This article was downloaded by: [University Library Utrecht]On: 15 March 2015, At: 09:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

International Journal of Inclusive

EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Principals play many parts: a review

of the research on school principals as

special education leaders 2001–2011

Cam Cobba

a Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON,CanadaPublished online: 23 May 2014.

To cite this article: Cam Cobb (2015) Principals play many parts: a review of the research on schoolprincipals as special education leaders 2001–2011, International Journal of Inclusive Education,19:3, 213-234, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.916354

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Principals play many parts: a review of the research on schoolprincipals as special education leaders 2001–2011

Cam Cobb∗

Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada

(Received 4 October 2013; accepted 10 April 2014)

This meta-analysis examines current North American research on the work ofschool principals in the special education milieu. More specifically, it considershow elementary and secondary principals envision and act in ways that fosterinclusion within a school community. Three core special education-orienteddomains arose in the 19 studies examined in this meta-analysis: inclusiveprogramme delivery, staff collaboration, and parental engagement. Within thesethree domains, research indicates that principals take on seven key roles as theywork to foster inclusion: visionary, partner, coach, conflict resolver, advocate,interpreter, and organiser. When taking on these seven roles principals drawfrom various approaches to leadership, such as transformative, distributive, anddemocratic leadership. In striving to offer a supportive special educationprogramme, principals face a number of challenges, such as fosteringcollaboration where perspectives diverge, establishing a cohesive school visionof inclusion and practice that offers differentiated learning experiences, andreducing situations involving litigation and teacher attrition. In detailing the threedomains and seven roles of special education leadership, this article outlines anumber of key recommendations for research, policy, and practice.

Keywords: inclusive leadership; parental engagement; special education

A school principal’s work is challenging. Principals build relationships with membersof a school community. At times, they advocate on behalf of students, parents, and/oreducators. They foster relationships of dialogue and reciprocity, in terms of not onlycurriculum delivery but also shared decision-making. As lead teachers, they overseethe delivery of curriculum. In this regard principals facilitate professional develop-ment and provide feedback to staff members. They are also responsible for hiringstaff members and ensuring that they carry out the policies of a particular jurisdiction.Principals must not only be aware of special education law but also be prepared forpossible legal conflicts in relation to a school’s operations. Their work is challengingindeed, and it is unsurprising that principals spend a disproportional amount of theirtime on matters relating to special education (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, andHilton 2006).

While principals are certainly not the only leaders in the special education milieu,they are the ones who have institutional authority and function as front line interpretersand implementers of policy (Lipsky 1980). They are fundamental in setting the tone and

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

∗Email: cobbcam@uwindsor.ca

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015Vol. 19, No. 3, 213–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.916354

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

expectations of a school’s approach to curriculum, equity, and inclusion (Ross andBerger 2009). In their day-to-day work, school principals make decisions that drawfrom core axioms and components of special education. Their work is at once multifa-ceted and interpretive. Drawing from Shakespeare’s theatre metaphor for humanity, onemight say that principals play many parts. This meta-analysis will examine currentNorth American research on the work of school principals as special education leaders.

Axioms of special education

A jurisdiction’s special education system organises how learners are to receive supportthrough a complex network of axioms and components (Skiba et al. 2008). The axiomsrepresent a group of core postulates, which provide a theoretical starting point. In turn,the components of a special education system extend those postulates into a body oflegislation, regulations, and policies, which map out how special education supportis to be organised and delivered.

Underpinning many special education jurisdictions in North America are the coreaxioms of inclusion and equity (Schlifer 2005). The axiom of equity purports thatevery learner has a right to equal educational opportunities, which in turn leads educa-tors to differentiate their programme content and method of delivery. The axiom ofinclusion seeks to provide a less restrictive learning experience, which leads educatorsto devise more integrated forms of support. Many special education jurisdictions inNorth America also draw from certain views of ability and individualisation. Interms of one’s abilities, it is held that learners have areas of strength as well as areasof need, and each of their individual strengths and needs could be placed along a con-tinuum (McLaughlin 2010). On occasion, one’s profile of strengths and needs will leadthat student to qualify for additional support (McLaughlin 2010). An additional postu-late holds that learners require varying degrees of individualisation in their support. It isbelieved that while many students are able to learn more successfully when outcomesand experiences are geared to a collective – such as a classroom of approximately 20–40 students – some do not learn as successfully within such a dynamic (McLaughlin2010). Consequently, some students work towards learning outcomes that go beyondgeneric grade-based expectations, often set out by an Individual Education Plan(IEP; McLaughlin 2010).

It is important to note that while jurisdictions might have similarities, special edu-cation axioms are neither static nor universal. Over time, different postulates may gainand lose prominence. Drawing from the Civil Rights Movement, for instance, advo-cacy, research, and shifting policy contributed to the postulate of inclusion beingplaced at a higher value (Skiba et al. 2008). It is also important to note that differentjurisdictions assign different values to different axioms. For instance, while giftednessis formally recognised under Ontario’s special education umbrella, gifted support is nota special education right across Canada (Bowlby, Peters, and Mackinnon 2010). Eachjurisdiction draws from a set of postulates, or axioms, which provide a foundation forthe components of its special education system. While jurisdictions have differencesthey also have many similarities.

Components of special education

Special education-oriented research indicates that it comprises four general com-ponents: (1) an overriding organisational framework, (2) assessment parameters,

214 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

(3) a programme delivery model, and (4) a personnel network (Bowlby, Peters, andMackinnon 2010; McLaughlin 2010; Trainor 2010).

First, a variety of documents, including laws, policies, and regulations, set out theorganisational framework of a special education system within a jurisdiction. InOntario, for instance, Bill 82 defines different exceptionalities (such as learning disabil-ity (LD)) while Regulation 181 outlines the formal procedures through which learningneeds are identified and methods and/or degrees of support are assigned to addressthose needs (Bowlby, Peters, and Mackinnon 2010).

Second, a number of assessment parameters, as well as instruments themselves, areused to determine a student’s areas of strength and need. They also determine thedegree to which an individual’s performance (and perceived ability) falls inside oroutside an expected range (McLaughlin 2010).

The third component of a special education system, its programme delivery model,includes various methods and degrees of support provided for students. These supportsvary, and might involve such practices as creating an IEP, placing a learner in a self-contained classroom (such as an LD classroom) for a set amount of time, or providingsome form of support in a regular (also known as mainstream) classroom (i.e. from aresource teacher or educational assistant).

A fourth component of a special education system is its personnel network. Thepeople involved in special education assessment, identification, programme delivery,and decision-making include, school administrators, school board psychologists,social workers, and consultants, among others. While parents are not technicallyschool board personnel, they are key members of a special education team (Trainor2010).

Issues in special education

Three issues commonly discussed in special education research include: access tosupport, inclusion, and the work of principals as special education leaders withinschool communities (Burge et al. 2008; Christle and Yell 2010; Hornby and Lafaele2011; Trainor 2010).

First, although special education has expanded in North America over the years,accessibility to support has continued to challenge students, parents, and school pro-fessionals alike (Barton 2007). One indicator of this persistent issue is litigation. Inthe USA, concerns relating to the development, implementation, and suitability ofsupport have contributed to a sharp increase in IEP-related court cases (Christle andYell 2010; Etscheidt 2003). In Canada, human rights issues have become an increas-ingly prominent component of litigation in relation to the accessibility of differentforms of support (Bowlby, Peters, and Mackinnon 2010).

