A Comparison of Special Education Knowledge of Trained and Untrained School Leaders, Essay Example

Special Education Background

The special education sub-sector within the broad education sector is one in which special education programs aim to assist students with challenged learning, physical disabilities, developmental disorders, and the like. Although the education of the majority of special education administrators have some form of specialized training that reflects in-depth knowledge of special education, in particular the proper management and placement of children with special needs, some do not.

However, this can be seen as a problem or an opportunity. On the one hand, school administrators who lack special education training do not have the expertise and knowledge to handle children’s issues and challenges in the expected way; furthermore, they probably have not come across such problems before. In addition, there may be tensions between trained administrators who are familiar with and understand the procedures and policies of special education learning and instructional methods, while untrained administrators may have barriers trying to acclimate to such a work environment.

On the other hand, untrained administrators may have more hands-on experience as opposed to technical training than trained administrators; such as working with challenging children, special schooling work experience, and even having children with special needs. As the perception of special education suggests that training is critical, education leadership is one trait that is a key variable in effective schools (Gersten, Keating, Yovanoff and Harniss, 2001). However, leadership abilities are not gained in theory, but in practice. Therefore, it is possible for untrained administrators to exemplify leadership skills without prior training.

Much research has been undertaken in order to show the qualitative relationship between school administrators who have training in comparison to those who do not have training, reflected by the knowledge differences between them. Nevertheless, the significant difference between trained and untrained school administrators in a quantitative sense has yet to be explored, as shown by the difference in knowledge levels regarding special education.

Purpose of Study

Although it is also hypothesised that there is no significant difference between the knowledge of school administrators who are trained and those who are not trained, the quantity of research methodologies and results shows otherwise. The main difference between both administrators, trained and untrained, is seen by the quantitative relationship as below.

The design of such a study will feed into the methodology that is undertaken, using mainly non-experimental methods and a quantitative design. This ensures that the expected findings are such that align with the proposed hypothesis, namely that there is a significant difference between trained school administrators and untrained school administrators.

For the majority of school administrators, the area of special education is one that is dominated by trained teachers, but the training is quite diversified and varied. Therefore, there seems to be a need for a newer model of training based upon a preferred leadership style as emphasised when working with challenging children.

As aforementioned, there has been prior research into the qualitative, rather than the quantitative relationship between trained and untrained school administrators, in the area of special education. Though this has provided insights into the special education area, it has not yet shed any light into the way trained and untrained school administers utilise the knowledge they have in a practical way that is beneficial for challenging children. Therefore, this study aims to show the difference between trained and untrained school administrators, as well as the implications for working with challenging children and further research in the special education area for the future.

Quantitative Literature Review 

According to the Principals and Inclusion Survey undertaken by Praisner (2000), the results reflected that specific training gave principals positive experiences with students of all types of disabilities. As using such a methodological design in quantifying the relationship between those who have training in comparison to those who do not, it establishes the premise on which additional research is based.

Concerning the standard of education for which trained and untrained school administrators which both are expected to meet, there is also an expectation that such formal preparation is pivotal in association with engagement in special education. Although most administrators have some form of training, research suggests that it is still insufficient.

More intense training is required for principals in special education (Stevenson-Jacobson, 2006). This may be due to the fact that leadership abilities are yet to be observed amongst the majority of school administrators.

As aforementioned, this particular trait is not taught, but learnt via experience. This may also be a contributor to the insufficiency of adequate training and the need for focussed leadership on the part of school administrators in a special education setting.

Acceptance and understanding through leadership is imperative for school administrators, as is responsibility (Protz, 2005; Shaw and Madaus, 2008). These qualities come through leadership, which needs to be emphasised in further training when school administrators are dealing with challenging children.

For the purposes of pre-service training programs in the area of special education, it is shown to benefit school administrators who engage in such additional training if offered (Lowe and Brighman, 2000). This particular type of preparation is important to extend the expertise of school administrators, as well as begin the training of those who are not formally trained in special education.

In particular, the guidelines for such training is rooted in social learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Bateman and Batemen, 2001). As Bandura’s theory reflects the fact that learning is observed through modelling behaviour, this serves as a guide for action. The main concepts behind the learning process is modelled behaviour is adopted when valued by individuals, and modelled behaviour is similar to the individual if it is believed to have a functional model.

