Instructional Leadership - K-12 Schools

unit_4.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Instructional Leadership - K-12 Schools

8 Special Students and Special Services

T he administration of special education services looms as one of the most complex and increasingly demanding responsibilities faced by the school principal. Student popula- tions are more diverse than ever before in this nation’s history, bringing a challenge to

schools as they seek to identify, place, and properly deliver an appropriate continuum of services to those judged to be “exceptional.” Researchers suggest a strong link between being at risk for special education services and a background marked by poverty and language/race barriers.2 This gives reason for concern when considering estimates suggesting that “our nation’s popula- tion will grow to 265 million by the year 2020, with the largest growth among minority groups.”3 In addition, “estimates are that the number of children in poverty will substantially increase from 14.7 million to 20.1 million.”4

Not only does increased diversity pose its challenges, but so too do the demands for school restructuring. The days of teaching students with special needs in isolated settings are over. No longer are special education programs considered to be merely add-ons; rather, they are viewed as an integral part of the total school operation. Special education is a continuum of services and not a place. It should be viewed as an intervention, the most intense intervention in a continuum of school-based interventions.

Calls for school reform and restructuring demand a more systemic look at school organiza- tion. Schools must design programs to meet the needs of students rather than forcing students into “preset” programs that may or may not meet their needs.

At the same time, operational funds are short, available properly credentialed and qualified teachers are scarce, and parents are more adequately informed relative to their legal rights. Recent

C H A P T E R

It was a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals.

—Felix Frankfurter1

158

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

The Principal: Creative Leadership for Excellence in Schools, Eighth Edition, by Gerald C. Ubben, Larry W. Hughes, and Cynthia J. Norris. Published by Pearson. Copyright © 2016 by Pearson Education, Inc.

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 159

political mandates have added to the responsibilities faced by school personnel with the higher demands for accountability for all students. Certainly, it is not a time when the school principal can delegate the responsibility for administering special services to someone else! If ever the school principal should be an integral player in the process, it is now! The principal sets the tone for the special education services delivery system within the school. Likewise, he or she serves as the focal point for program structuring and determines just how the special education process will be administered. Nowhere is leadership more desperately needed than in this arena. As we discussed in Chapter 1, the way in which that leadership is enacted will depend in great measure on the ethical principles and values that shape the leader’s administrative philosophy.

The quality of the leadership determines the quality of the effort put forth by all staff mem- bers. High expectations that are clearly communicated will bring about the necessary changes to close achievement gaps for students with disabilities.

Ethics of Administration

Two ethics, the ethic of care5 and the ethic of justice,6 are extremely important for school princi- pals to consider as they administer special education programs within their respective schools. Both ethics must be considered in dealing with the personal and legal implications of services to special education students, but principals often face ethical and moral dilemmas as they struggle to reconcile the two.

The ethic of justice is based on a sense of fairness and equality. Individuals are treated in a uniform manner; individual differences are not always considered. An ethic of justice places much emphasis on maintaining moral rules and on recognizing and respecting the rights of oth- ers. Relationships are reciprocal and mediated through rules, with rules becoming a means for minimizing hurt to others. Interpretation of rules and regulations is impersonal and objective.7 In areas of legal compliance, the ethic of justice forms an important backdrop for guiding the legal requirements of special education services.

The ethic of care forms a protective network through which principals may articulate a more effective and personally relevant special education service delivery system. An ethic of care ensures that decisions are based on ethical consideration of relationships rather than merely on rules, regulations, and a sense of fairness advocated by a strict adherence to an ethic of jus- tice.8 Caring is based on connection and involves a personal responsiveness to the unique needs of others, resulting in feelings of concern and solicitude.9 The ethic of care is viewed as both a practice and a disposition. It involves taking the concerns and needs of others as the basis of action and is directed toward four ethical elements:

1. Attentiveness. Recognizing the needs of others and not allowing personal needs to prevent one from taking appropriate action in response to the needs of others

2. Responsibility. Taking action out of genuine concern rather than on the basis of perceived obligation

3. Competence. Providing care and doing so with responsibility for the decisions made rela- tive to that care

4. Responsiveness. Recognizing and responding positively to the vulnerability of those in one’s care

ISLLC 5

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

160 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Principals who attempt to balance the dual roles of legal administrator and child advocate help to set the tone of acceptance and community so vital to the successful implementation of special education services. It is important in this regard that principals recognize and encourage others to appreciate the four phases of caring:

1. Caring About. Recognizing that care is necessary 2. Taking Care Of. Assuming some responsibility for the identified need; providing a service

to meet that need 3. Care Giving. Meeting the needs by taking an active part in the individual’s care 4. Care Receiving. Recognizing that individuals respond to the care that is provided and

being attentive to that response (i.e., have the individuals’ needs been appropriately met?)10

It is important to note that as principals exercise a sense of care in the administration of special education programs, the individuals in need of care may extend far beyond the student. The needs of those who will deliver the needed care to students—parents and teachers—must also be considered. In meeting many of these needs, the principal will be responsible for respond- ing with adequate parental and staff support programs. Extensive staff-development training will be necessary to enable those who serve the needs of others to do so in more effective ways. In so doing, the principal has fulfilled the highest level of care for the student as well as the caregiver.

Administration of Special Education Services

Special education is governed by a series of laws that together form an umbrella of compliance regulations that guide the school principal in the administration of quality legal services. A sum- mary of each law is presented.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA),11 enforced by the U.S. Department of Education, was passed in 1974 to protect the privacy of educational records. Although the law is not classified as special education legislation, it does impact all special education students along with the regular population of students. The law provides parents and eligible students (those 18 years or older or attending a postsecondary institution) the right to inspect and review their educational records (records directly related to the student and maintained by the district or insti- tution). In addition, it gives those parents or eligible students the right to request that corrections be made to school records that are believed to be incorrect or in violation to privacy rights. The law requires the following:

■ Written parental or eligible student permission for the release of student information ■ Notification of parent and eligible student rights under FERPA ■ Notification to parents and eligible students of previously distributed directory information

In January 2013 FERPA was amended by the Uninterrupted Scholars Act. The new law allows personnel of state and federal agencies to be able to access educational records without

ISLLC 8

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 161

parental consent. There is also a provision that school districts are not required to give parents notice when a court orders the release of educational records in any court proceeding that involves allegations of abuse and neglect, if the parent is a party to the abuse, neglect, or dependency proceeding.

In interpreting this law, it is important that the school principal carefully distinguish between directory and personal information. Table 8.1 outlines the differences in these two information sources.

A second law that has implications for special education services is Section 504, which deals specifically with students who have disabilities.

Section 504: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance

Section 504, which is a federal civil Section 504,12 which is a federal civil rights law was designed to prevent discrimination toward any individual judged to have a handicap (i.e., disability). Crucial to the law is a clear definition of who is judged to be handicapped. The law defines handicapped persons as “any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substan- tially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”13 The 1997 amendments include in that definition drug addicts and alcoholics as handicapped. The law was further amended by the Reauthorization of the American with Disabilities Act, 2008, effective 2009.

Section 504 prohibits exclusion of students with disabilities from aids, benefits, or services that are provided to students without disabilities; provides students with disabilities with equal opportunity to participate in those services, aids, or benefits; and requires that such services be “as effective as those provided to the non-disabled.”14 Finally, the law pro- hibits different or separate services except “when necessary to provide equally effective benefits.”15

TABLE 8.1 Personally Identifiable Information Versus Specific Directory Information

PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION SPECIFIC DIRECTORY INFORMATION

Name Name

Address Names of parents and other family members

Telephone listing Address of student or student’s family members

Date and place of birth

Major field of study

Participation in officially recognized activities and sports

Social Security or student number

Weight and height of athletic team members List of personal characteristics or other identifiable information

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

162 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

This last provision is especially important, as it has been misinterpreted by many to mean that students with disabilities must always be placed in services identical to those provided for other children. This official interpretation of the amendments goes into great detail to discuss the concept of “equivalent” versus “identical” services and states specifically that “in order to meet the individual needs of disabled persons to the same extent that the corresponding needs of non- disabled persons are met, adjustments to regular programs or the provision of different programs may sometimes be necessary.”16 The interpretation states further, “It must be emphasized that, although separate services must be required in some instances, the provision of unnecessarily separate or different services is discriminatory.”17 These interpretations of the law reinforce the urgent need for principals to carefully orchestrate the placement process by thoughtfully consid- ering the unique needs of each student with a disability regardless of the label of certification. Certification of the student merely establishes the presence of a disabling condition. Verification, through the Individual Educational Plan (IEP) team process, establishes that such a student has specific educational needs that require special education services. At this point, the student’s unique needs should be the focal point for any service delivery decision.

The final legal framework to be considered in this umbrella of provisions is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its latest amendments.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)

This law, enacted in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, became effective in 1978. Originally, it was named the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (EAHCA) and, in 1990, was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA amendments of 1997 further clarified its provisions.18 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) became effective in 2005, with the latest revisions effective in 2006. The amendments introduced significant changes in the services provided to special education students. Basically, these changes revolved around the following main themes:

1. Strengthened parental participation in the educational process 2. Accountability for students’ participation and success in the general education curriculum

and mastery of IEP goals and objectives 3. Remediation and rehabilitation of behavior problems at school and in the classroom 4. Changes in Due Process 5. Changes in Student Discipline (Manifestation Determination)

IDEA required that every participating state offer to all children with disabilities a “free and appropriate public education”19 and that those children be educated with children who are not disabled “to the maximum extent appropriate.”20 Free appropriate public education (FAPE) must meet state standards, be provided at public expense, and include special education services specifically tailored through an individual educational plan to meet the unique needs of the indi- vidual. These services included any preschool, elementary, or secondary educational services provided to students without disabilities within the state. Related services were included as part of this requirement.

Not only did IDEA provide for the academic needs of students with disabilities, but it also gave attention to the behavioral dimensions of the students’ education. As stated in the provisions,

ISLLC 10

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 163

“When a child’s behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, the IEP team must con- sider positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior.”21

The new provisions of the law focused strongly on the general curriculum and emphasized the importance of these main concepts:

■ Identification and monitoring of each child’s unique educational needs ■ Involvement of all stakeholders in the child’s education ■ Transition and preparation of children with disabilities for employment and postsecondary

education22

The new emphasis on the general curriculum raised several important questions that needed to be considered for each student:

■ How does the student’s disability affect his or her involvement and progress in the general curriculum?

■ What particular goals and/or objectives will aim toward ensuring the student’s involve- ment and progress within the general curriculum?

■ What other educational needs result from the student’s disability? ■ What related services should be provided to enable the student to progress toward annual

goals and make progress in the general curriculum? ■ What specific monitoring procedures are in place to check the student’s progress toward

goal attainment? ■ Has the IEP responded appropriately to student progress or failure to progress?23

IDEA required school districts to provide a free appropriate public education, including special education and related services, in the least restrictive environment (LRE), as determined by an IEP team and written in an individual education plan. These services, mandatory for all children from age 3 to 21, could be certified by an appropriate specialist as having a disability or exceptionality and verified by a multidisciplinary team of educators as needing special education services. Federal disability categories include:

Intellectual Disability Emotional Disturbance Learning Disabilities Visual Impairment Hearing Impairment Other Health Impairment Orthopedic Impairment Speech Impairment Autism Deaf–Blind Multidisabled Traumatic Brain Injury Developmental Delayed

Other state-defined disability categories could include but are not limited to the following: Functionally Delayed and Gifted.

The law required that certain due process procedures be followed, assuming the right of the parent and child to be fully informed and included in the decision making at all steps in identifi- cation, child evaluation, planning, programming, and program evaluation. A new reauthorization of IDEA was signed into law on December 3, 2004. The new statute, known as Individuals with

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

164 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004—IDEIA 04—went into effect on July 1, 2005. We will discuss the original IDEA (1990) and its steps of implementation. This discussion will be followed by an overview of the new provisions (2005).

IDEA (1990)

Program Steps

Particular steps were to be followed in implementing a special education program. The schools were charged to proceed according to outlined steps. Since many of these steps are still operable, they will be presented in the present tense.

Step 1: Screening. The school has the responsibility to monitor the development of each child in order to know as early as possible if any child is having problems with his or her school work. Screening checks are to be made for the child’s medical health record as well as the child’s progress in school. Medical screenings are usually scheduled by the district special education departments or appropriate health agencies. Educational checks are initially the responsibility of the regular classroom teacher to observe and identify children with potential disabilities. Vision and hearing screenings are part of this process.