Inclusion represents a second core issue in the special education arena. A growingbody of literature portrays inclusive programme delivery as an effective mode of pro-viding support for children and youths (Browder and Copper-Duffy 2003; Burge et al.2008; Carter and Hughes 2005; Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley 2000). Moreover,numerous researchers conceptualise the least restrictive environment, as full inclusionwhere nearly every student would be placed in regular classrooms for the entire schoolday (Dixon 2005; Gallagher 2001; Grove and Fisher 1999; Taylor 1995). But exclusionis not solely a student issue. Numerous scenarios where parents have been distancedfrom special education processes have been documented in recent years (Cobb 2012;Harry 2008; Hornby and Lafaele 2011; Trainor 2010). Various barriers, such as a

International Journal of Inclusive Education 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

lack of reciprocity, have magnified the exclusion of culturally and linguistically diverseparents, including Chinese-Canadian (Lai and Ishiyama 2004), African-American(Butera 2005; Harry 2008; Trainor 2005), and Hispanic-American families (Garcia,Mendez-Perez, and Ortiz 2000; Rueda and Windmueller 2006).

While these two issues are indeed important, they both connect to a third issue,namely the matter of special education leadership as conceptualised and practiced byschool principals, or school principals as special education leaders. School principalsoversee the implementation of special education in a community. They devotebetween 36% and 58% of their time to special education matters (Stevenson-Jacobson,Jacobson, and Hilton 2006). Literature on principal leadership in relation to special edu-cation, as this meta-analysis indicates, tends to ask one (or more) of the following ques-tions (Table 4): (1) How do principals perceive and carry out their role as a specialeducation leader? (2) What sorts of challenges do they perceive in the area of specialeducation leadership? (3) How do principals respond to the challenges they perceivein special education?

Methodology

To outline the methodology of this study, this section has been organised into two sub-sections: (1) literature search and study selection and (2) data coding and analysis.

Literature search and study selection

Initially, three major education search engines were utilised to gather a wide rangeof articles focusing on the role of school principals as special education leaders.These search engines included ERIC, PsycInfo, and CBCA. Specifically, thekeyword special education – along with the conjunction and, the term administra-tor, the conjunction or, and the term principal – was entered into each of the searchengines. This search first garnered 187 peer-reviewed articles for possible inclusionin this meta-analysis. An article-by-article examination was then conducted todetermine whether or not each article met the selection criteria. The followingfive criteria were used to guide the selection of literature: (1) subject matter, (2)source, (3) time range, (4) data and research method, and (5) geographic andschool setting.

First, in terms of subject matter, the articles in this meta-analysis examine specialeducation leadership from the perspective of school-based principals. With a focuson school-based principals, articles that centred on school board administrators, con-sultants, and teacher-leaders were excluded from this meta-analysis.

Second, regarding the sources, the articles have been published in a peer-reviewedjournal. Book chapters, which, at times, do not make use of the peer-review process,were excluded from this meta-analysis.

Third, in setting a time range, the articles included in this meta-analysis focus on adecade’s worth of research, and were published between 2001 and 2011.

Fourth, regarding data and research method, the articles were data based. Concep-tual-oriented articles, such as discussion papers, were excluded from this study. Asmeta-analyses themselves constitute a form of research (Evans and Kowanko 2000;Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie 2007), four literature reviews were included inthis study. Because the distinction between literature reviews and discussion paperscan at times blur, for the purposes of this article a literature review has been defined

216 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

as a paper that draws extensively from – and synthesises – a thematically cohesivepool of literature. Literature reviews included in this meta-analysis (1) specified a meth-odology and/or (2) drew from a range of over 40 references.

Fifth, in terms of geography, the articles included in this meta-analysis were con-ducted in an elementary, middle, and/or secondary public school setting in NorthAmerica. To be included in the article pool for this meta-analysis, a study needed tomeet each of the five selection criteria. When these criteria were applied to each ofthe 187 articles, a pool of 19 studies was established.

Data coding and analysis

Five core strategies guided the process of coding and analysing the 19 studies includedin this literature review: (1) Note the variance of journals publishing articles on specialeducation principal leadership. (2) Identify where these studies and analyses have beenconducted. (3) Note patterns relating to the temporal variance of the article pool. (4)Identify the types of methodologies and sizes of studies and/or analyses to understandhow the phenomenon has been studied. (5) Identify core themes and subthemes thatarose in the article pool to understand how researchers conceptualise the phenomenonof special education principal leadership.

First, the articles included in this meta-analysis were published in 11 journals, 2 ofwhich are from Canada, 1 from the UK, and 8 from the USA. Three of the journals inthis meta-analysis are linked to US-based associations: the Council for ExceptionalChildren (CEC), the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), andthe Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) (Table 1).

The second aspect considered in the data coding and analysis process wasgeography. At the national level, 15 articles were developed in the USA and 4 weredeveloped in Canada (Table 2). In terms of research location, the 13 studies involvinghuman participants favoured the eastern halves of Canada and the USA by a ratio offive to one. On a regional level, two of the studies were conducted in the westernparts of Canada and the USA, four were conducted in the central areas of the twocountries, six were conducted in the east, and one was conducted in an unspecifiedmetropolitan city. While all 15 of the US articles in this meta-analysis were published

Table 1. Journal pool.

Journal Organisation Country Total articles

AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice AASA USA 1Education Policy USA 1Educational Considerations USA 1Equity and Excellence in Education USA 1Exceptional Children CEC USA 1Exceptionality Education International Canada 1International Journal of Special Education Canada 1Journal of College Teaching and Learning USA 1Journal of School Leadership USA 1Journal of Special Education Leadership CASE USA 9School Leadership and Management UK 1

International Journal of Inclusive Education 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

in US journals, 2 of the Canadian articles were published in journals based in the USAand UK.

Third, the temporal distribution of the articles was as follows: none of articles werepublished between 2001 and 2003, one was published in 2004, three in 2005, six in2006, one in 2007, one in 2008, one in 2009, three in 2010, and three in 2011(Table 3). This temporal distribution seems to indicate that interest in the phenomenonof special education principal leadership was minimal between 2001 and 2003. It also

Table 2. Geography.

Author(s) Date Country Region

Albus, Thurlow, and Clapper 2006 USA NationwideAshbaker and Morgan 2006 USA NationwideBarrera and Liu 2006 USA MinnesotaBlanton and Perez 2011 USA N/ABurch, Theoharis, and Rauscher 2010 USA WisconsinCorrea and Wagner 2011 USA N/AEbmeier, Beutel, and Dugan 2010 USA UnspecifiedFurney et al. 2005 USA VermontIrvine et al. 2010 Canada AlbertaJacobs, Tonnesen, and Baker 2004 USA N/AMcCarthy and Soodak 2007 USA New YorkMinnema et al. 2006 USA Western USARoss and Berger 2009 Canada N/AShepherd 2006 USA VermontSmith and Leonard 2005 USA LouisianaStevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006 USA IllinoisStyron and Styron 2011 USA MississippiValeo 2008 Canada UnspecifiedZaretsky 2005 Canada Ontario

Table 3. Temporal distribution.

Year Total articles

2001 02002 02003 02004 12005 32006 62007 12008 12009 12010 32011 3

218 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

seems that interest in the phenomenon started to grow in 2004 and peaked in 2006.Interest seems to have declined between 2007 and 2009 and then levelled off in2010. It should be noted that three of the six 2006 articles were published in aspecial issue of the Journal of Special Education Leadership. It is possible that the pub-lication of this special issue accounts for the 2006 peak.

