Teacher Leadership in Special Education

Introduction

Historically in U.S. K-12 education, schools operated under a traditional hierarchical system, which distinguished a school leader (principal) and members of their leadership team from school staff, such as educators, nurses, paraprofessionals, and related services providers. An intentional leadership model, such as the hierarchical system, demands the creation and implementation of operational routines for schools while placing the majority of organizational responsibility on the school leader. A school’s leadership team includes administrators designated to guide teachers in developing high quality instructional practices while supporting students’ social emotional well-being and academic growth.

While a general assumption can be made that the school leader oversees every aspect of the structure and operation of a school, Pino and Johnson (1968) asserted that there was a distinction between instructional leadership from principals and their actual practice. One of the challenges that school administrators, particularly principals, experienced was the lack of time to devote to instructional leadership due to a lack of time, autonomy, and opportunity (Pino & Johnson, 1968). In more recent research, The Wallace Foundation (2012) suggested that the demands placed on school principals had dramatically changed over the past few decades. Rather than being the sole overseers of school operations, principals were also expected to lead other educational stakeholders (Wallace Foundation, 2012).

Figure 1.

Example ofthe Hierarchical System of Leadership in Schools

Furthermore, Terosky (2016) also noted that the expectations of principals have shifted focus away from academia and geared attention towards “bureaucratic or operational tasks” (p. 311). While the social, political, and economic climates around education have changed over the past few decades, the perception of the school leader and their responsibilities have not. School leaders continue to be the designated point persons of their schools and there is a disconnect between the expectations of school leaders as instructional models for their teachers and as deliverers of such practice. Neumerski (2012) explained that the responsibility of instructional leadership had been assigned to principals; however, there were also two important factors for educational researchers to consider: (1) principals, alone, cannot provide instructional leadership and (2) there were still limitations in research on how instructional leaders contribute to improving teaching (p. 311).

School leaders should not have to bear the burden of being the designated individual responsible for instructional and curricular development and school operations. School teams and educational researchers should explore a paradigm shift that challenges the hierarchical leadership model and determine if this passé system is hindering schools’ abilities to implement changes that would bring equity, inclusivity, and growth for all school staff and their students.

The traditional model of organizational leadership in U.S. K-12 education does not meet the ever-changing demands of special education. School leaders in the U.S. are inadequately prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of managing special education operations (Frick et al., 2012), including specialized instruction (Bettini et al., 2019). The lack of preservice training in special education for administrators is detrimental to schools and leaves special education teachers with an overwhelming level of responsibilities in addition to providing instruction to their students. Furthermore, the limitations for school leadership to contribute to educational equity impacts students’ ability to access social emotional and curricular resources–particularly for students with individualized education plans (IEPs) or 504 plans (i.e., students with disabilities).

Students with either plan may receive accommodations, modifications, consult, and/or other instructional support from special education teachers. Special education teachers spend the most time working with students with IEPs or 504 plans and are expected to (1) master modifications of curriculum, (2) meet the students’ social emotional needs, (3) consider different classroom strategies for behavior management, (4) collaborate with other stakeholders to individualize plans for specific students, and (5) implement students’ individual behavior and academic intervention plans.