Special Education Supervision:IN PENNSYLVANIA CHARTER SCHOOLS
The dissertation of David L. Hermann was reviewed and approved*
by the following:
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
iii
ABSTRACT
In this study of Pennsylvania Charter Schools; the focus was on
the qualifications, duties, and role perceptions of the special
education supervisors. Using role theory as a theoretical lens,
an interpretational framework was developed in order to both
form a survey instrument and to assist in interpreting the
participant responses. This case study research was conducted
with special education supervisors working at charter schools
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Information was
gathered through administration of a 30-item instrument and
extensive personal interviews.
more support for the paradigm of social facts over social
definition. Themes that emerged as contributing features to role
theory outcomes included: role embracement, role conflict, role
strain, and role neutral descriptors. Overall results indicated
that the special education landscape for charter school
supervisors in Pennsylvania is a dynamic one. School
organization appeared to be an important part of reported role
embracement. Role theory may have more limited application to
charter schools with less defined role structures.
iv
Public Charter Schools Defined ......................4
Charter Schools and Special Education ...............5
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions .....7
Significance ........................................8
Justification .......................................10
Special Education Law ...............................13
Creation of Pennsylvania Charter Schools ............16
Establishment, Denial, and Appeals................16
History .............................................21
Early Definitions.................................21
Later Conceptualization of Role ..................24
Later Research on Training and Prparation.........29
Current Professional Standards ...................30
Definition .......................................33
State Level Differences ..........................35
Authority Versus Functionality ...................37
The Social Facts Paradigm ........................40
The Social Definition Paradigm ...................40
Integrated Theory Paradigm .......................41
Section Summary .....................................45
Research Design .....................................49
Quantitative Research ............................51
Qualitative Data .................................51
Research Sample Modifications ....................57
Research Strategies and Implementation ..............60
Technical and Ethical Considerations ............61
Informed consent ..............................61
Development of the Survey Instrument..............65
Pilot Study Process ..............................66
Data Collection: Quantitative ....................78
Data Collection: Qualitative .....................81
Introduction ........................................90
Demographic Results .................................92
Official Titles ..................................93
Certifications....................................94
Role Theory as an Explanatory Framework .............106
Survey Results ......................................108
More frequent direct contacts .................126
Positive relationships with teachers ..........128
Successfully balancing multiple duties ........128
Changes to role ...............................129
Multiple duties, jobs, or assignments .........133
Legal compliance issues .......................134
Changes to role ...............................136
Neutral response – charter school features ....139
Neutral response – role change ................140
Narrative: Themes and Role Theory Outcomes........140
vii
Introduction ........................................144
Response Rate.....................................151
Professional Contacts.............................154
APPENDIX C INTRODUCTION/INFORMED CONSENT LETTER .......179
APPENDIX D SURVEY .....................................181
APPENDIX F CODING SCHEMES .............................187
APPENDIX G REVIEW PANEL QUESTIONS .....................188
APPENDIX H LIST OF CHARTER SCHOOLS ....................189
APPENDIX I TELEPHONE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...............195
viii
1985) ...............................................27
Table 3.1: Types of Case Study Design (Yin, 2003) ......54
Table 3.2: Changes in Charter School Population.........58
Table 3.3: Cronbachs Alpha Coefficients................68
Table 3.4: Spearman-Brown Coefficients..................69
Table 3.5: Guttman Coefficients.........................71
Table 4.1: Official Titles..............................93
Table 4.4: Teaching Certifications Held.................96
Table 4.5: Administrative Certifications Held ..........97
Table 4.6: Teaching Experience – Location ..............97
Table 4.7: Teaching Experience – Average Years Per Location
.....................................................98
Table 4.9: Number of Years – Supervisory Experience ....100
Table 4.10: Dual Duties – Supervisor and Teacher .......100
Table 4.11: Dual Duties – Number of Years ..............101
Table 4.12: Enviroment .................................101
Table 4.15: Role Theory Outcomes........................107
ix
Table 4.17: Modes: Disagree and Strongly Disagree Responses
.....................................................112
Table 4.19: Survey Questions With High or Low Standard
deviations ..........................................115
Standard Deviations .................................117
Standard Deviations .................................118
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is my sincere pleasure to acknowledge and thank the many
people who made this dissertation possible.