While these geographic and temporal details help to illustrate the landscape ofrecent North American research on special education principal leadership, the authordoes not discuss policy shifts across the jurisdictions and timelines included in thismeta-analysis. As such, any conclusions regarding geographic and/or temporal patternsin the literature are limited.

Fourth, the types of articles indicate that research on special education principal lea-dership tends to be qualitative in nature. This meta-analysis includes 13 researchstudies, 4 literature reviews, 1 document analysis, and 1 policy analysis. Of the 13research studies involving human participants, 8 were qualitative, 3 were mixedmethods, and 2 were quantitative. While the size of the 13 research studies variedgreatly, the 4 literature reviews drew from a range of 42–70 references (Table 4).

In the fifth and final step of coding and analysing data, the author identified corethemes and subthemes that arose in the 19 articles to understand how researchers con-ceptualise the phenomenon of special education principal leadership. A close reading ofthe subject matter of the articles led the author to identify special education inclusion asa central topic in 18 of the 19 articles. On re-examining each of the articles, the authornoted that when discussing principals’ work in relation to special education inclusion,researchers’ comments tended to fall into three broad categories, or domains: (1)encouraging inclusion through programme delivery, (2) facilitating staff collaboration

Table 4. Types and sizes of articles.

Author(s) Type of study Size of study

Albus, Thurlow, and Clapper Document analysis 200+ documentsAshbaker and Morgan Policy analysis 1 policyBarrera and Liu Qualitative 15 participantsBlanton and Perez Literature review 42 referencesBurch, Theoharis, and Rauscher Qualitative 39 participantsCorrea and Wagner Literature review 47 referencesEbmeier, Beutel, and Dugan Mixed methods 40 participantsFurney, Aiken, Hasazi, and Clark/Keefe Qualitative 65 schoolsIrvine, Lupart, Loreman, and McGhie-Richmond Mixed methods 16 participantsJacobs, Tonnesen, and Baker Literature review 64 referencesMcCarthy and Soodak Qualitative 9 participantsMinnema, Barboza, Thurlow, and VanGetson Mixed methods 84 participantsRoss and Berger Literature review 70 referencesShepherd Qualitative 28 schoolsSmith and Leonard Qualitative 24 participantsStevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton Quantitative 81 participantsStyron and Styron Quantitative 50 participantsValeo Qualitative 11 participantsZaretsky Qualitative 13 participants

International Journal of Inclusive Education 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

to promote inclusion, and (3) fostering inclusion through parental engagement. While11 of the 19 articles discussed inclusive programme delivery, 14 explored matters ofstaff collaboration, and 5 considered parental engagement (Table 5). Upon further read-ings of the article pool, the author noted that researchers described different roles prin-cipals take on when they work in the three domains to promote inclusion. Subsequently,the author re-examined the articles in order to identify the roles themselves, and deter-mine which roles were discussed in relation to which domains.

Results

The 19 studies examined in this meta-analysis indicate that principals navigate threedomains when working to foster special education inclusion. While principals encou-rage inclusive programme delivery, they also facilitate staff collaboration to enrichschool-wide inclusion, and foster parental engagement to establish an inclusive atmos-phere in the school community. While these domains are not mutually exclusive, theyrepresent key aspects of how principals perceive and work to foster inclusion. Further,the literature examined in this meta-analysis indicates that principals tend to take onseven roles as they navigate the three domains. Drawing from the 19 studies includedin this meta-analysis, the author has identified how researchers have linked differentroles to different domains (Table 6).

Table 5. Three domains (of inclusive special education leadership).

Author(s)Inclusive programme

deliveryStaff

collaborationParental

engagement

Albus, Thurlow, and Clapperp

Ashbaker and Morganp

Barrera and Liup

Blanton and Perezp

Burch, Theoharis, and Rauscherp p

Correa and Wagnerp

Ebmeier, Beutel, and Duganp

Furney, Aiken, Hasazi, andClark/Keefe

p p

Irvine, Lupart, Loreman, andMcGhie-Richmond

p p p

Jacobs, Tonnesen, and Bakerp p

McCarthy and Soodakp p p

Minnema, Barboza, Thurlow,and VanGetson

p

Ross and Bergerp p

Shepherdp p

Smith and Leonardp p

Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson,and Hilton

p p p

Styron and StyronValeo

p p

Zaretskyp p

220 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

To consider each domain, along with its associated roles, this Results section hasbeen divided into three subsections. The first section outlines what current researchhas to say about ways in which principals promote inclusive programme delivery,the second section discusses how they facilitate staff collaboration, and the thirdsection describes ways principals foster parental engagement.

Inclusive programme delivery

Eleven of the 19 studies discussed ways in which principals promote inclusive pro-gramme delivery in schools. This body of literature indicates that principals tend toperform five different roles when working in this special education leadershipdomain: visionary, advocate, innovator, interpreter, and organiser.

Visionary. Eight studies in this meta-analysis described ways in which principals actas a visionary when supporting inclusive programme delivery. A principal’s schoolvision is crucial because her attitudes and beliefs about heterogeneous classroomsaffect teacher practices in inclusive classrooms (Irvine et al. 2010). It is importantthat principals clarify special education-oriented expectations, such as those pertainingto inclusive programme delivery, for staff (Valeo 2008). To ensure that these expec-tations are well understood, principals need to demonstrate and use their own knowl-edge and skills to organise special education procedures and supports in the school(Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004). To encourage equitable approaches to support,Ross and Berger (2009) argued that principals can model equity beliefs for staff andclarify misconceptions about equity itself, such as exploring the moral componentsof equity as well as the difference between equity and equality in conversations withstaff members (Ross and Berger 2009). When promoting inclusionary approaches tospecial education support it is important that principals communicate a clear rationaleto better ensure that staff members recognise not only how inclusive pedagogy is prac-ticed, but also why it is a worthy goal (Valeo 2008).

Further, when facilitating an inclusive approach to programme delivery, principalsneed to develop a special education plan for the whole school (Jacobs, Tonnsen, andBaker 2004). To achieve this goal, they focus their attention on meeting the needs ofall students (Furney et al. 2005). In their day-to-day work, they support inclusive place-ment, and find ways to provide support within the community school and transfer fewerstudents with special needs to other schools (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton2006). As a consequence, more learners are taught and supported in regular classroomsettings (Irvine et al. 2010). Ultimately, ‘Inclusive principals accept ownership of all

Table 6. Roles.

Inclusive programme delivery Staff collaboration Parental engagement

Visionaryp p

Partnerp

Coachp p

Conflict resolverp

Advocatep

Interpreterp p

Organiserp p p

International Journal of Inclusive Education 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

students and enact and support policies and practices to ensure individual studentsuccess’ (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004, 10).

To sustain ‘professional interactions among general education and special educationteachers’ principals facilitate a collaborative vision (Smith and Leonard 2005, 276). Tocreate opportunities for equity-oriented dialogue, they nurture a support system that isdeeply valued by faculty, parents, and staff (Furney et al. 2005). Principals promote thisvalue set by ensuring that there is a clear message of inclusion and equitable support atthe school (Minnema et al. 2006). When staff members have a sharper understanding ofthe purpose of, and rationale behind, inclusion, they have more of a readiness toimplement a variety of inclusive-oriented strategies, and hold a more positive viewof inclusion itself (Smith and Leonard 2005).

Advocate. Two studies examined in this meta-analysis described ways in whichprincipals act as advocates when fostering inclusive programme delivery. Principalsadvocate their school board and jurisdictional government for resources that wouldhelp them to enrich the inclusionary practices in schools, such as special educationsupport strategies geared to English language learners (Albus, Thurlow, and Clapper2006). They also advocate school boards for additional special education-orientedhuman resources needed at the school level, such as guidance counsellors (Shepherd2006).