Step 2: Prereferral Actions. When a student presents a particularly unique problem, the class- room teacher often needs somewhere to turn for help. The problem may surface as a disciplinary problem, a learning difficulty, poor attendance, or what seems like a lack of interest in planned classroom activities. None of the strategies tried by the teacher has seemed to work. If the child is referred to special education, weeks can pass before a formal assessment is completed, and a staff meeting is held to recommend a plan. In some cases, a formal referral may identify a student as disabled and recommend placement in a special education instruction program. Other students may be identified as mildly disabled, but not in need of special education programming, and still others will not be identified as disabled at all. For these last two groups, the delay in providing immediate support to the teacher and student may not have been necessary at all.

Prereferral procedures should be developed that will allow for more immediate action and assistance in most cases and that would be less costly than the formal referral and assessment process. The prereferral procedure should begin with the collection and review of classroom data gathered by the teacher. Included should be attendance information, available standardized and classroom test data, teacher observations of student effort, attention, ability to follow directions, listening, social skills, self-confidence, peer relationships, and so on. Teaching strategies attempted should also be documented. Scientifically researched-based interventions must be implemented in the general educa- tion classroom. Progress monitoring should occur to determine the effectiveness of the interventions.

Response to intervention (RTI) as presented in Chapter 7 provides a way to eliminate the huge time delay while determining whether a child should be recommended for school support team (S team) consideration. RTI should be viewed as a preventive model. No longer do we have a “wait to fail” model before students receive intervention. RTI is providing good teaching, review- ing and measuring how interventions are working, and making adjustments based on data collec- tion when needed. RTI drills down and finds out what the individual student needs to learn.24

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 165

Step 3: Support Team Review. Each school should organize an S-team to function as an intermediate step between the recognition of a problem by a classroom teacher and a formal referral for a comprehensive educational evaluation. For students who are obviously disabled, this support team review is bypassed and a formal referral is made immediately. On the other hand, the teacher who is experiencing less severe difficulty with a student should request the team’s assistance. The information gathered through the prereferral action is received by this team. The team that meets regularly to discuss such cases considers the problem, generates pos- sible remedial actions, and recommends specific intervention strategy. The S-team should be made up of experienced teachers qualified to teach that age child, possibly the special education teacher, and other appropriate staff members such as a Title I teacher or guidance counselor. One member should function as the S-team coordinator to schedule meetings, organize records, and ensure that the team’s recommendations are implemented.

The S-team should be viewed as problem solvers, bringing to focus the expert resources of the school on those issues that fall just short of resulting in a formal special education referral. Those students deemed to have educational or emotional problems beyond the normal capability of the school staff and program to adequately address ultimately will be given a formal referral to the other education specialists for further evaluation.

Step 4: Formal Referral for a Comprehensive Evaluation. An evaluation is scheduled to specifically determine the severity of the child’s deficits. An assessment team may include all or any of the following: school psychologist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, other spe- cial educators, physician, regular classroom teachers, parents, and/or medical specialists. Parents have the right to obtain an independent evaluation at their own expense if they so choose; how- ever, depending on the nature of the events, the school must sometimes eventually assume these costs. Ultimately, the IEP team determines if the student is eligible for special education. Eligibility is based on the child meeting the certification requirements for a particular special education category, and a determination that the child’s needs cannot be met in the general edu- cation setting without special education support services.

Step 5: The IEP Team. For the IEP team meeting to be considered valid and compliant, the team must consist of the following:

1. Parent 2. At least one general education teacher 3. At least one special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than one of the child’s

special education providers (related services providers) 4. LEA representative that is qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially

designed instruction, knowledgeable about general education curriculum, and able to com- mit the systems resources

5. A person who is capable of interpreting and explaining evaluation results 6. Other professionals deemed necessary (related service providers, etc.) 7. When appropriate, the child

The IEP team is responsible for developing an appropriate educational program for the student based on a careful review of all diagnostic data. The IEP team’s responsibilities include

ISLLC 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

166 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

(1) reviewing the present level of educational performance as derived from the assessment data, (2) developing the individualized educational program, and (3) making a recommendation for placement.

The IEP team approach is designed to ensure that decisions concerning a student’s pro- gram will be made by a team of persons whose primary goal is to accommodate the interests, needs, learning styles, and abilities of that student. Careful consideration should be given to the selection of IEP team members who are most qualified to contribute to the development and implementation of the IEP. Individuals who must be part of the initial IEP team include the prin- cipal or his or her designee; the teacher who recently or currently has the student in class; the assessment specialist(s), such as the psychologist or audiologist, who conducted the assessments as part of the evaluation; the parent/guardian of the student; and the student, when appropriate. (See Figure 8.1.)

Student Strengths

Parental Concerns

Disability Impact

Present Levels of Performance Statements

Goals

Objectives Supplemental

Aids and Services

Program Modification

Accommodations/ Modifications

Services

Placement Options

Student Centered IEP

FIGURE 8.1 Student-Centered Individual Educational Plan (IEP) Source: Developed by Sissy Foster, Special Education Director, Loudon County Public Schools. Used with Permission.

ISLLC 7

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 167

The IEP team provides a written record of the decisions reached by the members at the IEP meeting. It sets forth in writing the commitment of resources necessary for the child who has disabilities, functions as a management tool to ensure services, is the compliance/monitoring document for government monitoring of the law, serves as the evaluation device in determining the child’s progress, and functions as the communication document with the parent. The IEP must contain the following components:

1. Biographical information 2. Consideration of special factors that includes student behavior 3. Student strengths 4. Parent concerns 5. The present levels of educational performance (both academic and functional) 6. Statement of how the student’s disability adversely affects participation in the general

curriculum 7. Annual program goals 8. Interim program objectives if necessary 9. Classroom participation and accommodations and/or modifications 10. Special education placement and justification 11. Assessments 12. Special transportation 13. Extended school year 14. IEP team signatures of participants 15. Parent signature and statement of procedural safeguards 16. Indicated date for annual review

IDEA required that the individual educational program developed by the IEP team be pro- vided in the least restrictive environment. Today, that generally means inclusion. Inclusion dif- fers from mainstreaming in that the latter term usually referred to integrating children with disabilities and children without disabilities for only a portion of the day, which may be during nonacademic times. In a fully inclusive model, students with disabilities, no matter how severe, are taught in the general education classroom of their home school with their age and grade peers for the full day with support services provided within the classroom. In short, inclusion signifies bringing support services to the child rather than moving the child to a segregated setting to receive special services. This means that each child should be placed in a setting where he or she can be with noneligible children as much of the time as possible. The act allowed for 10 different placement options but demanded that the least restrictive option appropriate for the child be used. The act required that a continuum of service options be provided. A typical sequence of options would include the following:

1. Full time in the classroom with special supplies and/or equipment 2. Full time in the classroom with consultative services for the teacher 3. Full time in the classroom with additional instruction by a special education teacher in the

classroom 4. Part time in the classroom (as much as is appropriate) and part time in a special resource

program coordinated with the general classroom activities

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

168 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

5. Full time in a special comprehensive development classroom (CDC) provided to meet the needs of the severely/profoundly involved students who require intensive planning and programming

6. Part time in the school program with a special education paraprofessional supervising the child with disabilities while in the classroom

7. Other related services, including transportation; speech pathology and audiology; psychologi- cal, physical, and occupational therapy; recreation; counseling; medical (for diagnostic and evaluation purposes); school health; social work; parent counseling and training; assistive technology devices and services; transition; nursing; interpreter; as well as others not specified

8. Ancillary services provided by agencies outside the school to provide services a minimum of four hours a day in order to maintain the child in the classroom

9. Residential services to provide for a child whose disabling conditions are so profound or complex that continuous intervention is required to meet his or her educational needs and no special education services offered in a CDC or self-contained program can meet these needs. Although these programs are very costly, if the IEP calls for this service, the school system is responsible for the total program

10. Home or hospital instruction provided to continue the educational advancement of eligible students who are unable to attend school

Step 6: Implementing the Plan. Options numbered 1 through 6 from the preceding list are often implemented in the school, whereas the services of options 7 through 10 are more often provided by school district staff, by special schools, or by contract with outside agencies. The concept of least restrictive environment has been applied to greater and greater numbers of spe- cial education children, bringing more low-functioning children and children with disabilities into contact with the education program. As a result, many more children with severe disabilities, previously served in segregated special schools, are part of the school and are spending at least a part of their day in classrooms, often accompanied by an attendant. In some cases, building instructional and material modifications are required.

Often, the initial reaction of the staff to students with severe disabilities in their classrooms is one of fear because of health concerns for such a child and concern that he or she will disrupt the normal classroom environment. A good professional development program for the staff fre- quently turns the fear of special students into a learning opportunity. This is especially true when classroom children are taught about the classmates who are joining them. Often, compassion and understanding develops in children that could not be taught as effectively any other way. Rather than children who are disabled detracting from the learning of other children, they often enrich it with the development of new values and understanding for all children.

The principal should take advantage of the opportunities provided by the special education program and its integration into the education activities and be very careful not to allow these to develop into separate programs.

Program and Assessment Reviews

Each special education student’s IEP is reviewed annually by the IEP team for the purpose of deter- mining the continuing appropriateness of the program placement, goals, and objectives. Progress reports are required to be sent home every grading period indicating the amount of progress being

ISLLC 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 169

made to achieve mastery of the goals and objectives. Review dates must be monitored so that the annual reviews take place on schedule. The intent of the review should always be to move the child toward a less restrictive environment with less special education assistance if this is appropriate. The effort should be to try to move the child back toward the program whenever possible. The evaluation process for each special education student must be repeated every three years. A reeval- uation summary must be completed to determine if additional assessments are required to continue eligibility. If additional assessments are needed, then a new assessment plan must be developed and carried out, recertification must take place, and the IEP team must once again develop a new IEP.

Safeguarding Special Education Records

Special education records must be maintained separate and apart from a student’s school cumula- tive record folder. Access to the special education records is to be carefully controlled, with availability restricted to only those school personnel who have direct contact with the child or to whom the parents have given written permission for access, such as an outside psychologist. Sign-out sheets should be used and permission letters kept on file. Education records are not sup- posed to reference the existence of a special education file. The purpose of this regulation is to protect the special education student from later discrimination that might occur if it became known the child had some type of disability. Some schools code their cumulative folders with some special mark to indicate the existence of a separate special education folder.

Rights of Parents

The requirement of involvement of the parents of the potential or verified special education stu- dent has been noted through this entire section describing special education procedures. From the notification of the initial referral, through the assessment process, to the writing of the IEP, and finally to the approval for placement, as well as future access to their child’s records, parents must give their informed consent as participants in the process. Failure to notify or obtain this consent is a violation of the rights of parents under the law. Parents have the right to revoke pre- vious consent. In the event they choose to revoke a previous consent, they then are not entitled to all rights they were previously afforded.

Disciplining Students with Disabilities

Discipline of children in school is an important concern of all principals. In most situations, the day-to-day decisions regarding the control of children has been the prerogative of the principal supported by the staff. However, in the case of children with disabilities, intricate federal and state regulations govern the administration of punishment of these students; these regulations are based solely on federal court cases interpreting the laws.

Children who have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may receive educa- tional services and protection under Section 504 regulations. These children, by the nature of their disabling condition, often show up in the principal’s office as discipline cases. Great care must be taken in establishing discipline procedures for these children because they often defy nor- mal school behavior expectations. One cannot discipline children with disabilities in the unilateral

ISLLC 3, 5

ISLLC 8

ISLLC 7

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

170 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

fashion generally used for other students. In 1989, in Honig v. Doe,25 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students with disabilities cannot be unilaterally suspended or expelled for more than 10 days a year without provision of due process. This case triggered an array of procedural restrictions on local schools. Table 8.2 summarizes basic disciplinary actions often used in school and indicates under what conditions they may or may not be used for children with disabilities.

TABLE 8.2 Conditions of Disciplinary Action for Children with Disabilities

DISCIPLINARY ACTION CONDITIONS OF USE

Verbal reprimand OK

Written warning OK

Payment for damages OK as long as the child’s behavior does not suggest IEP changes

Time-out OK

Detention (lunch, recess, after school) OK

In-school suspension OK if supervised by a certified special education teacher and/or the child’s IEP is being carried out

Corporal punishment Many states prohibit its use. If permitted, it must be administered fairly. It is not recommended for children with disabilities.

Aversive therapy/devices* Only if specified in IEP

Bus suspension Counts as part of 10-day maximum if busing is included in child’s IEP

Exclusion from extracurricular activities OK as long as activities are not central to IEP goal

Suspension/expulsion

Beginning on say Day 11 special education services must be provided.

OK for 10 school days per school year.†For longer periods, the IEP team must determine the offense not to be related to the child’s disability. (Manifestation Determination)

Alternate school placement OK as long as the change is made through the regular IEP process.

Any disciplinary action must have no adverse effect on IEP goals and objectives and must not be applied in a discriminatory manner.

