[abstract]
"Today’s schools face a mounting number of court cases resulting from conflicts between parents of children with special needs and educators tasked with meeting those needs (Osborne, 2009). Principals have the enormous responsibility to ensure appropriate services to educate students with disabilities and, as special education leaders, require a skill set that includes knowledge of current laws, litigation, student learning needs, and how to support parents’ decision making rights and responsibilities. A gap is evident between what principals know about special education leadership and case law and what principals are doing in the field.
The purpose of this study was to identify effective actions and behaviors that support Virginia principals’ leadership in special education decision making. More specifically, the study examined what can be done to minimize special education disputes between parents and schools and identify principals’ skill sets to minimize special education disputes. Two concurrent Delphi studies were conducted with 16 member panels; stakeholders with familial responsibilities to children with disabilities and professional experts with responsibility to special education compliance participated. A final round exchanged findings between the panels. The study identified a list of best practices for Virginia school principals to support special education leadership and decision making."
[findings]
"Key findings of this study are mentioned regularly in the literature. Although findings are not linked directly to litigation, each has an impact on cooperation and communication between parents and school officials (Zirkel, 2007). Experts and stakeholders called for the
principal to ensure adequate training for the school staff. Special education law is difficult even for trained personnel to understand (Shuran & Roblyer, 2012); thus skilled training for school personnel is crucial. Training staff to have knowledgeable and effective communication with parents, specific to the individual needs of the child and training staff to understand their responsibility to implement a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment is a combination that seems to work in minimizing disputes (Shuran & Roblyer, 2012).
Interpreting requirements for IDEA can confuse parents and school staffs (Applequist, 2009). Appropriate delivery of an IEP requires a thorough knowledge of the law. Additionally, an understanding of program or strategic implementation practices to meet a child’s needs is called for if the principal is to monitor academic and behavioral interventions that support student learning. The two-part test established in Board of Education of Henrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982) defines school districts’ legal obligation to comply with the procedures set forth in IDEA and to develop an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (Romberg, 2011). Taking immediate action, if the school is not meeting its obligations for the education of the child, is key.
Supportive relationships, with continuous communication between parents and school districts, are essential in minimizing litigation (Shuran & Roblyer, 2012). Sharing information with parents in a timely manner can promote effective, respectful communications between parents and school staff. Respectful communication and IDEA compliance, led by the principal, facilitates parent and school responsibility in the education of a child with a disability, and sets the tone for collaboration." (pp.79-80)