Interpreter. Three of the 19 research articles discussed how principals take on therole of interpreter while nurturing inclusive programme delivery in a school. Principalsinterpret research and policy as they oversee special education practices in a school. Onone level, they identify innovative research – which communicates sound pedagogicalstrategies – that guides the inclusive practice of teachers (Albus, Thurlow, and Clapper2006). This sort of research includes such strategies as least restrictive environment pla-cements, response to intervention practices, and differentiated instruction (Blanton andPerez 2011; Furney et al. 2005; Ross and Berger 2009; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson,and Hilton 2006). When examining this research, principals need to interpret it in orderto identify effective strategies, and then discuss those strategies with staff (Albus,Thurlow, and Clapper 2006). It is crucial that principals interpret useful research-based strategies because guidance is not always provided in this regard. State govern-ments, for instance, often do not provide schools with research-based special educationsupports for English language learners (Albus, Thurlow, and Clapper 2006).

Interpreting education policy is also a crucial aspect of how principals foster inclus-ive programme delivery in schools (Furney et al. 2005). They interpret state and federallaws as well as state and federal requirements in the realm of inclusive special educationinclusive programme delivery (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006). Interms of the school board level, principals seek out and respond to meaningful pro-fessional development to collaborate for inclusion (Furney et al. 2005).

Organiser. Seven of the studies described ways in which a principal acts as anorganiser when working to foster inclusive programme delivery. On a general level,principals administer inclusive services in a school (Burch, Theoharis, and Rauscher2010). In doing so, they build capacity for the school’s method of providing specialeducation support in a way that does not exclude students from their peer groups, orthe school culture itself (Furney et al. 2005). To organise these sorts of supports prin-cipals promote a variety of approaches, such as differentiated instruction and place-ments rooted in full inclusion, or oriented in Lease Restrictive Environment (Jacobs,Tonnsen, and Baker 2004; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006). Further,principals gather useful resources for teachers to utilise when differentiating their

222 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

instruction (Irvine et al. 2010; Valeo 2008). To better ensure that staff members are ableto implement inclusive practices, such as differentiated instruction, principals organiseprofessional development that is engaging, effective, and ongoing (Irvine et al. 2010).In terms of capacity and budgeting, it is important that principals ‘recognise the need toappropriate human and fiscal resources toward a school-wide professional developmentprogram that focused on differentiated curriculum and instruction’ (Furney et al. 2005,560).

To remove barriers to inclusion, principals organise the school’s ‘funding distri-bution’ to better ensure that classrooms have ample access to informal support(Irvine et al. 2010, 74). When serving the diverse needs of learners, Burch, Theoharis,and Rauscher (2010) noted that principals tended to have two orientations: (1) maintainstatus quo of separate and pull out programming and (2) find synergy between class-size reduction (CSR) and inclusive programming. To accommodate smaller classsizes in order to propel inclusive programme delivery, principals find space so that tea-chers might better differentiate instruction and schools themselves might better followboard- and/or jurisdictional-driven CSR initiatives (Burch, Theoharis, and Rauscher2010).

Staff collaboration

Fourteen of the 19 studies considered ways in which principals facilitate staff collabor-ation as they work to foster special education inclusion. Five roles arose in the dataexamined in this meta-analysis: visionary, partner, coach, conflict resolver, andorganiser.

Visionary. When acting as a visionary to foster staff collaboration, a principal’s‘attitude, background and training in relation to special education’ is critical (Steven-son-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006, 39). It influences (1) staff retention, (2)job satisfaction, and (3) the development of school-wide positive attitudes towards stu-dents with disabilities as well as inclusion itself (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, andHilton. 2006). To nurture a team that understands how and why to offer differentiatedsupport, principals communicate their belief in, and promotion of, robust inclusion(Irvine et al. 2010).

To encourage staff collaboration for the purposes of fostering inclusion, principalsneed to establish a shared vision of inclusion as well as collaborative structures and pro-cesses (i.e. to make plans and decisions) (Furney et al. 2005). They also need to helpstaff teams establish meeting times and routines to develop goals (Blanton and Perez2011). To create an inclusive atmosphere, principals need to (1) provide clear guidancein the school setting by co-developing and communicating expectations, (2) facilitateongoing staff-wide discussions and communications, and (3) provide opportunitiesfor all staff to develop skills in an atmosphere of constructive feedback and encourage-ment (Irvine et al. 2010). Understanding the context of their school community helpsprincipals to establish a school-wide commitment to educational support teams (Shep-herd 2006).

As visionaries who support staff collaboration, principals need to become instruc-tional leaders, which leads them to observe novice teachers, provide constructive feed-back, coach, mentor, and promote effective pedagogy (Correa and Wagner 2011).According to Ross and Berger (2009), instructional leadership is everything a principaldoes to promote student achievement, which includes developing a school mission,coordinating and monitoring teaching, promoting a climate for learning, and creating

International Journal of Inclusive Education 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

a supportive work climate (Ross and Berger 2009). They also focus energy and discus-sion on how assessment data might be used to improve instruction for every student(Blanton and Perez 2011). When principals oversee (and provide ample opportunitiesfor) professional development, they mentor, counsel best practices, and provide con-structive feedback through formal assessments, which can all help to enrich guidanceand reduce teacher attrition in special education (Correa and Wagner 2011).

Teacher perceptions are an important aspect of how a principal’s vision takes formin a school (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004). At times, teachers come to believe thattheir principal does not understand what they do to providing support for students(Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004). Teachers sometimes do not feel included indecision-making processes and come to believe that (1) principals give limited assist-ance and (2) do not understand the complexities of inclusion (Jacobs, Tonnsen, andBaker 2004). The perceptions held by teachers may be influenced by a principal’sprior experiences in special education. According to Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson,and Hilton (2006), ‘principals with training and experience in special education gener-ally assume more responsibility for special education’ (43). Ultimately, a principal’ssupport for inclusion influences its implementation in the school, as teachers who areunsure of the purpose for inclusion tend to have a negative view of, and/or discomfortwith, inclusion (Smith and Leonard 2005).

Partner. To support inclusive programme delivery 11 studies included in this meta-analysis indicated that, principals sometimes also take on the role of partner withinschools. When taking on this role, principals enter into partnerships with variousmembers of the school community (such as staff and parents) to engage in a varietyof collaborative practices, such as dialoguing, team planning, and shared decision-making. While some principals establish a vertical model of leadership in the specialeducation domain, others establish a more democratic model, which is facilitative ofsupervision, collaboration, and mentorship (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004). Insupervising with trust, principals act as a pedagogical leader (Jacobs, Tonnsen, andBaker 2004). They encourage staff collaboration by (1) supporting the educationschool team (EST) as a venue for dialogue and collaboration and (2) nurturing feelingsof ownership and responsibility for inclusion across the school (Irvin et al. 2010). Arobust form of collaboration in special education puts the onus on learning teams,and principals demonstrate a value of shared responsibility in their words and day-to-day actions (Irvine et al. 2010; Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004).