*Effective January 1, 2009, a new law governed this categotry. It was entitled Public Chapter 1063, the Special Education Isolation and Restraint Modernization and Positive Behavioral Support Act, now known as the Special Education Behavioral Support Act, effective June, 2011. †In addition to the 10-day limitation imposed by Honig v. Doe, the Office of Civil Rights reminds districts that Section 504 requires a student reevaluation prior to every significant change in placement. Therefore, any change in placement, including a suspension/expulsion, for more than 10 days or any consecutive 10-day suspensions must be evaluated by the IEP team.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 171

In understanding the disciplinary actions appropriate to the area of special education, it is important to consider the concept of manifestation. The concept has been defined as “a process that looks at the child’s disability, the functional basis for the behavior, behavior intervention plan if it exists, the behavior, and the child’s program to determine if the behavior was caused by or was strongly linked to the disability.”26 If it is determined that the child’s behavior is in fact connected to his or her disability, the IEP team must then develop a behavior intervention plan (BIP). Such a plan is defined as “a plan that is developed after the functional behavior assessment [FBA]. It uses the FBA to attempt to address the inappropriate behavior and to change the behav- ior by replacing the inappropriate behavior with appropriate behavior.”27

IDEIA 0428

Major provisions of the reauthorization of IDEA, known as the Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA 04), make strong connections between the original IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act. The connections include the provision for highly qualified teach- ers and the focus on the academic progress of students with disabilities. Specifically, the reau- thorization makes major changes in the identification of students with learning disabilities by initiating a “response to intervention” procedure that allows the school district to disregard the identification of a learning disability based on a severe discrepancy between academic achieve- ment and intellectual ability, if it can be demonstrated that the student responds appropriately to “scientific research-based intervention” as part of the evaluation procedure.

The reauthorization provides for coordinated interagency intervening services with par- ticular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade 3 who, although not identified as handicapped (disabled), show a need for additional academic or behavioral support. Along with this emphasis is an increased focus on literacy instruction.

Increased emphasis on academic achievement is also noted in the development of indi- vidual educational plans. All IEPs must include levels of academic achievement and a statement of measurable annual goals for academic and functional performance.

A final important change in the reauthorization has to do with discipline. The reauthoriza- tion establishes a new standard for manifestation determination. A review of the student’s file must show that the violation of student conduct was caused by, or had a direct relationship to, the student’s disability, or that it was the direct result of the school district’s failure to implement the IEP. In determining placement, if in fact a manifest determination is shown, the IEP team must conduct a behavioral assessment, implement a behavioral plan, and return the student to his or her original placement (unless special circumstances, as identified in the statute, can be shown).

Dealing with Parents of Special Children

The identification of a child as a potential special education child is always stressful for parents, and the principal and staff must be prepared to deal with a variety of reactions from parents. The parent may or may not have been aware for some time that a problem exists for his or her child. This knowledge may have been suppressed or the parent may already have a long history of deal- ing with the child and the school about the problems. There are at least four general patterns of

ISLLC 5, 7

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

172 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

parental reaction for which the school, the IEP team, and the principal, whether part of that IEP team or not, must be ready.

The Supportive Parent

This parent is understanding of his or her child’s problems, is concerned about the child’s education, and respects and appreciates the efforts of the school to develop an appropriate educational plan for the child. He or she generally is most supportive during IEP team meetings, attending faithfully and asking how he or she might best support the school’s efforts at home. Some parents always accept the recommendations of the school staff without question, whereas others may begin to question the IEP team recommendations if they feel services are not adequate. This latter type may become a demanding parent if the school fails to carefully present a rationale for its recommendations.

The Denying Parent

This is the parent who is unaccepting of the possibility that his or her child has a disability. He or she is offended by the request for a referral, often initially refusing to sign the permission for testing and frequently demanding to submit outside independent evaluations to refute the school’s claim that the child has a disability. In some cases, he or she begins to resist actions of the school by not attending meetings, by refusing to sign documents, and generally by becoming purpose- fully nonresponsive. The denial of the disability may be due to a feeling that the child’s disability is a reflection on his or her own intelligence or on his or her ability as a parent to raise the child. In these cases, parent education must often be an additional consideration before meaningful assistance can be provided for the child.

The denying parent is often extremely frustrated with the child, and his or her demands of the child are often impossible, given the identified disability. It is sometimes helpful to counsel with the parent privately, reviewing assessment data and pointing out that disabling conditions know no social or intellectual bounds (Albert Einstein had a learning disability, the Kennedy family had a sister with mental disabilities, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair). Additional support needs to be provided to these families, because these feelings of denial die slowly and new strategies for dealing with the disability at home must be learned if the home is to be a supportive environment. Parent education and counseling is an appropriate consideration in the development of the IEP for these situations.

The Nonresponsive Parent

The problem of the nonresponsive parent is a difficult one. Notices are sent out, phone calls are attempted, and certified letters are sent in order to meet the due process, informed-consent legal requirement for parent notification. Some schools even attempt to arrange a home visit to elicit a parental response. In some cases, the work schedule of the parent interferes; in others, child care makes school visits difficult. If these are really the problem, the school should make every effort to arrange a schedule or situation that will allow the parent’s participation. However, there are situa- tions where there is little or no interest on the part of the parent in the child’s schooling. In these cases, it is often appropriate to identify some other responsible adult to work with this child and to provide an adult advocate and educational support system outside the classroom environment.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 173

The Belligerent, Demanding Parent

This parent is going to attempt to obtain more than the school (the IEP team) believes is necessary to provide appropriate options for program placement. He or she will question the assessments provided by the school staff to the point of demanding independent evaluation or bringing in his or her own psychologist. He or she will challenge the recommendations of the IEP team, and if his or her demands are not met, will threaten to or actually will bring his or her lawyer or advocate to the IEP team meeting.

As a principal, be prepared to participate fully in the IEP team process yourself. Don’t leave your teachers to deal with situations without strong support. If you can see that a particular staffing is going to be very difficult or complicated, request that someone from the district-level special education office join the IEP team. Remember: You must keep in mind the best interests of the child, tempered by the needs of the parents, staff, administration, and other children in the school. Your goal is to provide each child with an appropriate educational program in the least restrictive environment possible, given that child’s disabling conditions.

The Role of the Principal

For the principal, the IEP team represents a visible form of involvement with the special educa- tion program and the special needs children in the school. Although it is possible for the principal to designate a qualified representative to serve on IEP teams, direct participation by the principal in the IEP team process signals an interest in this program to students, teachers, and parents. It also provides to the principal direct feedback regarding the adequacy of the special education program in meeting the needs of the children in the school and provides an opportunity for lead- ership in improving the program where needed.

The Role of the Classroom Teacher

Many students with special needs are in classrooms. The teachers in these classrooms have cer- tain responsibilities for these children, including the following:

■ Identifying and referring children who are potentially disabled ■ Taking part in due process and IEP team procedures ■ Collecting assessment data about children with disabilities ■ Assisting children with disabilities with special equipment ■ Participating in a team effort with special education staff ■ Helping all children work and play together ■ Communicating with parents ■ Providing accommodations and modifications based on the IEP

Whenever a child with disabilities is placed in the classroom, the responsibility of the class- room teacher for that child is the same as for any other child in the room. Because all children differ with respect to the amount, rate, and style of learning, minor accommodations and/or mod- ifications in methodology, curriculum, or environment are often necessary for children, disabled or not. When a child’s IEP specifies modifications in methodology, curriculum, or environment

ISLLC 6, 9

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

174 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

from the class, the development of such specially designed instruction is the responsibility of special educators. General classroom educators are responsible for core academic instruction and for assisting in carrying out the specially designed instruction. Overall classroom management remains the responsibility of the general classroom educator.

Educating children who are severely disabled in the classroom can often be difficult. It is here where problems sometime arise. Given the requirement of the law for providing programs in the least restrictive environment and inclusion, more children with severe disabling conditions are now being educated in the regular school setting, both in the classroom as well as in the spe- cial education classroom but housed in the neighborhood school.

Children with mental disabilities challenge many teachers. Many of the learning disabilities, though mild in a sense, cause great difficulty for the child and require great understanding and skill on the part of the teacher. Some children used to be referred to as discipline problems and sent to the office; others were regarded as lazy and not motivated to do their work. Educators now know that many of these students actually have a type of learning disability such as attention deficit disorder, dyslexia, dysnomia, or one of a host of others. In many cases, the problem has gone undiagnosed for many years and becomes compounded by the repeated failure to succeed on the part of the student who now has advanced to middle or even high school. Many teachers have not been trained either to diagnose these problems or to know how to deal with them properly when they are known. Additionally, many teach- ers feel overwhelmed by the number of children and problems they face daily in the classroom.

Most school faculties need good professional development activities in many aspects of work- ing with children with special needs. Training in the diagnosis and treatment of learning disabilities can be a help to virtually every classroom teacher. Knowledge in the use of supplementary aids and services such as brailled worksheets for students who are blind, provision of tape recorders or word processors for children who cannot write, or the operation of physical aids such as wheelchairs, walkers, and hearing aids is helpful. Skills in the use of cooperative learning techniques in conjunc- tion with special educators and in the management of disabilities in the classroom need to be learned.

Most needed of all, perhaps, is professional development for teachers to help them under- stand and deal with their own fears and biases concerning people who are disabled—and how to help children in their classes to do the same. Finally, teachers need to be trained about their role in state and national special education policies, referrals, evaluations, IEP development, due process, working with parents, and working with special educators regarding such things as stu- dent grading, scheduling, and record keeping.

English Language Learners

English language learners (ELLs) are students who first learned a language other than English in their home or community and are learning English as a new language. They may have been born in the United States or they may be immigrants. There are over 400 different languages spoken in the United States, but about 80 percent of ELLs speak Spanish. The 2010 census indicated that approximately 10 percent of all U.S. students are ELLs. However, they are not evenly distributed across the United States. About 30 percent of California students qualify as ELLs. In other states the percentage is lower, but they are often concentrated in certain communities often by national- ity or language groups. In one elementary school in a large southern city, over 90 percent of the children are ELLs with 27 different languages represented. International relief agencies have been bringing refugees to the area for a number of years.

ISLLC 2, 3, 5, 7

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 175

ELLs usually take 3 to 5 years to develop advanced proficiency in oral English. Good lit- eracy and academic achievement levels require a number of additional years. It is not uncommon for ELLs to continue to need service all the way through high school. ELLs are generally found to be more successful when they participate in programs that are specially designed to serve them with a consistent program rather than simply placing them in English classrooms. The ELL pro- grams need to provide a challenging curriculum, use appropriate language development compo- nents, and incorporate good assessment approaches.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act if 1965, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and Title III English Language Instruction all contribute to the requirements for the education of ELLs. The ESEA regulations require accountability benchmarks be set each year as indicators of performance for ELL progress, specify the level of training for English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, and specify the minimum number of hours of ESL instruction each day or each week. It also proposes several instructional delivery models. Proposed service delivery models include:

1. ESL pull out programs. The ELL leaves the regular classroom and goes to the room of an ESL teacher for intense (usually small group) instruction.

2. Push-in or inclusion models. The ELL stays in the regular classroom or learning commu- nity and the ESL teacher joins the classroom. This is often used when small reading or math skill groups are in session with the ESL working with the several ELL students in that class. This approach works particularly well when several teachers are sharing their chil- dren in a learning community in multiple learning groups.

3. Structured immersion grades or classes. This is sometimes done with a Newcomer class or when some instruction in the first language is still necessary.

4. Scheduled ESL class periods. Structured immersion and scheduled ESL classes segregate students and is considered appropriate for only short periods of time, such as a maximum of one year for most students but possibly two years where students are also illiterate in their first language.

Scheduling ELL Students. Class scheduling for ELL students for pull-out and push-in pro- grams work well with the team-structured block schedules described in Chapter 12.

Identification of ELLs. SL programs require schools to identify ELLs upon enrollment in a two-step process, first to determine if English is not the first language of the child and second to assess the child’s level of English proficiency to determine placement.

Outside Public Agencies

A variety of public agencies in every community have direct access to the school. Local states and communities have different names for these agencies and offer somewhat different services, but each school must recognize the demand and need to interact with these services. The three that are com- mon to almost every school are public welfare or human (children’s) services departments, public health agencies, and judicial systems (usually represented by police departments and juvenile court systems). Each of these agencies has certain legal responsibilities and authority. The authority of each

ISLLC 1, 6, 7

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

176 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

of these agencies transcends the walls of the school, and the school principal is not always “master of the house.” It is important not to get into a turf battle with the representatives of these agencies, but rather to develop a supportive network with them to better serve the children of the community. Consider this: The police come to pick up or question a child regarding a local crime; the principal is summoned to juvenile court to testify on a matter dealing with one of the school’s children; a repre- sentative of the protective services unit of the local welfare department comes to investigate a child abuse case. In situations such as these, not only is it important for the principal to know his or her rights and the rights of the children, but also to have a good working relationship with the representa- tives of these agencies so that all can work for the benefit of the children and the community.