First, I would like to recognize the contribution of Dr. William
L. Boyd. I will never forget the day I received the letter from
him and the rest of the faculty which welcomed me into the
Educational Leadership program, and enabled me to continue my
scholastic pursuits. Your kindness and wisdom were greatly
appreciated and sorely missed.
Next, it is difficult to overstate my gratitude to my graduate
and dissertation advisor, Dr. Nona Prestine. With her guidance,
her inspiration, and her great efforts to help me communicate my
ideas clearly and succinctly, she helped me to develop new ways
of looking at the educational process and even make the research
process exciting and fun. Throughout my dissertation-writing,
she provided patience, encouragement, great teaching, sound
advice, and many, many good ideas.
Similarly, I would like to next thank the other phenomenal
members of my committee from both the Department of School
Psychology and the Department of Educational Leadership: Dr.
Joseph French, Dr. Jacqueline Stefkovich, and Dr. Susan C.
Faircloth. I am so very grateful for the opportunities to have
been a student in each of your courses. The positive influences
from your teaching and mentoring over these many years have made
this research project possible.
I am especially grateful to the departmental secretary for the
Educational Leadership program. Over the years, Ms. Becky
Contestable has been invaluable in helping me negotiate the
graduate student processes and offering me encouragement and
good cheer at the perfect times.
I wish to thank my entire extended family for providing a loving
environment for me. My grandparents Arnold and Bess Hermann and
Louis and Claire Benno, my father Harry Hermann and mother Bene
Turner, my step-parents John Turner and Rozann Hermann, my
father and mother in-law Wen-lih and Su-mei Chin, my brothers
Jeffrey Hermann, Colin Turner, and Jared Turner, my sisters-in-
law Donna Hermann and Cynthia Turner, my amazing niece Sophia,
my Uncle Alvin and Aunt Cathy Miller, and my first-cousins Ryan
and Jordan Miller. To all of you, I sincerely thank-you for your
advice, love, and support.
xi
The list of friends and peers who also offered me support over
the years and in so many ways seems endless, but you all have my
deepest appreciation.
Lastly, and most importantly, I wish to thank my beloved wife,
Nien-Hwa Chin and our amazing son, Joshua Kyle Hermann. They
have been, and continue to be the living embodiments of my
inspiration and motivation for all that I do and try to achieve.
Simply put, I am a far better person because of the enrichment
they bring to my life. To them I dedicate this dissertation.
1
Alternative models of educational service delivery have
become more popular over the last two decades since the “A
Nation at Risk” report in early 1983. In brief, but dramatic
prose, members on the National Commission for Excellence in
Education stated that,
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America
the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we
might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands,
we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even
squandered the gains in achievement made in the wake of the
Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential
support systems which helped make those gains possible. We
have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking,
unilateral educational disarmament. (p.5)
Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education
(1983) recommended that the states implement four main courses
of action.
English, mathematics, science, social studies, and computer
science.
2
standards for academic performance.
should be significantly increased.
Over the past 23 years, states and local communities have
attempted to achieve these aims by making changes at the various
levels of their respective educational systems. One of these
efforts included the use of what have now come to be called
public “charter schools”.
The charter school movement itself has its roots in a
number of other reform ideas, from alternative schools, to site-
based management, magnet schools, public school choice,
privatization, and community-parental empowerment. The term
"charter" may have originated in the 1970s when New England
educator Ray Budde suggested that small groups of teachers be
given contracts or "charters" by their local school boards to
explore new approaches (U.S. Charter Schools, 2008).
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation
of Teachers, then publicized the idea, suggesting that local
boards could charter an entire school with union and teacher
approval. In the late 1980s Philadelphia started a number of
3
original charter schools were the first public schools that
allowed parents the right to choose an educational program for
their children that was different from a mainstream public
school district and yet, did not incur the substantial expense
of enrolling in a private school. The idea was further refined
in Minnesota where charter schools were developed according to
three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for
results (U.S. Charter Schools, 2008).
In 1991 Minnesota passed the first public charter school
law, with California following suit in 1992 (U.S. Charter
Schools, 2008). Public charter schools became one of the fastest
growing innovations in education policy, enjoying broad
bipartisan support from governors, state legislators, and past
and present secretaries of education. In the 1997 State of the
Union Address, President Clinton called for the creation of
3,000 public charter schools by the year 2002.