Principals draw from a number of collaborative-oriented approaches and applyfacilitative leadership styles to promote inclusion (Smith and Leonard 2005). Theseapproaches include transformational leadership (where principals facilitate teachergrowth), distributive leadership (which involves teacher empowerment), and demo-cratic leadership (Furney et al. 2005; Ross and Berger 2009). Through a distributiveapproach to leadership principals empower faculty and staff to engage in shareddecision-making processes, and collectively strive to build a positive school climate,one that is rich in support for learning (Correa and Wagner 2011). To empower tea-chers, principals take a democratic approach (Furney et al. 2005). They enable teachersto provide students with the support they need by creating partnerships among andbetween classroom and special education teachers and consultants (Ross and Berger2009). These sorts of interactive approaches help to integrate all teachers, includingspecial education teachers, within a professional learning community dynamic(Blanton and Perez 2011). In these various ways, principals not only promote inclusiveprogramme delivery but also promote ongoing staff collaboration (Blanton and Perez

224 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

2011). Ultimately, as Smith and Leonard (2005) noted, ‘principals need to be facilita-tors of a collaborative vision’ (276).

Principals themselves have indicated that certain competencies are key to thisendeavour. Two key competencies identified by principals are the ability to: (1)foster teacher strategies rooted in collaboration and (2) listen, build consensus, andfacilitate conflict resolution (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006). Shep-herd (2006) found that principals ‘serve as regular members of education supportteams (ESTs)’ and also recognise that their presence on (and commitment to) ESTsis ‘critical on a variety of levels’ (33–34). As a partner, principals understand ‘theimportance of working with other administrators across their districts, including super-intendents, special education coordinators and curriculum coordinators to implementthe EST process within the larger context of state and federal policy’ (Shepherd2006, 36).

When principals encourage partnerships among staff, they also use data to makeshared decisions about curriculum and instruction. Consequently, it is important thatthey understand how to collect, analyse, report, and use data about students, and edu-cational programmes to determine how to work with all community members in defin-ing goals, making decisions, and forming action steps could be identified as another keycompetency (Furney et al. 2005). In fostering a team dynamic, principals value rec-ommendations from other respected educational professionals (Ebmeier, Beutel, andDugan 2010).

Coach. Acting as a coach to foster staff collaboration, principals encourage andadvise staff members in special education. To facilitate staff interactions they encou-rage open communication (Furney et al. 2005). When establishing a professional learn-ing community it is important that principals consider special education-orienteddimensions of the community, and to do so they focus on (1) formation of group iden-tity and norms of interaction, (2) navigating fault lines, (3) negotiating essential tension,and (4) communal responsibility for growth (Blanton and Perez 2011). To effectivelyfacilitate staff collaboration principals must offset role confusion, demeaning tasks, andinsufficient time to collaborate (Smith and Leonard 2005).

In order to build teacher capacity for smaller class sizes (CSR), it is important thatprincipals take a proactive approach to staff development, organisation, and support,and foster a process towards team teaching (Burch, Theoharis, and Rauscher 2010).Another key aspect of coaching involves the process of providing ongoing, meaningfulfeedback to staff members relating to their special education-oriented interactions.According to Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton (2006), ‘80% [of administra-tors] were responsible for evaluating staff’ in the special education milieu (41).

It is important that principals not only embrace but also seek out opportunities toprovide mentoring to staff members. At times, school principals regard ‘their roles asbeing administrative in nature’ and avoid ‘interference with the daily running of the[school’s] integration program’ (Valeo 2008, 13). Valeo (2008) cautioned againstthis approach, as it ultimately leads principals to distance themselves from the day-to-day work in special education and from the staff itself.

The positive outcomes of principal coaching of staff collaboration are varied. Prin-cipal support is critical to job satisfaction, which itself is associated with strongerteacher commitment to special education and a lower likelihood of teachers leavingthe profession (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004). As they support educators, princi-pals maintain a ‘physical presence throughout the school day in and out of classes andevents’ (Smith and Leonard 2005, 276). Further, ‘Principals who facilitate the

International Journal of Inclusive Education 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

development of supportive behaviors of collaboration’, according to Smith andLeonard (2005), ‘spawn behaviors that support school inclusion which, in turn,support the principal as facilitator’ (276).

Conflict resolver. Conflict and tension are common occurrences among teacherswho are working within a group dynamic (Blanton and Perez 2011). As Blanton andPerez (2011) noted, within a professional learning community, conflict and tensionoccur often, and occur early. It is important that principals ‘are aware of potentialtrouble spots’ as ‘confusion might exist over who [holds] responsibility for studentswith special needs and who [takes] ownership’ (Valeo 2008, 14).

Role clarity can arise as an issue in the special education milieu. Expanding the tea-cher’s role and responsibilities in the special education milieu requires principals toenrich their knowledge and skills in facilitating problem-solving processes for teamsand flexible time schedules for faculty and staff (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004).To consistently and effectively contribute to ESTs, principals model and reinforce ‘avariety of collaborative principles and processes’, such as (1) ‘including the establish-ment of collaborative norms and procedures, (2) ‘use of clearly defined agendas, time-lines, and roles’, (3) ‘use of specific problem-solving strategies for identifying issuesand creating plans for action’, and (4) ‘documentation of plans developed for individualstudents; and commitment on the part of team members to be prepared for meetings andto follow through on assigned tasks’ (Shepherd 2006, 35). These strategies not onlysupport and organise the collaborative team but also help to reduce tension (Shepherd2006). Further, it is important that principals recognise ‘the need to appropriate humanand fiscal resources in a professional development model that brought general and SEeducators together to build capacity to serve all students’ (Shepherd 2006, 36).

An additional area of conflict in the special education milieu relates to the matter ofdiscipline. Because principals negotiate competing values in the disciplinary sphere,they have to be an ‘expert negotiator’ and facilitate the creation of compromise(McCarthy and Soodak 2007, 469). In terms of balancing school discipline and behav-ioural expectations in an equitable way, it is important for principals to respect thecommon good as well as individual rights and needs (McCarthy and Soodak 2007).At times, principals encounter a higher degree of tension when disciplining studentswith disabilities and in these circumstances negotiations among and between staffmembers can potentially become less respectful or even confrontational (McCarthyand Soodak 2007). To encourage staff collaboration as well as respectful negotiationsamong various constituencies, school principals involve teachers in decisions pertain-ing to discipline (McCarthy and Soodak 2007).

Organiser. As an organiser, principals formulate schedules, pace the special edu-cation-oriented tasks that need to be completed throughout a school year, gatherresources, formulate (and adjust) teams, budget, and deploy and hire staff. In fosteringstaff collaboration in special education, principals need to be (1) prepared and willing toadapt instruction to promote inclusion and (2) address pragmatic issues with respect toimplementation of inclusive education (Irvine et al. 2010).

Principals have identified interpersonal skills as an important quality for teachingcandidates in order to work effectively with students, parents, and colleagues (Rubbaand Becker 1985; Smith et al. 1992, as cited in Ebmeier, Beutel, and Dugan 2010).The selection of staff members is one of the most important tasks in which principalsengage, and when carrying out this task it is important to note that while interviews arecrucial they are only a single piece of a very complex puzzle, as additional data need tobe considered (Ebmeier, Beutel, and Dugan 2010).

226 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Organisationally, when ensuring that teachers provide students with effectivesupport, principals locate resources (such as assistive technology) and bring in special-ists (i.e. deafness) (Ross and Berger 2009). They also coordinate prep periods, allocaterelease time to enable teamwork, and establish and arrange visits to demonstrationclassrooms (Ross and Berger 2009). Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton(2006) stressed the importance of granting release time for staff collaboration. Whilesome special education teams meet before school, others meet after school or duringcommon planning times (Shepherd 2006). Ultimately, it is important to note that prin-cipal support for identifying and monitoring common planning times (Shepherd 2006).Regarding the composition of teams themselves, it is important that principals monitorthe effectiveness of their team structures and make changes in their membership, struc-tures, and processes as needed (Shepherd 2006, 36).