The development of a network of contacts with private agencies and other public agencies is also important. Who should be in a principal’s network depends somewhat on the nature of the local student clientele. Important network contacts for many schools would include groups that can provide clothing or food on an emergency basis, both emergency and nonemergency medical treatment, and both public and private mental health professionals.

Public Welfare or Human Services Agencies

Child abuse cases are one of the most common school-related involvements with public welfare or human services agencies today. A problem that a few years ago was normally considered “only a family matter” now is recognized as an area of responsibility for our society. Most states now require schools to report suspected child abuse cases to the appropriate authority for inves- tigation. The classroom teacher who notices heavy bruising on a child or a pattern of absences along with extreme emotional behavior on the part of a child is required by law to report it. The school is, in fact, the one place outside the home where a child can take some refuge from an abusive home environment. Confidentiality regarding the reporter of abuse is generally guaran- teed. However, it is this confidentiality issue, along with the sensitive nature of child abuse investigations, that sometimes causes some difficulty.

Child abuse investigators often consider the school to be an appropriate, safe location to con- duct initial interviews. The school is a safe place to contact a child without alerting a suspected abuser, and it is a place where the child is more comfortable and perhaps willing to discuss the problem. Such interviews, though, can disrupt the ongoing instruction in the school. The intrusion into the school by an outside investigator can also be taken as an interference in the school’s domain.

Most state laws give authority to child abuse investigators from public agencies outside the school to interview children on school premises and, in some cases, to take them into their custody. These investigators also have the authority to conduct the interviews in private with no school official present, and generally they do not have to reveal the content of an interview after it is concluded. For some principals, this procedure contradicts what they consider to be their responsibilities for their children. The first reaction may be not to want to take a child out of class, and second, not to want to let an “outsider” conduct a private interview with a child for whom the principal is responsible. The laws of most states, however, give the public social services agency this authority if it chooses to use it. The following suggestions are appropriate ways to manage requests from outside investigators:

■ Always ask to see credentials. ■ Attempt to convince investigators of the importance of having a school representative

present during any interview. Some workers will allow you to be present.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 177

■ Control the time and place for the conference. You are generally allowed to protect instruc- tional time.

■ Document the conference, noting date, place, names of persons present, and length of the conference.

■ Refuse to give access to student records without a signed release from the parent, guardian, or a court order.

In almost all cases, it is to the school’s long-range advantage to develop a good working relationship with these outside agencies. They have a job to do and are also trying to safeguard the well-being of the children. Most often, you need each other.

Law Enforcement Agencies

The major school involvement with law enforcement agencies will be requests by officers to interview children while they are at school. The basic suggestions listed for investigator proce- dures also apply to School Resource Officers (SROs) or police officers who are often employed security guards for school activities. Developing a good working relationship with police officers who work in the school zone can be most helpful to both the school and the police. The occa- sional informal discussion with them can sometimes cut bureaucratic paperwork and procedures and solve a problem where formal procedures could not.

The school principal will also be called on to testify in juvenile court in conjunction with children from his or her school. Every community has a juvenile court system ranging in size from a part-time judge in smaller communities to large buildings and multiple judges in larger communities. School children may be brought into juvenile court for three different types of situations. The first is for felony or misdemeanor charges similar to charges brought against an adult. However, juvenile court handles the disposition of a case somewhat differently: Publicity of juvenile crimes is kept at a minimum and prescribed treatment has rehabilitation as its purpose rather than punishment.

Status offenses, the second category, make up the largest number of cases that involve school officials. Status offenses can be defined as actions that are considered violations of laws for children but not adults. Nonattendance at school (truancy) and running away from home are the most common. For school officials, instigating truancy charges becomes the last resort among efforts to obtain regular attendance from a child. In many cases, the real problem is the parents. Juvenile courts have the power to order certain action from the parents to improve or control their child’s behavior, such as requiring the parent to ensure the child’s presence at school each day or be held in contempt of court. A contempt charge against the parent could result in the parent being jailed. Once again, a good working relationship between the school principal and the juve- nile court can be most helpful in solving such problems.

The third type of case dealt with by the juvenile court involves the problems of neglected and/or abused children. In these cases, the children are the victims rather than the offenders. School employees are often reporters of suspected child abuse and may be called on to testify in juvenile court regarding their observations. Testifying in these situations can be particularly traumatic. Reporting child abuse is generally kept confidential, or at least confidentiality is attempted. However, when the accused are the parents or someone else closely associated with the school, testifying can be difficult.

ISLLC 10

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

178 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Outside Agencies and Closed Records. In an effort to protect the reputation of children and their families, many of the agencies that work with children are required by law to maintain strict confidentiality of the records they develop and maintain. This is true, for example, with the spe- cial education records maintained by the school. When a child has been in the custody of the juvenile court or has been a ward of the welfare department’s children’s protective services unit and is then returned to or placed in your school, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to get any information about the child’s recent history. In some cases, this makes it extremely difficult to know how to deal with a child or even if the safety of other children should be a concern. Some local areas have developed coordinating councils for the several children’s agencies in an effort to improve communication among them. The individual principal will probably find his or her efforts to develop an informal network among the workers of the various agencies to be a very useful communication link to information not available through the formal channels.

Services of Outside Social Welfare Agencies

Mental health agencies, chemical abuse agencies, civic clubs, local churches, and so on, all have an interest and a role to play in the welfare of school children. Networking once again becomes the byword for the principal and staff. Situations always develop that fall short of eligibility for one or more of the formal service agencies to the school. It may be a parent who becomes aware that his or her child is doing drugs, or it may be the child who appears to be suffering from severe depression; however, until children take some overt act to harm themselves, there is no regular agency support available. In these situations, it is important for principals to have contacts with professionals from other agencies from whom they can get advice and learn where the school or the parents might turn for help.

Public Health Departments and Local Schools

The services provided by public health agencies directly to school children vary greatly through- out the country. In some states, the only contact may be to monitor immunization records to ensure the health of the general public; in other areas, services may include provision for public health personnel to provide direct services to children in the school. Nurses stationed in the school, health presentations in classrooms, dental services, immunizations, and some emergency medical care may be provided. Once again, there may be more services available for the asking than the average school receives. It is up to the principal to make the contact, develop the relationship, and add these professionals to his or her network of available persons to be called on when needed.

Summary

Schools have many special children with various special needs. The quality of school life depends on the collective satisfaction of the needs of all the children. The principal cannot personally meet the needs of each and every child, but he or she can set the tone, develop the network of contacts who can assist in providing for the children’s needs, and be a facilitator of resources for achievement of needs. The symbolic leadership of the principal in showing concern for all chil- dren demonstrates to the staff the significance and importance of their efforts.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 8 / Special Students and Special Services 179

1. Review Case Studies 2, 7, 8, and 25 in Appendix A at the end of this book. Analyze the problems presented and apply the special services concepts developed in this chapter. What approach would you use in address- ing the problems? Set forth a strategy to overcome the difficulties faced by the school as well as ways to deal with the individuals involved.

2. What are some ways the services required by special education laws can be implemented while minimizing the time required of the classroom teacher for special education activities?

3. What are the agencies in your community that provide services to children? In what networks does your school participate to help link together these services?

4. Turn to the ISLLC Standards and review all. Reflect on which of the standard items relate directly to the needs of special students. How do the concepts of special edu- cation and special needs children match Standard 5? What other standards speak to the needs of special stu- dents? Identify one function to link directly to a concept or idea discussed in this chapter.

A C T I V I T I E S

1. Judicial opinion, 1949. 2. L. Baca and E. Almanza, Language Minority Students with

Disabilities (Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, 1991).

3. C. A. Utley and S. L. Mortweet, “The Challenge of Diversity,” in Inclusion: The Integration of Students with Disabilities, ed. M. J. Coutino and A. Repp (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), p. 61.

4. Ibid. 5. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory

and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

6. L. Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row, 1981).

7. L. Ballering, Practicing Administrators’ Attitudes toward the Ethic of Care. Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1997.

8. Ibid. 9. F. C. Power and T. A. Makogon, “The Just-Community

Approach to Care,” Journal for a Just and Caring Education 2, no. 1 (1997): 9–24.

10. Ballering, Practicing Administrators’ Attitudes toward the Ethic of Care.

11. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 34 C.F.R. Part 99, Subpart A—General.

12. Analysis of Final Regulations Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [45 FR 30936 (May 9, 1980): amended at 55 FR 52141 (Dec 19, 1990)].

13. Part Three: Section 504 Regulations. Unannotated Version: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance (Sup.1—10/9), p. 148.

14. Analysis of Final Regulations for 504, p. 5. 15. Ibid., p. 6. 16. Ibid., p. 5. 17. Ibid., p. 6. 18. L. Bartlett, G. Weisenstein, and S. Etscheidt (Eds.),

Successful Inclusion for Educational Leaders (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall, 2002).

19. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 1401 et. seq.

20. Ibid. 21. Dr. John McCook, class lecture, University of Tennessee,

November 2002. 22. Ibid. 23. G. Zelin, Conference Presentation, What Is Appropriate

Educational Progress and How Do We Prove It? Presented to Tennessee Association of Administrators of Special Education, Fall Legal Conference, Gatlinburg, TN, 2002.

24. The National Center for Learning Disabilities can be found at http://www.rtinetwork.org/

25. Honig v. Doe, EHLR 559:231 (U.S. 1988). 26. McCook, 2002. 27. Ibid. 28. Reauthorization IDEIA 04.

E N D N O T E S

Bartlett, Larry D., Greg R. Weisenstein, and Susan Etscheidt, Successful Inclusion for Educational Leaders (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice- Hall, 2002).

Brown-Chidsey, Rachel, and Mark W. Steege, Response to Intervention, Second Edition: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice (New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2010).

S E L E C T E D R E A D I N G S

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

180 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Bubaj, S., “Making Everything Fit.” Principal Leadership 5 (2005): 21–23.

Crisman, B. W., “Inclusive Programming for Students with Autism” [Electronic Version]. Principal 88 (November/ December 2008): 28–32.

Curtis, Steven, “Parents and Litigation: Insights from a Special Education Law Clinic.” Phi Delta Kappan 86 (2005): 510–514.

Delmore, P., “Pulling the Plug on ‘Pull-Outs.’” Principal Leadership 4 (2003): 35–36.

Fenion, A., “Hiring an Effective Special Education Teacher” [Electronic Version]. Principal 88 (November/ December 2008): 24–27.

Genesee, Fred, K. Lindholm-Leary, B. Saunders, and D. Christian, Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence/Edition1. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Gittins, N., “Uneasy Alliance.” Principal Leadership 6 (2005): 59–61.

Green, J., “Collaborating with Special Education Administrators.” Principal (Reston, Va) 88, no. 2 (2008): 12–15.

Hardman, B., “The Pumpkin Project.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 7 (2005): 522–524.

Jones, R., P. Zirkel, and R. Barrack, “Special Education and Regular Education: Achieving High School Success with the NCLB and the IDEA” Catalyst for Change 35, no. 2 (2008): 19–24.

Lambert, Joan, “Easing the Transition to High School.” Educational Leadership 7 (2005): 61–63.

Levinson, E. M., and E. J. Palmer, “Preparing Students with Disabilities for School-to-Work Transition and Post- School Life.” Principal Leadership 5 (2005): 11–15.

Merritt, S., “Clearing the Hurdles of Inclusion.” Educational Leadership 59 (2001): 67–70.

National Association of Special Education Teachers, In order to keep up to date with the most current information in the field of special education, NASET provides its members with a wide variety of publications. The NAEST website provides an extensive list at http:// www.naset.org/publications.0.htmlhttp://www.naset. org/publications.0.html

Reynolds, B. H., “Are Principals Ready to Welcome Children with Disabilities?” [Electronic Version]. Principal 88 (November/December 2008): 16–19.

Ryan, J., A. Katsiyannis, R. Peterson, and R. Chmelar, “IDEA 2004 and Disciplining Students with Disabilities” NASSP Bulletin 91, no. 2 (June 1, 2007): 130–140. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ763161)

Sailor, W., and B. Roger, “Rethinking Inclusion: Schoolwide Applications.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 5 (2005): 503–509.

Shapon-Shevin, M., “Inclusion: A Matter of Social Justice.” Educational Leadership 61, no. 2 (2003): 25–28.

Sorrentino, A., and P. Zirkel, “Is NCLB Leaving Special Education Students Behind?” Principal 83, no. 5 (2004): 26–29.