…[E]very State should give parents the power to choose the
right public school for their children. Their right to
choose will foster competition and innovation that can make
public schools better. We should also make it possible for
more parents and teachers to start charter schools, schools
that set and meet the highest standards and exist only as
long as they do. Our plan will help America to create 3,000
4
of these charter schools by the next century, nearly 7
times as there are in the country today, so that parents
will have even more choices in sending their children to
the best schools (State of the Union Address, 1997).
By 1995, only 19 states had signed laws allowing for the
creation of public charter schools, and by 2003 that number
increased to 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia (U.S. Charter Schools, 2008). Public charter school
legislation was narrowly defeated in March 2006 in the state of
Maine (Maine Department of Education, 2006). Since 1994, the
U.S. Department of Education has provided grants to support
states' charter school efforts, starting with $6 million in
fiscal year 1995 (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). As
recently as 2008, the US Charter Schools (2008) web site
reported that there are currently 3,486 state or commonwealth
certified, public charter schools operating in the United States
and Puerto Rico with a student enrollment of approximately
948,533.
choice that operate with freedom from many of the regulations
that apply to traditional public schools. The "charter"
establishing each such school is a performance contract
detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served,
5
methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length
of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are
granted for 3-5 years (U.S. Charter Schools, 2008). At the end
of the term, the entity granting the charter (usually the home
district in which the charter school resides or the state board
of education) may renew the school's contract. Public charter
schools are accountable to their sponsor to produce positive
academic results and adhere to the charter contract. The basic
concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased
autonomy in return for this accountability. They are accountable
for both academic results and sound fiscal practice to several
groups: the sponsor that grants them the “charter”, the parents
who choose them for their childrens education, and the public
that funds them through taxes, grants and donations. While these
general parameters guide the functions of all public charter
schools, the laws creating them in each state, commonwealth, or
territory may vary greatly in their design, regulation, and
funding mechanisms.
Like their regular public counterparts, public charter
schools, are responsible for providing the full range of special
education services and supports to students identified under the
federal and state criteria. This statement immediately begs the
question, “How many public charter school students have been
6
identified to receive special education?” It is an important
question to ask due to the staffing needs and issues of
accountability.
In April 2006, the U.S. Department of Education published a
comprehensive review of the characteristics of schools in the
United States. The 2003-04 Schools and Staffing Survey provided
detailed characteristics of U.S. public and private schools
including special education enrollments. During the 2003-04
school year, the survey indicated that approximately 626,700
students were enrolled in 2,179 public charter schools
nationwide. Of this number, 2,052 or 94.2 percent of the
surveyed public charter schools indicated serving at least one
student in special education. The actual percentage of students
receiving special education services and supports in public
charter schools was found to be 10.8 percent (or 67,684
students); and in regular public schools 12.9 percent. These
results were virtually identical to those reported by Hendrie
(2004) who notes that a “federally commissioned study found that
in 2000-2001, roughly 11 percent of charter school students had
IEPs, this is a figure very close to the nearly 13 percent of
students enrolled in general public school special education
programs nationwide that year” (p. 58).
It should be remembered that periodic documentation of
these students needs, provision of services, and academic
7
legal requirements have been particularly challenging for public
charter schools for several reasons. The problem, Hendrie (2004)
continues, is that while the number of students identified to
receive special education is generally available, “much less is
known about the organizational structure of the idiosyncratic
special education programs and the kinds of service delivery
charter students receive. This is partly because the number of
children in individual charter schools is often too small to be
broken out in an extended analysis” (p. 58).
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions
The purpose of this research study was to closely examine
the roles, functions, and responsibilities of those engaged in
special education administration. In a traditional Pennsylvania
public school district, this position is filled by the
Supervisor of Special Education. In Pennsylvania public charter
schools however, this position and the dimensions of its roles
in charter school operations are less clearly standardized. This
broad area of inquiry is subdivided into three specific areas:
(1) What are the current roles and responsibilities of those
engaged in special education administration in PA charter
schools? (2) What were the significant forces or conditions
that shaped these roles in this manner? (3) How do the current
position holders perceive the effectiveness of their positions?