School principals also draw from data to make shared decisions about curriculumand instruction, and utilise policy to create a variety of collaborative structures andpractices (Furney et al. 2005). For instance, they chair ESTs and they build supportstructures with and for staff. By establishing such venues as focus groups, leadershipteams, and school community teams, principals also create opportunities to engagein team dialogue and planning (Furney et al. 2005).

Principals also oversee teachers who themselves have numerous supervising dutiesand responsibilities regarding paraprofessionals who work with ethnic minority stu-dents with special needs (Ashbaker and Morgan 2006). Specifically, they ‘provide anorganisational infrastructure for the paraprofessional experience, providing supportthorough availing resources for preservice training, offering basic training in teamwork,and ensuring that the system of evaluation and rewards are in place to recognise goodwork’ (Ashbaker and Morgan 2006, 18). Ultimately, a principal’s support is key toendorsing the role of paraprofessionals, and establishing professional developmentthat supports the work and collaborations of paraprofessionals (Ashbaker andMorgan 2006).

Additional organisational tasks principals carry out include (1) ‘becoming cogni-zant of available human and material resources and making equitable decisions regard-ing application of those resources to meet the needs of all students’, (2) ‘reallocatingpersonnel and materials results in more collaboration opportunities for all teachers inan inclusive environment and eliminates “clustering” of students with special needsin a few classrooms for the sake of efficiency’, and (3) ‘make every effort to developschedules that are collaboration-friendly, so that teachers will not feel unduly stressedand overworked’ (Smith and Leonard 2005, 278). Principals make choices about thedistribution of funds when promoting staff collaboration (Irvine et al. 2010). When dis-tributing funding, it is important that they regard programme assistants as being essen-tial to inclusion and ensure that funds are spent hiring an adequate number ofprogramme assistants (Irvine et al. 2010).

A lack of awareness, or interest, might lead to situations where principals appear‘not to have considered what resources would be of value to their integration programs’(Valeo 2008, 14). As a consequence some staff members believe that their principal is‘unaware of the variety of supports teachers’ need (Valeo 2008, 14).

Parental engagement

Five of the 19 studies outlined ways in which principal’s work to promote parentalengagement. Three subcategories arose in these data: partner, interpreter, and organiser.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Partner. Four studies outlined ways in which principals act as a partner when fos-tering parental inclusion in special education. On one level, principals respond to theneeds and preferences of parents when they engage in special education-oriented dia-logue (Barrera and Liu 2006; Irvine et al. 2010). Because listening is such an integralaspect of collaboration, principals need to provide opportunities for parents to sharetheir perspectives regarding special education support (Zaretsky 2005). It is importantthat after listening to parents, principals thoughtfully respond to their needs and views(Zaretsky 2005). Through a display of flexibility and the practice of negotiation, prin-cipals empower parents by fostering transactional interactions and become nurturingcollaborators (Zaretsky 2005). When encouraging collaboration through dialogue, prin-cipals build trust with parents (Irvine et al. 2010). Ultimately, in facilitating multipleand varied opportunities for shared decision-making – regarding such matters as pro-gramme delivery and placement – principals foster meaningful partnerships withparents (McCarthy and Soodak 2007).

Interpreter. Of the 19 studies, one described ways in which principals act asinterpreters as they promote parental engagement. On a formal level, when interactingwith parents, principals examine and draw from jurisdictional laws and regulationsrelating to special education (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006).Through this process it is crucial that principals interpret policies and regulations tohelp make parents aware of their rights regarding the way in which they make requests,initiate and respond to communications, and ultimately contribute to decisions in thespecial education milieu (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006).

Organiser. Only 1 of the 19 studies discussed ways principals act as organiserswhen they work to foster parental engagement in special education. It is importantthat school principals respond to the logistical needs of parents when setting uptimes and places to meet about special education matters (Barrera and Liu 2006). Ifprincipals are to encourage parental inclusion in special education-oriented processes,it is crucial that they work on an organisational level to best identify and respond to thelogistical needs of parents (Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006; Zaretsky2005).

Discussion

Principals take on a wide variety of roles as they work to foster inclusive programmedelivery, staff collaboration, and parental engagement in schools. Understanding theway principals think and act as special education leaders is important because it canhelp to identify and address their needs. To discuss these implications this discussionsection has been organised into three segments: (1) understanding disproportionalattention, (2) identifying and supporting roles, and (3) responding to gaps.

Understanding disproportional attention

School principals focus a great amount of their time and energy on special education.Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton (2006) found that principals who are notspecial education certified spend 36% of their time on special education, and thatnumber rises to 58% for special education certified principals. Further, their study indi-cated that over 18% of principals spend over 62% of their time on special education.With these percentages in mind one might ask: Why do principals pour a dispropor-tional amount of their time and energy into special education? The short answer to

228 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

this question is that special education leadership is both multifaceted and complicated.Principals are motivated by a desire to see their students succeed, to see their staff con-fident and able to provide quality learning experiences for all students, and to collab-orate with all members of the school community. Consequently, special educationleadership involves such demanding tasks as establishing inclusive programme deliv-ery, fostering robust staff collaboration, and empowering and dialoguing withparents. It also involves balancing the views of a wide variety of stakeholders whomay, at times, have diverging perspectives on student needs and supports. Withthese challenges in mind, one might reasonably conclude that it is justifiable that prin-cipals focus a disproportional amount of their attention on special education. But if it isreasonable for principals to focus on special education, just how disproportional shouldthat balance be? What sorts of strategies might help this imbalance less drastic? In orderto address this final question it is necessary to consider why this disproportional atten-tion is as drastic as it is.

It is also possible that principals spend so much of their time on special educationbecause, with its litigious nature, the amount of documentation associated with specialeducation has grown dramatically over the years. After all, litigation in special edu-cation is not only prevalent in North America, but is also on the rise (Barton 2007;Irvine et al. 2010; O’Shea and Drayden 2008; Protz 2005; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacob-son, and Hilton 2006). But principals might also be motivated by additional factors. It isalso plausible that the drastic disproportional amount of time principals direct intospecial education is influenced by their own learning experiences. According toJacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker (2004) over 75% of principals are uncertain of the practiceand facilitation of inclusion and believe their own preparation in the special educationmilieu was inadequate. Valeo (2008) found that principals are frustrated by their lack ofpreparation in special education, and a lack of adequate preparation leads many to failto implement inclusive programming. Providing adequate time for principals to com-plete special education-oriented documentation, and offering professional developmentto prepare principals for their work in special education would help to address theseneeds.

Of course, litigation-orientated documentation, the spectre of litigation and the lackof special education-oriented preparation for principals are not mutually exclusive, andit is quite plausible that principals are motivated by a combination of the three. Perhapsif special education experiences (both theoretical and practical) were more prevalent inprincipal preparation programmes as well as ongoing mentee experiences, principalswould be better able to adequately balance their responsibilities. Additional researchneeds to examine the relationship between a principal’s preparation and professionaldevelopment, her balancing of special education-oriented responsibilities, and theway she perceives her own work and competence as a special education leader. Insum, while disproportional attention is justifiable it is also important to better ensurethat that disproportional attention is not unreasonably balanced.