Warnemuede, C., “Helping Parents Help the Slow Learner.” Principal 87 (January/February 2008): 32–35.

Yell, M., A. Katsiyannis, and R. Bradley, “A Special Role.” Principal Leadership 4, no. 2 (2003): 22–28.

Yell, M., J. Shriner, and A. Katsiyannis, “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA Regulations of 2006: Implications for Educators, Administrators, and Teacher Trainers.” Focus on Exceptional Children 39, no. 1 (2006): 1. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ54722)

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

181

9 Human Resources Development

H uman resources development is both a concept and a process. As a concept, it is con- cerned with the full development and utilization of an organization’s most valuable resources—its human ones. As a process, it is an integrated continuous flow of func-

tions that make up a dimension of principal responsibility known as personnel administration. The various functions are integrated through the philosophy, policies, procedures, and practices involved in the human resources development (HRD) process. We address two of those functions in this chapter: professional development and personnel evaluation.

Although most educational leaders espouse a dedication to the enhancement of individual potential, organizational practices may, in fact, be counterproductive to the fullest development of its human resources. In this chapter, we discuss integration of the individual and the organization, explore various teacher differences that impact the design of professional development, investi- gate the nature of professional development and its various delivery models, and examine the relationship between professional development, personnel evaluation, and school improvement.

Integration of the Individual and the Organization

The work of Schein2 provides much insight into the complex process of integrating the individual and the organization in ways that will effectively meet the goals and needs of both. Schein views this integration process in three stages: entry, socialization, and mutual acceptance.

C H A P T E R

If schools want to enhance their organizational capacity to boost student learning, they should work on building a

professional community that is characterized by shared purpose, collaborative activity, and collective responsibility among staff.

—F. Newmann and G. Wehlage1

ISLLC 2

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

182 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

During the entry stage, the individual endeavors to make the right career choice, train for the occupation, and search for the appropriate position. It is also a time when the organization is determining the nature of the job that is needed, identifying the skills that the individual will need to possess, recruiting a pool of candidates, and ultimately making an appropriate selection of the best person to fit the job. The thoughtfulness and skill with which both parties approach this stage will be a determining factor for the next stage: socialization.

The socialization stage marks a point at which “the individual builds a picture of the organization and his or her future in it.”3 At the same time, the organization comes to view the individual in terms of his or her future role within the organization. Although both parties may have viewed their union with high expectations for success, the realities of the situation are often far different from what they seemed initially for either or both parties. Often, the disenchantment has to do with the employee’s lack of competence or unclear performance expectations set by the organization. At other times, it may be strong differences related to the values held by the organization or the individual. At the point of disenchantment, the organization has two choices. It can either sever its relationship with the new employee or it can commit its resources to the improvement of the person the organization chose for the position.

The individual in a similar situation also has choices. Obviously, the person can leave the organization or stay and rebel. Not so obvious is another choice, which is to stay and conform to the values and expectations of the group. The individual’s last choice, and one that enables the growth and development of the organization, is to stay and try to make a difference in the conditions and/or values that exist.4

The final stage, mutual acceptance, is a time for granting full membership to the individ- ual through such rites of passage as special privileges, increased responsibilities, and a type of “psychological contract.” As Schein suggests, “All that has been established is that there is enough of a match between what the individual needs and expects and what the organization needs and expects to continue the career in the organization.”5 What happens beyond this point depends greatly on the opportunities for growth that the organization provides to the individual.

Teacher Empowerment

In considering the need for personal and professional development within school settings, it is time that teachers are “seen in a new way.”6 McLaughlin and Yee7 help put this notion into perspective by distinguishing between two views of a teacher’s career: an institutional view and an individual view. Although the institutional view of a career is the all too common view, it is the responsibility of leaders to ensure that conditions are present that will enable teachers to view their careers from an individual, or more intrinsic perspective. In the following discussion, these views are considered.

Institutional versus Individual View of a Career

The institutional view of a career is one in which effectiveness in the profession is judged by self and/or others as a measure of one’s ability to climb various rungs of the bureaucratic ladder. Reflective of the machine metaphor, it allows the bureaucratic hierarchy to become the measurement of excellence in the profession. The institutional view places the teacher in a subservient role and reinforces compliance and followership. The hierarchy becomes the measure of achievement, and

ISLLC 2

ISLLC 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 183

the value of “teacher” is viewed as secondary to that of an administrator. It is an externally imposed measure of competence that carries with it the ultimate goal of getting out of the classroom as quickly as one can move ahead. Moving ahead means basically conforming to a set pattern designed by someone higher in authority who is perceived to be more knowledgeable than the teacher in mat- ters of teaching and learning. Years ago, Argyris8 cautioned organizations against such a perspec- tive; he suggested that the pathway to adult maturity is greatly hampered in bureaucratic organizations that foster this orientation. Organizations, he maintained, keep individuals in an immature state by not allowing them the freedom to exercise their abilities and to make their own decisions.

In contrast, the individual view of a career is intrinsically motivating and encourages the teacher to seek developmental opportunities that will maximize potential for its own sake—to become the most effective and contributing teacher that one is capable of becoming. This view creates a joy in teaching and a far greater benefit to the profession than does the institutional view. The tendency toward institutionalizing effectiveness through the hierarchy has been dem- onstrated by efforts to recognize, support, and reward excellent performance in the classroom through such efforts as teacher career ladders and merit pay. This alone, however, will not change teachers’ attitudes. The real efforts toward motivation must take place at the building level. Principals must recognize and encourage teacher potential and provide opportunities for growth and self-discovery. McLaughlin and Yee9 suggested that individual effectiveness, satisfaction, and growth are cultivated by two factors: level of opportunity and level of capacity.

Level of opportunity is the real determiner of the degree to which individuals can develop their highest level of professional competence. Three factors are especially important in encour- aging this development. The first of these factors is stimulation. Earlier research painted the picture of the typical classroom teacher to be one of loneliness, isolation, and despair.10 Little chance was provided for meaningful interchange of ideas, for camaraderie, or for cultivating a sense of belonging and contribution. The sense of collegiality was missing; the opportunity for collaboration was nonexistent. Conditions have changed in recent years as professional learning communities have become more integrated into the school setting.

Second, it is important that teachers receive challenge. It is not enough that teachers master a set of minimum competencies and then rest on their laurels. They need to be provided a chance to maximize their potential. Refining their strengths and developing artistry in their profession should become the focus. Often, these opportunities come by contributing to the growth of others through peer coaching or mentoring or by serving as a team leader. In any case, teachers are given opportuni- ties that excite them and motivate their need for self-actualization. Certainly, the research by Maslow,11 Herzberg,12 Alderfer, and others suggests that it is the higher levels of need that motivate.

Third, teachers need feedback. Confirmation of their successes reinforces not only their enthusiasm but also the refinement of their skills. Awareness of areas needing improvement pro- vides teachers with information necessary to focus their efforts more successfully in later attempts. Often, principals have little time for intensive feedback sessions with teachers; therefore, they must provide opportunities for others within the school to assist. Professional development and teacher growth then become a joint responsibility.

Although it is imperative that teachers be given levels of opportunity to increase their indi- vidual effectiveness, satisfaction, and growth, they also must be provided similar opportunities to increase their level of capacity. In other words, they must be given power. Such power includes not only their access to resources but also their ability to mobilize and utilize them, as well as the capability to influence the goals and directions of their institutions.13 As McLaughlin and Yee

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

184 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

stated, “Teachers with a sense of capacity tend to pursue effectiveness in the classroom, express commitment to the organization and career, and report a high level of professional satisfaction.”14

Individual and Group Needs

Individual uniqueness has major implications for the work that principals must do in the area of human resources development. Teaching, evaluation, and staff development are all affected by the individuality of teachers.

Teachers vary in their readiness levels and in their motivational needs; principals should consider these variables when determining teachers’ development needs. As the research sug- gests, “The circumstances most suitable for one person’s professional development may be quite different from those that promote another individual’s growth.”15

Three very important variables determine level of need: teacher age, years of teaching experience, and readiness or maturity level. Certainly, interests and learning/personality styles are additional factors that play a part. Teachers collectively, as adult learners, also have certain needs that should be considered when designing any professional-development programs. Perhaps the most appropriate place to start in this discussion is with the needs of teachers as a group.

The Adult Learner

Knowles16 provided a thoughtful perspective to the area of adult learning. His work suggests that as adults, teachers learn best under these conditions:

■ They have opportunities to plan and design their own learning/development opportunities. ■ There is relevance to the learning experience. ■ Learning is problem centered rather than content centered. ■ Past experience can be incorporated in experiential learning settings.

Although there are needs that teachers do have as a group, there are also unique differences among teachers based on their years of teaching experience and their developmental levels. Let us consider the research of Huberman17 as a beginning point in understanding these differences among teachers.

Teacher Needs Determined by Experience

Huberman18 classified teachers into five stages of development based on their years of teaching experience. Although the model is based primarily on research of secondary teachers with little or no administrative experience, it does suggest a process through which teachers are likely to progress in their career. Principals should not assume that all teachers progress through these stages in exactly the same sequence. As Huberman suggested, some may develop in a linear fashion while others may exhibit “plateaus, regressions, dead-ins, or spurts.”19 The model is helpful to principals as they work with teachers, however, for it allows them to understand more fully the impact that individuals and groups have on each other. It also assists principals in planning professional development that is more suited to teacher need. In the following section, each teacher career stage is considered.

ISLLC 2

ISLLC 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 185

Survival and Discovery Stage (1–3 Years). In the first career stage, survival and discovery coex- ist; ironically, it “is discovery that allows the novice teacher to tolerate survival.”20 Although this career stage is dotted with reality shock and self-preoccupation, it is also a time when teachers are excited about their first classroom and are elated by feelings of being a “colleague among peers.”21 During this time it is important for teachers to be guided in ways that help them see teaching from a broader perspective. They need to arrange fragmented tasks of method and strategy into a large context. Teachers have learned many skills from their university preparation programs at this point, but they have had little opportunity so far in their development to integrate those skills and apply them to their own teaching. Supervisors and principals can guide them in making connections between the theories they have recently been taught and their actual practice in the classroom. Holland and Weise22 provide useful suggestions to guide principals in working with novice teachers.

Stabilization Stage (4–6 Years). Teachers take on the mantle of “teacher” and take major steps toward professionalism during the stabilization stage. Not only do they assume responsibil- ity for their immediate classrooms but also for the profession of teaching. Teachers begin to feel comfortable in their basic knowledge of good teaching (most have moved from probationary to tenured status), and they are ready to experiment and create their own teaching styles. At this time, teachers should be provided more opportunities for capacity building.23 As they make more decisions related to their own teaching and professional development, they move more toward teacher empowerment and an individual view of their career. (See Chapter 2 for a more complete discussion of this concept.)

Experimentation and Activism (7–18 Years). Teachers begin to experiment at this time, for they have gained skill and competence in their teaching. They have established a comfortable knowledge base about good teaching and are eager to experiment with new ideas that they hope will maximize their impact on student learning. This stage is a natural time for involvement, contribution, and challenge, as well as a time when teachers want a greater voice in those things that impact their teaching. It is a time for accepting new responsibilities; however, it is a period for many when they begin to question their professional choice. Some wonder if they truly want to remain in the profession, and disenchantment occurs for many, resulting in either a search for new responsibilities or a complete job change.

Serenity/Relational Distance and Conservatism (19–30 Years). At this time many teachers who have previously been innovative and dynamic in their instructional methods begin to shift to a more mechanical response. Teachers no longer exhibit the energy and enthusiasm previously exhibited. Although they do have increased serenity and self-confidence, this is also a time marked by “relational distance from students.”24 The age gap between teacher and student widens, and there is less connection than before. Often teachers at this stage become reluctant to embark on anything new or innovative and seem greatly concerned with maintaining the status quo.

Principals need to be aware of this tendency toward the line of least resistance and with- drawal and look for ways to involve these teachers in meaningful activities. At this important time in the lives, many teachers need real leadership and inspiration to raise their levels of values consciousness,25 inspiring them to continue contributing to the organization in productive ways. In Chapter 1 we discussed the importance of a school leader working to transform not only the organization but also the individuals who serve within that setting.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

186 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Disengagement (31–40 Years). This stage is distinguished by either serenity or bitterness. There is increased withdrawal and internalization—a gradual disengagement and absorption in one’s own interests is evidenced. Teachers also feel pressure to move over for younger employees and fresher ideas. Many teachers in this stage still have much talent and expertise that they could contribute to the organization if they were properly challenged and encouraged. Often teachers can become revitalized during this stage by having opportunities to contribute to the growth of others in such activities as mentoring and peer coaching.