8
By attempting to answer these questions utilizing a role theory
paradigm as a framework of analysis, this research study sought
to make explicit the means by which these services are provided
and clarify responsibilities for special education decision
making in Pennsylvania charter schools.
Significance
The significance of a research study refers to the proposed
level of relevance or estimated importance. A study subject that
has low significance may simply not be important enough to merit
a detailed investigation.
It was only a short 36 years ago that Congress passed
Public Law 94-142 (Education of All Handicapped Children Act).
In order to receive federal funds, states had to develop,
implement, and administer policies that assured a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) to all children with
disabilities. The most current iteration of special education
law, re-authorized as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in December 2004 and
provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) have
further increased administrative responsibilities within all
regular public and public charter school special education
programs.
Specifically, under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
and starting in the 2002-03 school year, parents were given
9
identified as “chronically failing”. Parents with a child
enrolled in a failing school were now able to transfer their
child to a better performing public school or to a public
charter school. For the first time in United States educational
history, parents with children in a failing public school could
use federal funds for "supplemental education services." These
services could include tutoring, after school programs, summer
school classes, and the establishment of local education
alternatives (NCLB, 2002). In 2002 President George W. Bush went
further and authorized approximately $200 million in federal
funds to be made available for state and local communities. This
funding was specifically designed to help create and fund
charter schools as an option for parents and students, including
those students identified with disabilities (White House
Archives, 2004).
public charter schools, the number of stakeholders to which they
report, the limited funding and personnel resources which are
available, and the multiple legal obligations in which they
operate, the role of a public charter school special education
administrator was a potentially complex issue that has not been
well addressed in the literature. As a result, it became clear
that the current study addressed an important research need.
10
Justification
The justification of a study describes the reasons for
which the researcher proposes the study to be initiated. A study
which has poor justification may not have sufficient reasons to
enact the process.
education administration itself is justified. In 1970, Dr.
Donald Willower attempted to study special education
administration and organization from a social-system dimension.
Based on the literature in three issues of the Review of
Educational Research (1963, 1966, and 1969), he concluded
however, that special education administration was something
pristine. At the time, it appeared to have remained untouched by
the concerns of organizational theory, social systems theory,
bureaucratization, and the like. As will be seen in the next
chapters review of the literature, very little has changed over
the past 40 years.
increased calls for accountability across all aspects of the
special education environment; this factor alone could be
another reason for research justification. The current study
however, went further and sought to explore the unique landscape
of special education administration within Pennsylvania charter
schools, to determine how the supervisor of special education
11
position is represented, and to clarify the nature of this vital
supervisory role. Despite the immense importance of this type of
administrative function in public education, there had been very
little attention by researchers on the specific challenges
holders of the position face in the public charter school
environment. The subsequent database from which to clearly
characterize their roles and functions is limited. Attempting to
address these unacceptable gaps in the literature further
justified the current study.
The first section of the literature review presents the
main aspects of the two primary laws that govern the operations
of special education in Pennsylvania charter schools. The first
law is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEIA)–(2004) or Public Law 108-446. This statute is the
most contemporary revision of a series of federal laws designed
to permit equal access and opportunities for students identified
as having a particular disabling condition. The second law, Act
22 of 1997, was passed by the Pennsylvania legislature. This
statute allows for the creation and general operation of charter
schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but did not
initially address the vital issues of special education practice
and accountability.
regarding current practices. The concept of a supervisory
“role” is also introduced in this section, but specifically
within the domain of role conflict as a result of role
expectations.
In the final section of the literature review, the two
primary theoretical traditions of role theory are presented.
Definitions regarding terminology associated with role theory
13
are offered to provide a common frame of reference. A model is
then provided which integrates both traditions. Next, examples
of the use of role theory analysis and current practices in
school administration are presented. The chapter concludes by
presenting integrated role theory as providing an analytical
framework by which the some of the current research questions
may be addressed.
Special Education Law
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA) (2004), Public Law 108-446, is the newest revision of a
series of federal laws that are designed to permit equal access
and opportunities for students who are identified as having a
particular disabling condition. This act can trace its history
back to the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. The Board of
Education. In that historic decision, the Supreme Court over
turned an earlier civil rights decision made in Plessy v.
