research:  Synthesis of the knowledge base on

            critical instructional issues.  (pp. 105-136).   Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of

special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman and D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The inclusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 213242). Austin, TX: ProEd.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming

 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 

Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to

mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.

Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all America’s

 schools. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., Correa, V., McLeskey, J., Bishop, A., Smith, D.,

Tyler, N., & Waldron, N., (2001). The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.