The important idea to remember from Huberman’s research is that teachers will have different needs at various times during their careers. This fact has significant implications for school principals and suggests that professional development must be tailored to meet teachers’ differing needs. A model similar to Huberman’s, although not connected to defined years of experience, is discussed in the next section.

Maturity and Readiness Levels

De Moulin and Guyton26 identified four levels of teacher maturity or stages of development: provisional, developmental, transitional, and decelerating. Their study suggested that the age factor alone does not necessarily determine a teacher’s level of growth in the profession. For instance, some teachers might remain in the developmental level for most of their career. In contrast, the transitional and decelerating levels might include teachers represented by various age levels. These stages will be briefly discussed as a way of supporting the concept of develop- mental phases for teachers.

Provisional. Provisional teachers experience great stress based on their uncertainty in the teaching situation. Their inexperience and limited knowledge of child psychology contribute to a trial-and-error approach to performance. As these teachers gain experience, their comfort and confidence increase. This stage is quite similar to Huberman’s survival and discovery stage; however, it does not relate necessarily to the number of years that the teacher has taught, as other factors may compound the situation. Teachers at this stage, regardless of their years of experi- ence, should be provided with the levels of opportunity27 necessary to build skill and confidence. Matching these teachers with a mentor reinforces their skill acquisition and provides them with opportunities to receive the important feedback necessary for learning transfer. The concept of collegiality and collaboration, discussed at length in Chapter 2, has tremendous implications for meeting the needs of teachers at this level.

Developmental. At this stage, teachers exhibit self-confidence, direction, and structure. A great deal of satisfaction and sense of direction is balanced by curiosity and refinement of instructional practice. This is a wonderful time for exploration and growth! Teachers enjoy the opportunities provided through peer coaching, teamwork, study groups, and action-based research. It is ironic that although the majority of the teaching staff in most schools tend to be at this level, the bulk of time spent in professional development is spent in “training programs” provided through tradi- tional in-service education!

Transitional. Teachers at this stage begin to decline in classroom effectiveness. Many begin to question their desire to remain in the teaching profession. There is little desire to participate in

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 187

professional development, and most are content to operate from a day-to-day perspective. Many of these teachers have reached a plateau in their careers where there seems to be nothing chal- lenging and inspiring. These teachers need to be inspired to look for opportunities for personal and professional growth that have previously been unrecognized. There is much overlap between this stage of development and the Huberman stage of disengagement.

Decelerating. At this stage, teachers have little motivation for work and exhibit a clock-watching perspective. Burnout is a classic symptom, with more traditional methods being the choice for instructional format. Again, competent teachers must become reengaged in the educational proc- ess. Finding a way to inspire their contributions and continued growth is a major challenge for today’s school leader.

Professional Development

What part does staff development play in helping to meet the emerging developmental needs of teachers? How does teacher development, individually and collectively, contribute to the increased effectiveness of the school’s educational program? These are important questions to consider as we view the nature and scope of staff development. A working definition of profes- sional development is necessary to begin. For the purposes of this chapter, we will use the terms professional development and staff development synonymously.

Staff development has been called many things, including in-service training, professional development, and human resources development. In all cases, it has been considered to be some- thing “done to” teachers in a compressed period of time (e.g., a fall workshop or special confer- ence) that makes them more content and effective in the classroom setting. A major paradigm shift concerning staff development, however, has been brought about by three major ideas: (1) results-driven education, (2) systems thinking, and (3) constructivism. Each of these, indi- vidually and collectively, is causing school principals to view staff development much differ- ently than they did in past years.28

■ Results-Driven Education. Just as accountability has become the emphasis for the classroom, so too has it impacted the nature of staff development. The true measure- ment of the effectiveness of any staff-development program is currently being judged by how it affects the instructional behavior of teachers in a positive way that benefits the learner.

■ Systems Thinking. What happens in one part of the organization has an effect on all other parts of the organization and on the organization as a whole. Staff development now encourages a broader view of the impact that changes in any one aspect of curriculum, instruction, or assessment might have on all aspects of the organization.

■ Constructivism. The emphasis has shifted from the nature of learners as passive receivers of information to one in which learners are actively involved in making sense of their own learning. The need to provide learners with the necessary skills to build their own knowl- edge structures has caused staff development to be viewed in a similar fashion. Teachers, viewed as adult learners, collaborate with peers, students, and others to share knowledge and to construct new knowledge based on collective understanding.

ISLLC 2

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

188 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Table 9.1 outlines the major shifts that have occurred because of the three trends suggested. We will explore these paradigm shifts and examine their impact on the design and delivery of staff development.

Models of Staff Development

Literature related to staff development suggests that it must become multifaceted in its delivery. Sparks and Loucks-Horsley29 have suggested that five models of staff development are used. Principals need to understand these models and their applications to the professional develop- ment of teachers. They also should be able to appropriately apply the models to match the needs of individual teachers. These five staff-development models are discussed next.

Individually Guided Staff Development. This model, based on the assumption that teachers can best determine their own developmental needs and that they are motivated to direct their own learning experiences, casts teachers as self-motivated individuals who learn best when they can guide the relevancy of their own experiences. The model consists of several phases: (1) identifica- tion of a need, (2) development of a plan to meet that need, (3) activities outlined to accomplish the plan, and (4) evaluation of the plan. Examples of the individually guided model include individual study of an issue of special interest, development of a special project, curriculum-improvement activities, and other activities tied to a teacher’s particular interest.

TABLE 9.1 Paradigm Shift in Staff Development

FROM TO

Individual development Individual and organizational development

District-centered approaches School-centered approaches

Fragmented, piecemeal efforts Improvements based on school improvement plans toward change

Focus on adult needs Focus on student needs and learning outcomes

Externally delivered training Comprehensive, multifaceted staff-development models incorporating the talents and resources of staff

Staff development provided by one or two departments

Staff development as a critical function and major responsibility performed by all administrators and teacher leaders

The transmission of knowledge and skills by “experts”

The study by teachers of the teaching and learning process

A focus on generic teaching skills A combined focus on generic and content- specific skills

Staff development as a “frill” dependent on an availability of financial resources

Staff development as an essential component of the educational process

Source: Adapted from D. Sparks, “A Paradigm Shift in Staff Development,” The ERIC Review 3, no. 3 (1994): 2–4.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 189

Observation and Assessment. As previously discussed, feedback is a major component leading to the development of an individualized view of one’s teaching career. Without directed feedback, a major link to motivation is lost. The observation and assessment model provides opportunities for teachers to give the feedback to each other that may not always be available from the principal. The model is based on the assumptions that reflection and analysis are critical avenues that facili- tate professional growth and that teaching can be improved by observation and feedback from another. Not only does the reflection benefit the targeted teacher, but the observation and analysis of the teaching act is mutually beneficial to both teacher and observer. When teachers are given positive feedback, their efforts are reinforced and motivation increases.30 Examples of observa- tion and assessment that might be included in a school setting are peer coaching, team building and collaboration, and clinical supervision. In peer coaching, teachers alternate visits to each other’s classrooms, gather and analyze data, and give feedback. Both teacher and observer are targets for improved classroom performance, as reflection is mutually occurring.31

Involvement in a Development/Improvement Process. This model takes the form of curriculum improvement and development. It relates directly to school improvement projects designed to improve classroom instruction or to solve a specific problem related to school effectiveness. The model is based on the assumption that teachers, as adult learners, want to be engaged in the reso- lution of problems in which they have a direct professional interest. It assumes, also, that teachers are in a position to best identify the issues that need resolution. In this approach, teachers become researchers, independent learners, and shapers of solutions to their own curriculum/instructional problems. The model proceeds according to the following steps:

1. Problem Identification. Either the individual or a small group of teachers identify a need. 2. Response Formulation. The individual teacher or the group brainstorm possible alterna-

tives to consider in resolving the issue. 3. Information Gathering. The need for further study or investigation of the issue is deter-

mined and study is completed. 4. Plan Formulation. Based on the information gathered, a plan or program is developed. 5. Plan Assessment. Data are gathered to determine the effectiveness of the plan. Information

gleaned from the assessment is used to further refine or modify the existing plan.

Training. Long the most common form of staff development, the training model is synonymous in the minds of many with the entire concept of staff development. In addition to its familiarity, it is the most cost-effective of all models in terms of initial delivery. A major caution in its use, however, is the notion of transfer of learning. Modifications of the external, or visible, teaching behaviors of staff are desirable and tend to be the major focus of initial training. There is an underlying, more important purpose with any staff-development effort, however, and that is to change the thinking of teachers. The important issue with training, then, is how to enable the transfer of the learned skill to the classroom setting. Any training must be reinforced with other follow-up procedures, such as mentoring or peer coaching, to ensure that learning transfers to the teacher’s classroom.32

Inquiry. In the inquiry approach, the teacher, either individually or in a small group, inquiries into an issue of concern relative to classroom instruction or a related school problem. The inquiry may be either a formal or informal process in which valid questions are formulated and researched.

ISLLC 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

190 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

This model allows for collective study by a group of teachers and encourages the combined analysis of many individuals pooling their ideas and resources. It is based on the assumption that teachers do question their own practices and search for valid answers to their problems. It assumes, as well, that teachers can develop new understandings and practices based on the discoveries made. The model, often referred to as action-based research, has been made popular through the Japanese concept of quality circles and total quality management (TQM). This model is particu- larly useful as part of the professional learning community process as discussed in Chapter 2.

Matching Teacher Differences and Staff-Development Opportunities

These five models of staff development have great potential for providing a synthesized approach to total professional development within a school setting. The models also capitalize on the unique needs that teachers have based on experience or developmental level.

Because of their different areas of emphasis and method, these staff-development models become fertile ground for professional-development opportunities for teaching staff, based on the unique needs discussed in the second section of this chapter. It is one thing to know how to help a teacher through development; it is quite another to identify the needs that should be addressed. It is important, then, to understand the nature and design of personnel evaluation and supervision.

Personnel Evaluation and Supervision

What is judged from the results of personnel evaluation? What purpose does the evaluation serve? We will consider these questions through a discussion of merit and worth.

Merit and Worth

Merit and worth—and their relationship to one another—are part of the evaluation process. In the evaluation of personnel for decision-making purposes, both are applied.33

Merit, which is the more common of the two concepts, is concerned with measuring the effectiveness of the individual’s performance within a given setting, such as a teacher in the class- room performing job-related tasks. When a comparison of an individual’s performance is made against a standard, or in many cases a comparison of the individual’s performance against the per- formance of others in similar roles, then the individual’s merit within the position has been judged.

Worth, on the other hand, is a determination of how valuable that teacher’s particular position is to the rest of the organization and to the fulfillment of the organization’s mission. It is an assess- ment of that value based on need. As Scriven stated, “Worth must be determined by comparing resources in education with needs in education.”34 It is possible, therefore, for a teacher, or other staff member, to be judged as having merit but to be in a position of little worth to the organization. It is not possible, however, for any position to have worth without the presence of merit. Very little merit also implies very little worth. Judgments of performance are based on both concepts, and this can sometimes cause conflict. Because of scarcity of resources or changes in organiza- tional need, teachers can lose their positions even though they have great merit. It also happens that at times teachers who are less than meritorious are allowed to continue in positions that have

ISLLC 2

ISLLC 6

ISLLC 3, 4

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 191

value or worth to the organization. The question then becomes: At what point does lower merit affect position value? These are troublesome issues that face principals as they attempt to evaluate teacher performance.

Merit and worth are important concepts to consider, as well, when evaluating teachers as a group. As societal resources become scarce, there is an increasing need to justify the cost of educa- tion to the public. Performance evaluation becomes one way of substantiating teachers’ merit to suggest the worth of education. Herein lies one of the greatest challenges of personnel evaluation: How does one justify accountability to the public and at the same time maintain the trust and coop- eration of individuals within the school setting that will enable the performance one so desires? How can an evaluation occur in both a summative and formative manner without neglecting one of the stated purposes? How does one foster change once the problems have been identified?35

Summative and Formative Evaluation

Personnel evaluation has two purposes: summative and formative. The summative process, often called teacher appraisal, is designed to provide a basic foundation for making decisions that can be justified. It is used to make a judgment relative to the merit of an individual’s performance. Since it is administrative in nature, it is usually the predominate responsibility of the principal and/or the principal’s designee. Decisions based on summative evaluation might include any or all of the following:

■ Should the teacher be hired for a particular position? ■ Should the teacher be dismissed? ■ Should the teacher be placed on tenure? ■ Does the performance of the teacher justify merit pay?

Because these are important decisions that affect the lives and careers of individuals, the assessment instrument, procedures used, and practices applied in the process need to stand the scrutiny of legal challenge. Note here that these legal issues are relevant only in the case of sum- mative evaluation or teacher appraisal.