Ferguson (1896) and ruled that the practice of segregating
students on the basis of race violated their rights to equal
protection under the 14 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Similar decisions were reached by the high court regarding
matters of gender (Title IX in 1972) and disabling conditions
(Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v.
Pennsylvania in 1971 and Mills v. Board of Education in 1972)
14
Children Act in 1975 (Public Law 94-142).
Enforcement
(OSERS), also a component of the U.S. Department of Education,
administers the enforcement of IDEIA. The IDEIA is a grant
statute and as a result, attaches many specific conditions to
the receipt of Federal IDEIA funds. Each state educational
agency is therefore responsible for interpreting the federal
law, distributing the state and federal funds, and administering
special education programs within state. In Pennsylvania, the
interpretation of IDEIA is referred to as Title 22, Part I,
Chapter 14 of the Pennsylvania Code. This unusual blend of
overlapping legal influences is due in large part to the fact
that there has never been a right to, or provision for education
in the United States Constitution. That role has been left up to
the legislatures of the individual states and commonwealths to
define. As a result, the focus and enforcement of IDEIA may vary
greatly from region to region and from state to state.
Eligibility
Under federal and state laws, the decision to identify a
student under a special education service category must not only
follow the letter of the law, but also be determined by a well-
qualified, decision making team as being in the students best
15
interests. Currently, a student may be identified as having a
disability if they meet the criteria for one of the thirteen
service categories. It is possible in some instances for a
student to be found eligible under more than one of the service
categories. The first one chosen reflects the primary reason for
which the team believes the student is experiencing difficulties
in the school environment. As noted previously, in addition to
meeting the criteria for a service category the student must
also demonstrate a need for specially designed instruction in
order to be eligible for the legal protections of IDEIA.
Intervention/accommodation plan
a student identified with a disabling condition is the ultimate
goal of IDEIA. Specifically, an Individualized Education Program
or IEP is the written plan for the education of a student who
has been identified with a disability or gifted. The IEP is
based on the individual student's needs and describes the
special help the student will receive in school. The range of
accommodations and modifications that a student may receive
under their special education IEP is extremely broad. The three
main areas addressed include short-term goals, annual goals, and
program modifications or specially designed instruction.
16
For special education supervisors in all Pennsylvania
public schools, this federal law and its subsequent
interpretation by the Pennsylvania Department of Education
provide the fundamental cornerstones by which they are able to
conduct their duties as previously described in the first
chapter of this study. For special education supervisors within
Pennsylvania charter schools however, there is an additional set
of laws which must be taken into account.
Creation of Pennsylvania Charter Schools
On June 19, 1997, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge signed
into law the Charter School Law, Act 22 of 1997, 24 P.S.
Sections 17-1701-A to 17-1732-A. Under this law, a Pennsylvania
charter school is defined as an independent public school
established and operated under a charter from the local board of
school directors. Charter schools are required to be established
as public nonprofit, nonsectarian entities by teachers, parents,
institutions of higher education or museums.
Establishment, denial, and appeals
Pennsylvania. Existing public schools may be converted into
charter schools by having approval of more than 50% of the
parents of the children in the school and more than 50% of the
teaching staff in the school. In Pennsylvania, a charter may be
17
granted for no more than five years by a local school board. The
law also provides the procedural details regarding both
application and appeal processes. A charter application that is
denied by the local district can be appealed with a petition
signed by 1000 residents or 2% of the residents who are 18 or
older of the district or districts granting the charter,
whichever is less. All decisions of the appeal board are subject
to appellate review by the Commonwealth Court.
Students
Charter schools in Pennsylvania are required to enroll
students who chose to apply for admission and are residents of
the school district or participating districts. Nonresident
students may also be enrolled with first preference given to
resident students. Capacity issues are settled by the use of a
lottery. Discrimination is prohibited in admission decisions;
however, the charter school may limit admission to a particular
grade level or area of concentration and may set reasonable
criteria to evaluate prospective students, consistent with the
charter. Transportation is provided for students in charter
schools in the same manner as transportation is provided to
other schools in the districts. A students home district is
responsible for providing free transportation to the charter
school if the boundaries of the home district fall within 10
miles of the charter school. Students who live in districts that
18
fall outside the 10 mile limit may also attend the charter
school, but their home district is not required to provide them
free transportation.