As the relationship to school administrators and social learning theory is accentuated by changing the role of training in special education to emphasise learning by doing, and such modelled behaviour is to be strategized and incorporated into the training programs. Both cognitive and behavioural concepts are to be coupled with the support of environmental influences in the special education setting.

Requirements for such training for school administrators is emphasised in importance as well as practicality. The school administrators who have prior training still require further training, whereas those who do not have any training can engage in training programs without any pre-conceived conceptions or obstruction to training. Therefore, it is easier to implement such training programs, if needed, for those who are untrained school administrators.

Those who are school administrators who have been trained are seen to have training that is inadequate or out-of-date with current special education environments. This prior training is seen as a disadvantage for those seek to provide education for challenging children.

As such, untrained school administrators actually have an advantage, as contrasted with trained administrators, since the former can provide current training and utilise knowledge and experience as learned through experience, exemplifying leadership traits and modelling behaviour via training that is provided on a needs basis.

Theoretical Implications

In the past, research has reflected the need for further training in the area of special education for all school administrators who work directly and indirectly with challenging children. However, the typified knowledge gap is determined as subsequent to how much experience and leadership qualities are held by these school administrators.

Hence, it can be shown that there is a gap in knowledge levels between trained and untrained school administrators, but the research hastens to add that this is not replaceable by higher levels in other areas, such as responsibility and leadership.

The instructional leader is one who is able to improve educational opportunities and ensure resources and support is provided to foster thriving educational environments (DiPaola and Walther-Thomas, 2003). Although this role has evolved, its emphasis should be highlighted in regards to the influence it holds amongst challenged children. Furthermore, the shift in focus from knowledge to influence is more valued in special education settings when working in such an environment.

Although such administrative abilities require knowledge, they also require discretion. Since this is delegated to all administrators working with challenging children, it is important to note that knowledge does not fill the gap between the administrator and the child. However, it is still important to use knowledge as a building block for influence, as untrained administrators are able to do so in comparison and contrasted with trained administrators.

Practical Implications

There is still a lack of training on how to address special education issues, which should be further researched in the future (Billingsley, 2004; Crockett, 2002). Therefore, this should be at the forefront of school administration’ priorities, not just the mere knowledge gap between trained and untrained school administrators. That being said, everything should be taken in proportion to the context of the special education program and the children involved, in which case knowledge of training procedures and education in leadership should be prioritised.

Finally, most principals do not have knowledge of instructional and pragmatic needs amongst children with whom they work with (Monteith, 2000). This is a major concern if school administrators are to abide in such roles with legislative and ethical requirements.

Therefore, it is proposed that proper refresher training is provided in comprehensive modules, so that both trained and untrained administrators can improve on the job and work with challenging children on a level playing field. This will ensure that school administrators efficiently and effectively are paving the way for a better platform in reaching challenging children. Thus, it is imperative that from the initial stages, both trained and untrained school administrators flourish in the special education area without the difference in knowledge specification.

Conclusion

In summary, it is clear that there is a distinct gap between trained and untrained school administrators, in terms of the knowledge gap in special education. However, it has been shown by quantitative research that this problem is caused by inadequate training of trained administrators. Therefore, further research should be undertaken to show whether proper training for both trained and untrained school administrators results in emerging leadership qualities and improved responses with challenging children.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bateman, D., & Bateman, F. C. (2001). A principal’s guide to special education. Arlington, VA Council of Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 455624).

Billingsley, B. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.

Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education’s role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 157-168.

DiPaola, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school leaders. Personnel Studies in Special Education, 7(1), 4-26.

Gersten, R., Keating, T, Yovanoff, P., & Harniss, M. (2001). Working in special education: Factors that enhance special educators’ intent to stay. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 549–567.

Lowe, M. A., Brigham, F. J. (2000). Supervising special education instruction: Does it deserve a special place in administration preparatory programs? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 448530)

Madaus, J. W., & Shaw, S. F. (2008). The role of school professionals in the implementation of Section 504. Educational Policy, 22, 363-378.

Monteith, D. S. (2000). Professional development for administrators in special education: Evaluation of a program for underrepresented personnel. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 281-289.

Praisner, C. (2000). Attitudes of elementary principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69 (2), 135-145.

Protz, B. M. (2005). Administrators’ understanding of special education law in the schoolhouse. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 18 (2), 15-23.

Stevenson-Jacobson, R., Jacobson, J. & Hilton, A. (2006). Principal perceptions of critical skills needed for administration of special education. Special Education Leadership 19(2) 39-45.