In recent years, many states have mandated forms and processes by which teacher appraisal will take place. Many of these mandates have resulted in standardized rating scales and designed checklists. Care must be used in basing an entire appraisal system on this or any other specific model. There is danger that the criteria will become too narrow to encompass the teaching of subjects that incorporate higher-order thinking skills or that require a high level of creativity on the part of students.

Tom McGreal has proposed alternatives to the rating scales for appraisals to make them more useful as a clinical tool.36 He has suggested that an appropriate appraisal be based on a cooperative goal-setting model and that the appraiser and the teacher identify specific instruc- tional improvement goals on which to work together. In working together, the techniques of clinical supervision are used, and a supportive environment is established. Appraisal thus is the basis for staff development. The collaborative goal setting based on the formal appraisal that ensues at the postobservation and later conferences is critical to the development process. These changes suggest some important ways, then, in which the two purposed of evaluation may differ.

Formative evaluation is concerned primarily with professional growth and development. It is administered much more frequently than summative evaluation, and because it does not

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

192 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

concern itself with administrative judgments for decision making, it can be, and most often is, a joint responsibility shared among teachers. Formative evaluation is often termed clinical supervi- sion, although this is only one of the many forms that formative evaluation can take.

Clinical Supervision

Clinical supervision is a collaborative process. The term clinical supervision gained national prominence in the 1960s through the writings of Robert Goldhammer and Morris Cogen.37 Originally, the model was proposed for use with student teachers. Its applicability in the forma- tive evaluation of practicing teachers was soon recognized.

Five steps compose the model. Each step helps both the supervisor and the teacher in focusing on the teaching/learning process. An examination is made of the strengths and weak- nesses of a lesson; then the process involves identifying specific activities to improve future lessons or teaching practices. The final step is formal feedback to the teacher.

Step 1: The Preobservation Conference. The purpose of the preobservation conference is to provide focus to the upcoming observation. The teacher outlines for the principal the plans for the lesson and helps identify specific aspects to which attention will be directed during the observa- tion. The teacher’s plan is expected to contain learner objectives, introductions, teaching strategies to be employed, resources to be used, evaluation plans, and lesson closure.

During this discussion, there is opportunity for the principal to clarify the various compo- nents of the lesson and to offer suggestions about other possible approaches. The discussion about the initial observation should focus on specific areas of interest or concern to the teacher rather than areas or concerns of the principal. Later observations and discussions will provide ample opportunity to address concerns, of the principal.

It is important for the teacher to understand the purpose of each step in the clinical model. The teacher needs to know that the principal or other observer will be taking notes during the observation for the purpose of giving accurate feedback. Before the conclusion of the preobser- vation conference, both a time for the classroom visit and a time for the postobservation confer- ence should be established.

Step 2: The Classroom Observation. The teacher’s task is to teach the lesson as planned. The observer’s task is to record those items specifically identified in the preobservation conference as well as the events surrounding the lesson. Specific happenings should be scripted and in the lan- guage of the teacher. Activities relating to the lesson—student verbal and nonverbal behavior, for example—should be noted. Opinion and summary statements need to be avoided; the language of the participants and specific events are what the principal needs to provide useful feedback. The observer should be on time and stay for the entire lesson.

Step 3: Analysis of the Lesson. To prepare for the postobservation conference, script notes need to be analyzed. Were the objectives obtained? How did the various intended teaching strat- egies work? What unusual circumstances were observed? What seemed to work? What didn’t? What comments can be made about the teacher’s verbal and nonverbal (physical) behavior? How about student verbal and nonverbal behavior? What did the teacher do well? What specific aspects might be improved? What should the teacher work on for the next observation?

ISLLC 3

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 193

Step 4: The Postobservation Conference. The conference needs to take place in a comfortable and private location. The teacher’s classroom itself is often appropriate. A good opening line, after the amenities, is this: “What do you think went well?” Then, the teacher should be asked to clarify the objectives of the lesson, review what happened, and assess whether the objectives were attained and to what degree. At this point, the principal will relate some of his or her specific observations supported by the notes that were taken. Successes will be discussed.

Agreement should be reached about what went on. Together, the teacher and the principal should decide on some strategies that might be worth trying. Information should be solicited from the teacher. Every conference should conclude with some growth objectives and some agreed-upon plans for improving any deficiencies.

Step 5: Postconference Analysis. The final step in the clinical model is an evaluation of the process and the outcome. Information is solicited from the teacher. How could the process be improved? Are the growth objectives clear? What assistance is available to the teacher? After the teacher leaves, the principal needs to reflect on the process and his or her own behav- ior and skill. Did the conference go well? Why or why not? The process is intended to promote both improved instruction and supportive relationships. One likely will not occur without the other.

As previously mentioned, staff evaluation has two basic purposes: (1) to improve the performance and provide direction for the continued development of present staff and (2) to provide a sound basis for personnel decisions such as awarding of tenure, promotions, transfers, or dismissals. These two purposes create a dilemma for many administrators even though both support quality education. Staff improvement is largely a helping relationship, most effectively carried out when built on trust between the teacher and the principal. Personnel decisions are judgmental in nature and can cause teacher apprehension.

Several authors38 have suggested that supervision and teacher appraisal styles become situ- ationally specific—that is, make situational factors determine the approach used by the principal in working with each staff member. This situational approach is similar to situational leadership models proposed by Blanchard39 and Glatthorn.40 A differentiated system of situational supervi- sion has four levels:

1. Clinical supervision, as described in the previous section 2. Collaborative professional development, as a collegial process in which a small number of

teachers work together for professional growth (the quality circle idea from TQM inte- grates well with this approach)

3. Self-direction, in which the teacher prepares an individual development plan (IDP) with the assistance of the principal who serves as a resource person

4. Administrative monitoring, where the principal makes a series of brief, usually announced, visits as “quality control” assurance

The fourth approach, commonly used by administrators, should not be considered a super- visory method because it does not provide improvement opportunities to the teacher being observed. Nevertheless, each of these approaches has its appropriate place in certain circum- stances, depending on the maturity and needs of the teacher. Table 9.2 points out many of the differences in the three supervisory approaches from the preceding list.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

194 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

TABLE 9.2 Situational Models of Supervision

CLINICAL COLLABORATIVE SELF-DIRECTED

Teacher initiative Low Moderate High

Supervisor initiative High Moderate Low

Approach Formal, systematic Collaborative Self-directed

Goal of learning Create rationality/order Problem solving Goal directed

Knowledge Predefined set of life- survival skills

Concrete results that “work” for individuals

That which is discovered

Learning Condition individual by outer environment

Outcome of learner– environment interaction

Unfolding process within learner

Foundation Behaviorist Cognitivist Humanist

Learning theory Conditioning Experimentation Self-discovery

Teacher risk Low Moderate to high Moderate to high

Source: Adapted from A. A. Glatthorn, Differentiated Supervision (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984).

Staff development and evaluation are essential activities of the school principal. Just as a teacher manages student learning by using a diagnostic prescriptive model, so too can the principal direct staff development using staff evaluation as a diagnostic tool and an evaluation- by-objectives approach as a prescriptive tool. For proper staff development and evaluation, the principal must take an initiating, rather than reacting, role, and the comprehensive plan for staff evaluation must be based on a sound rationale.

Models of Teacher Evaluation Influenced by State Mandates

Teacher evaluation has become much more state controlled and centered on a direct connection between teacher-measured competency and student achievement as determined by standardized tests. Teacher performance systems vary across states; however, they are built on the assumption that student achievement, measured by standardized tests combined with other more traditional methods of assessment, provides a more complete picture of teacher competence than does teacher evaluation alone. This change in teacher evaluation has evolved from the perceived inadequacy of earlier evaluation systems and the improved ability to assess and measure the connection between teacher performance and student growth in achievement.41 Incentives to the states, such as Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind waivers, encouraged this state movement, which is a dynamic process that will continue to evolve as states work to align the new Standards Based Curriculum (Common Core Curriculum) with teacher evaluation systems.

The Center for Public Education, in a review of state teacher evaluation models, revealed that there is a wide variance among states in the amount of direct control that the states

ISLLC 2

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 195

have over local districts. The study reported that “13 states mandated the requirements and components of the evaluation system and required districts to implement them with little flexibility,” “17 states provided model evaluation systems that districts could either adopt or develop their own,” and “21 states required each district to design their own system with state approval.”42

Most states encourage the use of multiple measures when judging the performance of teachers. Multiple measures usually include “student achievement data, classroom observa- tions, and other data: student surveys, lesson plan reviews, teacher self-assessments, and more.”43 Statistical methods have been developed that link teacher performance scores to student standardized achievement test scores. These statistical models are of two types: Value-added models (VAMs) and student growth percentiles (SGPs). VAMs separate the influence of teaching from other factors related to a student’s academic growth. Student growth percentiles, on the other hand, measure the progress a student has made in relation to other students.44

There are basic advantages and disadvantages to both models. The VAM is perceived as the most effective model for isolating the effects of teaching on student achievement, whereas the SGP model is thought to be more accurate at evaluating teachers since student test scores “cap- ture performance at one point in time.”45

How effective have these state-controlled systems been? A review of 41 applications for Race to the Top revealed that “33 states (80 percent) expressed interest in measuring student growth,”46 with a few states indicating that they would continue to investigate other growth measures beyond value added. In addition, “a major component of the proposed teacher evalua- tion processes in all applications was observations of teacher performance in the classroom.”47 State involvement in teacher evaluation is expected to continue as the push for greater account- ability for student learning increases.

The Staff Evaluation Cycle

Staff evaluation and development is a cyclical process. The evaluation leads to a develop- ment prescription that is checked once again through evaluation. Seven basic steps in the staff evaluation cycle focus on the ultimate purpose of improving instruction. The cycle begins when the teacher and principal plan goals and targets for the year and include other people in the evaluation process during the year. The seven steps of the evaluation cycle are as follows:

1. Prepare an individual development plan. 2. Select specific objectives or activities for observation or review. 3. Determine the observation method, time, and place. 4. Observe and collect data. 5. Analyze data and provide feedback. 6. Summarize and interpret collective observational data. 7. Report evaluation results, target achievement, and make recommendations for individual

and staff development at an annual conference.

ISLLC 2

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

196 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

Individual Development Plans

An individual development plan (IDP) is a written schedule of experiences designed to meet a person’s particular goals for development. It is a method of systematically planning for training and other experiences to develop necessary skills and knowledge. Rather than haphazardly chancing time and money on what may not be a useful learning experience, the IDP gives both staff member and administrator an opportunity to set reasonable objectives and then plan experi- ences that support those objectives.

The IDP is realistic and feasible because its construction includes both administrator and staff member perspectives. The staff member’s personal and professional goals are considered insofar as these are organizationally feasible. The staff member gets information and feedback so that goals can be set that are organizationally necessary and reasonably achievable.

Individual development is a joint responsibility of the administrator and the staff member. As such, it is a logical extension of the clinical supervision and appraisal process. The principal’s responsibility is to arrange the work environment to capitalize on the skills and interests of the staff so that the important tasks get accomplished in the most efficient and effective way. To do so requires that the principal and staff member work together to identify skills deficiencies (developmental needs), strengths, and professional and organizational goals. The IDP is a joint commitment to address these issues.

The IDP includes first a self-assessment. The individual staff member reviews his or her professional qualifications, skills, and interests. A personal judgment is made about how these skills may be capitalized on in the organizational setting and how any skill deficiency can be best addressed. The second step in this process is for the individual to think about his or her profes- sional career and begin to establish long-term career goals.

The responsibility of the principal is to conduct an analysis of the staff member’s strengths and weaknesses as well. This analysis is always conducted from the perspective of what is good for the school. Frequently an individual’s self-assessment will overlook important organizational demands and skills needs.

After the two analyses, a development conference is held and the IDP begins to take specific form. Important information is exchanged at this conference; the two parties may not see all things similarly. Congruence is never likely to be achieved without a discourse about job-related expec- tations. At this time, the principal becomes aware of the goals of the staff member and, where possible and feasible, may provide assistance through establishment of a mentoring process.

Mentoring

The focus to this point has been the relationship between the principal as supervisor and indi- vidual staff members. Mentoring proposes a relationship between peers—however, generally not peers of equal stature and experience. Mentoring is often used to assist in the orientation of new employees.

The term mentor comes from Greek mythology. Mentor was the friend and counselor to whom Ulysses entrusted his son when Ulysses set off on a 10-year odyssey. It was a complex role: Mentor was protector, advisor, teacher, and father figure to the inexperienced boy. The relationship was one of trust and affection.