Identifying and supporting roles

The three core leadership domains that arose in this meta-analysis speak to three broadaspects of how principals support inclusion. Within each of these domains, principalstake on a number of different roles. On one level, identifying these domains and rolescan help people to better understand how principals think and act in their day-to-daywork in the special education milieu. Deepening this understanding is crucial

International Journal of Inclusive Education 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

because it can help to envision what sorts of preparatory and ongoing professionaldevelopment experiences would benefit principals. While this meta-analysis identifiesthree core domains and seven key roles, it is possible that there are additional domainsand roles. It is also possible that the links between specific domains and roles identifiedin this meta-analysis do not fully represent the dynamics of special education principalleadership. Further research will help to establish a deeper understanding of the threedomains and seven roles and possibly identify additional domains and roles.

The literature examined in this meta-analysis indicates that principals take on sevenkey roles as they work as special education leaders: visionary, partner, coach, conflictresolver, advocate, interpreter, and organiser. Some of the roles are more philosophicalin nature. When acting as a visionary, for instance, principals hold a view of pedagogythat is rooted in the interlocking principles of equity and inclusion (Irvine et al. 2010;McCarthy and Soodak 2007; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton 2006). Theycommunicate this vision of inclusion to a school staff and community through theirwords, actions, and ongoing interactions. Principals also work as a partner, coach, con-flict resolver, and advocate to better establish a school-wide practice that itself bothrespects and reflects a vision that is firmly rooted in inclusive programme delivery,shared decision-making, dialogue, and equitable support (Correa and Wagner 2011;Ross and Berger 2009; Shepherd 2006; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacobson, and Hilton2006; Zaretsky 2005). In interpreting policies and expectations and then setting up(or delegating) special education-oriented processes on an organisational level, princi-pals ensure that equity is not only a part of a school’s philosophy but also its practice(Barrera and Liu 2006; Furney et al. 2005; Irvine et al. 2010). This organisational workin special education might include such logistical-oriented matters as recordkeeping,acquiring resources and materials, and ensuring that special education proceduresand communications are scheduled and completed within regulated parameters. Inother words, a principal’s work in special education is at once multifaceted anddemanding. Principals play many parts as they take on multiple roles in the special edu-cation milieu.

It is incumbent on principal preparation programmes and ongoing professionaldevelopment supports to offer experiences that (1) identify the values and skills prin-cipals need and also (2) offer multiple and varied learner-centred experiences thathelp principals to develop those values and skills. In other words, if principals are totake on the seven roles they need to nurture the values and skills at hand. Furtherresearch needs to examine the way principals themselves learn about special educationboth as they prepare to become principals and afterwards.

Responding to gaps

In addition to analysing what the 19 articles reveal about special education principalleadership, it is also important to also consider what they do not address. More specifi-cally, examining the three leadership domains and seven roles can help researchers andpolicy-makers to identify gaps and devise ways of addressing those gaps. Inclusionarose as a key theme in 18 of the 19 articles included in this meta-analysis. Thislevel of attention seems to indicate that inclusion is central to the way in whichspecial education leadership is understood and researched. Further, inclusion is concep-tualised in a broad way that involves not only programme delivery but also staff collab-oration and parental engagement (Barrera and Liu 2006; Stevenson-Jacobson,Jacobson, and Hilton 2006; Zaretsky 2005).

230 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Of the three core leadership domains, parental engagement received the least atten-tion in the studies examined in this meta-analysis. While 5 of the 19 articles mentionedaspects of parental engagement, three of the seven roles a principal takes on to fosterparental engagement were discussed: partner, interpreter, and organiser. Two of theroles, interpreter and organiser, were discussed by a mere one study apiece. Itwould seem that parental engagement is inconspicuous in the research on specialeducation principal leadership. But if parental involvement is commonly held to bea vital aspect of learning (Epstein 2001; Lai and Ishiyama 2004), then it wouldseem to be surprising that such a gap exists in the literature. Additional researchneeds to focus on examining how principals foster parental engagement in thespecial education milieu. Further, this research needs to identify the additional possibleroles that principals take on as well as tasks they carry out to empower parents whencommunicating, dialoguing, and making decisions. Delving further into these aspectsof a principal’s work, will help to identify values and skills that would support parentalinclusion.

Conclusion

While school principals are certainly not the only people who contribute to special edu-cation leadership, the work that they carry out to this end is crucial. When working inthe core domains of special education leadership principals take on seven key roles. AsShakespeare might say, in their time they play many parts. Identifying a principal’sroles in special education can help to counter sources work-related stress. It can alsohelp to identify the relevant skills at play, and develop learning experiences wouldbenefit people as they prepare to become principals and/or enrich their practices as prin-cipals. But the findings of this meta-analysis do not strictly consider the interlockingmatters of principal learning and support, important as they are. The 19 articles inthis meta-analysis indicate that further research needs to explore the work principalscarry out in the area of parental engagement. Key questions that need to be addressedinclude: What are the different tasks principal’s carry out as they work to foster parentalengagement in special education? What sorts of roles, values, and skills are associatedwith these tasks? What sorts of learning experiences would help guide principals toenrich those roles, values, and skills?

Current research indicates that special education faces a number of pressing issuesincluding teacher dissatisfaction, teacher attrition, increasing litigation, and principalstress (Jacobs, Tonnsen, and Baker 2004; Valeo 2008). If schools are to enrich theway in which inclusion is supported and practiced, it is necessary to examine morethe perspectives and actions that principals need to take on, and supports they need,as special education leaders. The studies examined in this meta-analysis indicate thatinclusion is influenced by a principal’s commitment to dialogue, communal empower-ment, and shared decision-making (Barrera and Liu 2006; Stevenson-Jacobson, Jacob-son, and Hilton 2006; Zaretsky 2005). To better understand how this commitmentmight be nurtured, studies need to investigate how principals perceive their learning,values, and skills in the special education milieu. While enriching equity and collabor-ation within special education is certainly a worthy endeavour, it is also a part of a muchlarger picture. What is good for special education is good for all education. If principalsnurture practices that encourage richer forms of inclusion, collaboration, and engage-ment, these democratic-oriented values will enrich not merely those directly involvedin special education, but the entire school community.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Notes on contributorCam Cobb is an assistant professor at the University of Windsor. His core areas of researchinclude social justice, special education, and narrative pedagogy.

ReferencesAlbus, D., M. Thurlow, and A. Clapper. 2006. “State-Level Standards-Based Instructional

Strategies for ELLs with Disabilities.” Journal of Special Education Leadership 19 (1):11–18.

Ashbaker, B. Y., and J. Morgan. 2006. “The Role of Administrators in ParaprofessionalSupervision to Support Ethnic Minority Students with Special Needs.” EducationalConsiderations 34 (1): 17–21.

Barrera, M., and K. K. Liu. 2006. “Involving Parents of English Language Learners withDisabilities through Instructional Dialogues.” Journal of Special Education Leadership19 (1): 43–51.

Barton, E. 2007. “Disability Narratives of the Law: Narratives and Counter-Narratives.”Dialogue 15 (1): 95–112.

Blanton, L. P., and Y. Perez. 2011. “Exploring the Relationship Between Special EducationTeaches and Professional Learning Communities.” Journal of Special EducationLeadership 24 (1): 6–16.

Bowlby, B., C. Peters, and M. Mackinnon. 2010. An Educators Guide to Special EducationLaw. 2nd ed. Aurora, ON: Cartwright Group.

Browder, D. M., and K. Copper-Duffy. 2003. “Evidence-Based Practices for Students withSevere Disabilities and the Requirement for Accountability in ‘No Child Left Behind’.”The Journal of Special Education 37 (3): 157–163.

Burch, P., G. Theoharis, and E. Rauscher. 2010. “Class Size Reduction in Practice:Investigating the Influence of the Elementary School Principal.” Educational Policy 24(2): 330–358.