ISLLC 3

ISLLC 2

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 197

In today’s organizational setting, a formalized mentor program typically involves a relationship between a veteran employee of some stature and a younger inexperienced colleague. Often, the practice is reserved to those who have been identified early as fast-trackers or potential leaders. However, the concept is easily applied at the building level, albeit perhaps not quite as formally, but nevertheless to good effect. Mentoring can substantially improve the clinical approach to supervision and become a very sophisticated peer supervision program.

Careful matching of individuals is essential. The administrator should develop an initial list of potential mentors before considering the process further. Factors that result in a good mentor include willingness to act as a mentor, personal commitment to helping others develop, commit- ment to the school, extensive knowledge and insight about how things get done in the organization, solid experience, good professional relationships beyond the immediate building or system, and a proven record of success.

Fundamental to a long-term relationship is an early orientation to the program at which the involved parties can, within a school system and school building policy, work through role defi- nitions and expectations of each other. This process will clarify initial commitments to help foster the climate of trust and openness important to success. The establishment of a regular feedback and monitoring system is essential and must be encouraged and supported by organiza- tional mechanisms.

The role of the principal in human resources and organizational development is a crucial one. Whether the aspect of the human resources development program being addressed is indi- vidual in nature or is focused on the work group, there is a need for administrative support, an appropriate structure, and a monitoring system. Administrative support begins with needs assess- ment one continues when the expectations are established. It is buttressed by a willingness to engage others in the planning of the development efforts and a willingness to secure time and dollar resources to support the effort.

Positive Reinforcement

Learning and development—whether adult, adolescent, or child—are facilitated by positive rein- forcement. Among a number of findings reported in a research synthesis about effective school practices was the following characteristic of leaders in these schools:

Leaders set up systems of incentives and rewards to encourage excellence in student and teacher performance; they act as figureheads in delivering awards and highlighting the importance of excellence.48

These findings highly correlate with those about successful management in the private sector:

The excellent companies have a deeply ingrained philosophy that says, in effect, “respect the individual,” “make people winners,” “let them stand out,” “treat people as adults.”49

In sum, then, there are four implications for the principal who wants a well-developed, highly motivated staff:

ISLLC 2, 6

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

198 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

1. Development needs of the staff must be accurately assessed. Self-assessment is a starting point, but the principal must also conduct an investigation, using clinical observations in classrooms, student data, and current and foreseeable school and community concerns, among other data sources.

2. High standards of performance must be established and advertised. Setting performance standards in cooperation with staff members has been revealed to be the most effective practice.

3. Human resources development systems require careful planning and a variety of approaches. IDPs as well as group development events must focus on recognized needs and be regu- larly monitored.

4. Positive reinforcement techniques need to be consistently and continually employed. Public pats on the back, award ceremonies, private thank yous, bonuses for jobs well done—what Peters and Waterman call “hoopla”50—all serve to keep people congruent with the needs of the organization and productively motivated.

Summary

Negative responses to organized efforts in the name of staff development are the result of a his- tory of bad experiences with activities that have gone on in the name of in-service training. However well-intended such activities may have been, too frequently they have not addressed either the needs of the individual staff members or the needs of the organization.

Better approaches exist, and these approaches issue from a model of human resources development that recognizes the varied needs of individual organization members; the needs of the organization; the nature of adult learners; the time and effort required, depending on the nature of the knowledge, skill, or attitude to be acquired; and the impact that individuals have on the very nature and culture of the workplace.

A C T I V I T I E S

1. Review Case Studies 4 and 14 in Appendix A at this end of this book. Apply the goal-setting and strategic plan- ning concepts of Chapter 4 and the human resources development concepts expressed in this chapter. How might you proceed in addressing the problems cited in these cases? Set forth a strategy to overcome the problem.

2. Review Case Studies 22 and 30. Analyze the problems presented and apply the concepts of human resources development presented in this chapter. What approach

would you use in addressing the problems? Set forth a strategy to overcome the difficulties faced by the schools in these cases.

3. Turn to the ISLLC standards and review the functions listed in Standards 2, 3, 4, and 6. Which of these best support the human resources concepts discussed in this chapter? What weakness do you find in your school’s human resources management? How would you go about correcting them?

E N D N O T E S

1. F. Newmann and G. Wehlage, Successful School Restructuring: A Report to the Public and Educators by the Center for Restructuring Schools (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1995).

2. Edgar Schein, Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978).

3. Ibid. 4. Ibid.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

C H A P T E R 9 / Human Resources Development 199

5. Ibid. 6. Gene Maeroff, “A Blueprint for Empowering Teachers,”

Phi Delta Kappan 69 (March 1988): 473. 7. Milbrey McLaughlin and Sylvia Yee, “School as a Place to

Have a Career,” in Building a Professional Culture in Schools, ed. Ann Liberman (New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 1988).

8. Chris Argyris, Personality and Organizations (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1957).

9. McLaughlin and Yee, “School as a Place to Have a Career.” 10. Dan Lortie, Schoolteacher (Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, 1975). 11. A. Maslow, “Toward a Psychology of Being,” in The

Creativity Question, ed. A. Rothenburg and C. Houseman (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1976), pp. 296–305.

12. Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).

13. McLaughlin and Yee, “School as a Place to Have a Career.” 14. Ibid. 15. Dennis Sparks and Susan Loucks-Horsley, “Five Models of

Staff Development in Teachers,” Journal of Staff Development 10, no. 4 (Fall, 1989): 40–57.

16. M. Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education (Chicago, IL: Association/Follett Press, 1980).

17. Michael Huberman, “The Professional Life Cycle of Teachers,” Teachers College Record 91, no. 1 (Fall 1989): 32–57.

18. Ibid. 19. Huberman, “The Professional Life Cycle of Teachers.” 20. Ibid, p. 32. 21. Ibid. 22. Patricia Holland and Kaye Weise, “Helping Novice

Teachers,” in Principal as Leader, ed. Larry W. Hughes (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, 1999).

23. McLaughlin and Yee, “Schools as a Place to Have a Career.”

24. Huberman, “The Professional Life Cycle of Teachers,” p. 36. 25. This concept was discussed in Chapter 1. Part of the role of

the principal is to provide opportunities for organizational members to develop the means necessary for moving to higher levels of values awareness.

26. Donald De Moulin and John Guyton, “An Analysis of Career Development to Enhance Individualized Staff Develop- ment,” National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 7, no. 3 (1990).

27. McLaughlin and Yee, “School as a Place to Have a Career.” These authors discuss the need to provide teachers with two opportunities that will inspire their development as profes- sionals: level of capacity and level of opportunity.

28. Sparks and Loucks-Horsley, “Five Models of Staff Development in Teachers.”

29. Ibid.

30. Beverly Showers, Peer Coaching: A Strategy for Facilitating Transfer of Training (Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1984).

31. B. Showers, B. Joyce, and B. Bennett, “Synthesis of Research on Staff Development: A Framework for Future Study and a State-of-Art Analysis,” Educational Leadership 45, no. 3 (1987): 77–87.

32. Beverly Joyce and Beverly Showers, “The Coaching of Teaching,” Educational Leadership 40, no. 1 (1982): 4–10.

33. Michael Scriven, “A Unified Approach to Teacher Evaluation,” Toward a Unified Model: The Foundations of Educational Personnel Evaluation (Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation, Western Michigan University, 1994), pp. 2–15.

34. Ibid., p. 1. 35. Linda Darling-Hammond, Arthur Wise, and Sara Pease,

“Teacher Evaluation in the Organizational Context,” Review of Educational Research 53, no. 1 (1983): 285–328.

36. Ronald Brandt, “On Teacher Evaluation: A Conversation with Tom McGreal,” Educational Leadership 4, no. 7 (July 1987): 20–24.

37. See Robert Goldhammer, Clinical Supervision (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969); and Morris Cogen, Clinical Supervision (New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1973).

38. A. A. Glatthorn, Differentiated Supervision (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984); and Carl D. Glickman, Developmental Supervision (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981).

39. K. Blanchard, D. Zigarmi, and P. Zagarmi, “Situational Leadership: ‘Different Strokes for Different Folks,’” Principal 66, no. 4 (March 1987): 12–16.

40. Glatthorn, Differentiated Supervision 41. Jim Hull, Trends in Teacher Evaluation: At a Glance

(Center for Public Policy, October 2013). 42. Ibid., p. 6. 43. Ibid., p. 9. 44. Ibid., p. 14. 45. Ibid., p. 15. 46. “Evaluating Teacher Effectiveness: Emerging Trends

Reflected in the State Phase 1 Race to the Top Applications,” in State Legislation: Emerging Trends Reflected in the State Phase 1 Race to the Top Applications (Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, 2010), p. 3.

47. Ibid. 48. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Effective

Schooling Practices: A Research Synthesis (Portland, OR: The Laboratory, 1984), p. 8.

49. T. J. Peters and R. H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies (New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982).

50. Ibid.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

200 P A R T T W O / Developing a Positive School Culture

S E L E C T E D R E A D I N G S

Arnau, L., J. Kahrs, and B. Kruskamp, “Peer Coaching: Veteran High School Teachers Take the Lead on Learning.” NASSP Bulletin 88, no. 639 (2004): 26–41.

Beltman, S., C. F. Mansfied, and A. Price, “Thriving Not Just Surviving: A Review of Research on Teacher Resilience (PDF) (8).”Educational Research Review 6, no. 3 (2011): 185–207.

Bernstein, E., “What Teacher Evaluation Should Know and Be Able to Do: A Commentary.” NASSP Bulletin 88 (2004): 80–88.

Bryk, A. S., and B. Schneider,. “Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School Improvement.” Creating Caring Schools 60, no. 6 (2003): 40–45.

Danielson, Charlotte, “The Many Faces of Leadership.” Educational Leadership 65, no. 1 (2007): 14–19.

Darling-Hammond, L., Creating a Comprehensive System for Evaluating and Supporting Effective Teaching Standford, CA: National Staff Development Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University, (2012).

Darling-Hammond, L., “The Quiet Revolution: Rethinking Teacher Development.” Educational Leadership 53, no. 6 (March 1996): 4–10.

Davis, J., “A Principal’s Plan for Mentoring Novice Teachers,” Principal 87, no. 5 (2008): 55.

Flannagan, J. S., and N. Kelly, “Differentiated Support.” Principal Leadership (Middle Sch Ed) 9, no. 7 (2009): 28–30.

Gallmore, R., et al., “Moving the Learning of Teaching Closer to Practice.” The Elementary School Journal (2009).

Guskey, T. R., “Analyzing Lists of the Characteristics of Effective Professional Development to Promote Visionary Leadership.” NASSP Bulletin 87 (2003): 4–20.

Guskey, T. R., and K. S. Yoon, “What Works in Professional Development?” Phi Delta Kappan 90, no. 7, (2009), 495–500.

Hollaway, John H., “Mentoring New Leaders.” Educational Leadership 61, no. 7 (2004): 87–88.

Ingersoll, R., and M. Strong, “The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical

Review of the Research.” Review of Education Research 81, no. 2 (2011), 201–233.

Leithwood, K., L. K. Seashore, S. E. Anderson, and K. L. Wahlstrom, Review of Research: How Leadership Influences Student Learning (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, 2004).

Lieberman, J. M., “National Board Certification: Bringing Out the Best in Teachers.” Principal 83 (2004): 45–47.

Minarik, M. M., B. Thornton, and G. Perreault, “Systems Thinking Can Improve Teacher Retention.” The Clearing House 76, no. 5 (2003): 230–234.

Nieto, S., “From Striving to Thriving” [Electronic Version]. Educational Leadership 66, no. 5 (2009): 8–13.

Renard, L., “Setting New Teachers Up for Failure or Success.” Educational Leadership 60 (2003): 62–64.

Rooney, J., “Who Owns Teacher Growth? “Educational Leadership 64, no. 7 (2007): 87–88.

Ruder, R., “What to Do When the Brightest Begin to Dim.” Principal Leadership 5, no. 8 (2005): 28–29.

Sparks, Dennis, “The Looming Danger of a Two-Tiered Professional Development System.” Phi Delta Kappan 86 (2004): 304–306.

Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas, “Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Educational Change 7, no. 4 (2006): 221–258.

Wasburn-Moses, L., “How to Keep Your Special Education Teachers.” Principal Leadership 5 (2005): 35–38.

Wei, R. C., L. Darling-Hammond, A. Andree, N. Richardson, S. and Orphanos, Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad, National Staff Develop- ment Council, 2009.

Zimmerman, S., and M. Deckert-Pelton, “Evaluating the Evaluators: Teachers’ Perceptions of the Principal’s Role in Professional Evaluation.” NASSP Bulletin 87 (2005): 28–37.

IS B

N 1

-3 2

3 -2

3 7

0 4

-6

L A W S O N , A P R I L 3 1 3 8 T S

The_Principal_Ch08
The_Principal_Ch09