Burge, P., H. Ouellette-Kuntz, N. Hutchinson, and H. Box. 2008. “A Quarter Century ofInclusive Education for Children with Intellectual Disabilities in Ontario: PublicPerception.” Canadian Journal of Educational Administration 87: 1–22.

Butera, G. 2005. “Collaboration in the Context of Appalachia: The Case of Cassie.” Journal ofSpecial Education 39 (2): 106–116.

Carter, E. W., and C. Hughes. 2005. “Increasing Social Interaction among Adolescents withIntellectual Disabilities and their General Education Peers: Effective Interventions.”Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 30 (4): 179–193.

Christle, C. A., and M. L. Yell. 2010. “Individualized Education Programs: Legal Requirementsand Research Findings.” Exceptionality 18 (3): 109–123.

Cobb, C. 2012. “Speed Bumps, Roadblocks and Tollbooths: How Culturally and LinguisticallyDiverse Parents Navigate the Highways and Byways of Giftedness in Ontario.” BritishJournal of Special Education 39 (1): 12–20.

Correa, V. I., and J. Y. Wagner. 2011. “Principals’ Roles in Supporting the Induction of SpecialEducation Teachers.” Journal of Special Education Leadership 24 (1): 17–25.

Dixon, S. 2005. “Inclusion – Not Segregation or Integration – is Where a Student with SpecialNeeds Belongs.” Journal of Educational Thought 39 (1): 33–53.

Ebmeier, H., J. L. Beutel, and E. Dugan. 2010. “An Employment Interview Instrument forSpecial Education Teachers.” Journal of Special Education Leadership 23 (2): 84–99.

Epstein, J. L. 2001. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators andImproving Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Etscheidt, S. 2003. “An Analysis of Legal Hearings and Cases Related to IndividualizedEducation Programs for Children with Autism.” Research and Practice for Persons withSevere Disabilities 28 (2): 21–69.

Evans, D., and I. Kowanko. 2000. “Literature Reviews: Evolution of a Research Methodology.”Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 18 (2): 33–38.

Furney, K. S., J. Aiken, S. Hasazi, and K. Clark/Keefe. 2005. “Meeting the Needs ofAll Students: Contributions of Effective School Leaders.” Journal of School Leadership15 (5): 546–570.

232 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Gallagher, D. J. 2001. “Neutrality as a Moral Standpoint, Conceptual Confusion and the FullInclusion Debate.” Disability and Society 16 (5): 637–654.

Garcia, S. B., A. Mendez-Perez, and A. A. Ortiz. 2000. “Interpreting Mexican-AmericanMothers’ Beliefs about Language Disabilities from a Sociocultural Perspective.”Remedial and Special Education 21 (2): 90–102.

Grove, K. A., and D. Fisher. 1999. “Entrepreneurs of Meaning: Parents and the Process ofInclusive Education.” Remedial and Special Education 20 (4): 208–215.

Harry, B. 2008. “Collaboration with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Families: Ideal versusReality.” Exceptional Children 74 (3): 372–388.

Hornby, G., and R. Lafaele. 2011. “Barriers to Parental Involvement in Education: AnExplanatory Model.” Educational Review 63 (1): 37–52.

Irvine, A., J. L. Lupart, T. Loreman, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2010. “Educational Leadershipto Create Authentic Inclusive Schools: The Experiences of Principals in a Canadian RuralSchool District.” Exceptionality Education International 20 (2): 70–88.

Jackson, L., D. L. Ryndak, and F. Billingsley. 2000. “Useful Practices in Inclusive Education: APreliminary View of what Experts in Moderate to Severe Disabilities are Saying.” Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 25 (3): 129–141.

Jacobs, J. E., S. Tonnsen, and L. C. Baker. 2004. “Shaping the Role of the Principal in SpecialEducation: What Do We Know and Where Do We Want to Go?” Journal of Scholarship andPractice: Research and Best Practices that Advance the Profession of EducationalAdministration 1 (1): 7–12.

Lai, Y., and F. I. Ishiyama. 2004. “Involvement of Immigrant Chinese Canadian Mothers ofChildren with Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 71 (1): 97–108.

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services.New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.

McCarthy, M. R., and L. C. Soodak. 2007. “The Politics of Discipline: Balancing School Safetyand Rights of Students with Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 73 (4): 456–474.

McLaughlin, M. J. 2010. “Evolving Interpretations of Educational Equity and Students withDisabilities.” Exceptional Children 76 (3): 265–278.

Minnema, J., J. Barboza, M. Thurlow, and G. VanGetson. 2006. “Including English LanguageLearners with Disabilities in Statewide Testing: Touchstones for School Administrators.”Journal of Special Education Leadership 19 (1): 19–26.

O’Shea, D., and M. Drayden. 2008. “Legal Aspects of Preventing Problem Behavior.”Exceptionality 16 (2): 105–118.

Protz, B. M. 2005. “Administrators’ Understanding of Special Education Law in theSchoolhouse.” Journal of Special Education Leadership 18 (2): 15–22.

Ross, J. A., and M. Berger. 2009. “Equity and Leadership: Research-Based Strategies for SchoolLeaders.” School Leadership and Management 29 (5): 463–476.

Rueda, R., and M. P. Windmueller. 2006. “English Language Learners, LD, andOverrepresentation: A Multiple-level Analysis.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 (2):99–107.

Schlifer, C. 2005. “The Sociology of Special Education.” College Quarterly 8 (1): 1–26.Scruggs, T. E., M. A. Mastropieri, and K. A. McDuffie. 2007. “Co-teaching in Inclusive

Classrooms: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Research.” Exceptional Children 73 (4):392–416.

Shepherd, K. 2006. “Supporting all Students: The Role of School Principals in ExpandingGeneral Education Capacity Using Resource to Intervention Teams.” Journal of SpecialEducation Leadership 19 (2): 30–38.

Skiba, R. J., A. B. Simmons, S. Ritter, A. C. Gibb, M. K. Rausch, J. Cuadrado, and C. Chung.2008. “Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges.”Exceptional Children 74 (3): 264–288.

Smith, R., and P. Leonard. 2005. “Collaboration for Inclusion: Practitioner Perspectives.” Equityand Excellence in Education 38 (4): 269–279.

Stevenson-Jacobson, R., J. Jacobson, and A. Hilton. 2006. “Principals’ Perceptions of CriticalSkills Needed for Administration of Special Education.” Journal of Special EducationLeadership 19 (2): 39–47.

Styron, R. A., and J. L. Styron. 2011. “Critical Issues Facing School Principals.” Journal ofCollege Teaching and Learning 8 (5): 1–10.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015

Taylor, S. J. 1995. “On Rhetoric: A Response to Fuchs and Fuchs.” Exceptional Children 61 (3):301–302.

Trainor, A. A. 2005. “Self-Determination Perceptions and Behaviors of Diverse Students withLD During the Transition Planning Process.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 38 (3): 233–249.

Trainor, A. A. 2010. “Diverse Approaches to Parent Advocacy During Special EducationHome-School Interactions: Identification and Use of Cultural and Social Capital.”Remedial and Special Education 31 (1): 34–47.

Valeo, A. 2008. “Inclusive Education Systems: Teacher and Administrator Views.”International Journal of Special Education 23 (2): 8–16.

Zaretsky, L. 2005. “Parent Advocates’ and Principals’ Perceptions of Professional Knowledgeand Identity in Special Education.” Journal of Special Education Leadership 18 (2):30–40.

234 C. Cobb

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

Utre

cht]

at 0

9:41

15

Mar

ch 2

015