In a Pennsylvania charter school, at least 75% of the
professional staff of a must hold appropriate commonwealth
certification. The charter must list the general qualifications
for non-certificated staff and any additional criteria which are
established. The staff may bargain collectively, but not as part
of the home school district's bargaining unit. Protections are
built into the law to allow teachers to transfer to a charter
school without penalty to employee rights: seniority, right of
return, retirement, health benefits and tenure. Employees of a
charter school are considered public employees, and the board of
trustees is considered a public employer for the purpose of any
liability.
Funding
federal, commonwealth, and local levels. Funding is provided by
removing allocations that are not part of the operating costs of
a charter school from the total expenditures per average daily
membership of the school district of residence. School districts
are provided temporary funding for the transitional costs of a
district's students enrolling in a charter school and are
19
provided payments due to the transfer of private school students
to a public charter school.
Compliance and accountability
Act 22 also provides a listing of school code regulations
and statutes that directly apply to charter schools. Charter
schools must comply with all other relevant regulations and
statues, not in the school code, that apply to all public
schools. Lastly, the law establishes requirements for on-going
access to records and facilities of the charter school and for
an evaluation of charter schools by an independent consultant
after five years (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2006).
Special education within charter schools
As a result of Act 22, several changes were made to the
existing laws regarding operations of all Pennsylvania public
schools, and especially those statutes regarding special
education. The section of the Pennsylvania Code most affected
was Title 22. Adopted on June 8, 2001, Part XX, Chapter 711 was
added to Title 22 and students of Pennsylvania charter schools
were legislatively offered the same special education services
and protections as their public education peers. Chapter 711 was
last updated in June 2008.
20
Since the 1960s, special education has become an enormous
program and the requirements for education and experience and
the diversity of roles and responsibilities of potential special
education supervisors and directors has increased dramatically
nationwide. Thirty years ago, this evolving trend was reported
by Finkenbinder (1981). A short six years after the passage of
the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-
142), he stated that, “It is my opinion that studies should be
conducted today to examine supervision and administrative
responsibilities in special education at the following
organizational levels: (a) small, medium, and large school
districts; (b) small, medium, and large county, regional, and
intermediate-unit programs; and (c) state-level bureaus” (p.
486). He also noted that perhaps the most important of these
concerns lay in what he termed the “humanistic point of view”
(p. 494).
Because it serves children at all levels and degrees of
handicaps, special education is a humanistic profession.
Administrators must be able to empathize with their staff,
assess when they lose their objectivity, know when to
intervene on behalf of children and parents, and be a warm
yet forthright decision maker. They must take risks in
developing programs for children. They must be able to
21
respond to staff needs and be accessible to staff; this is
especially critical in large districts and regional units,
where staff is spread thin. They must be prepared to deal
with conflict, an ever-present reality, and they will have
to develop counseling skills and interactive techniques.
Stressful situations are unavoidable in an administrative
position, and the would-be administrator might do well to
analyze in advance of training his/her ability to deal with
conflict and stress. (p. 494)
History
specifically assigned to manage programs and services for
students with special needs actually predated the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142). In 1965,
Marshman conducted a study which attempted to gather,
synthesize, and reorganize information relative to the job of
director of special education. Feeling that the job encompassed
both the supervisory and administrative areas, his description
included the following:
professional behavior is a body of specialized knowledge
which he uses to create a general education program for
22
entire spectrum of the school system. This responsibility
is not confined to academic areas, to curriculum, to
instruction, or even to administration. He must coordinate
a variety of services - psychological, vocational,
transportation, etc. Expenditure of funds to be properly
coordinated requires his specialized knowledge. Organizing
this job into a meaningful description is no small task.
(p. 3)
education administrators, especially those in large school
districts and/or regional units. It is important that holders of
these positions keep up-to-date with what is occurring in
special education, as they represent a valuable resource for the
educational constituency they supervise. It is also essential
that the administrator be a reliable source of information for
the regular administrators who will be required to review their
strategy and plans for exceptional children in view of the
least-restrictive-environment concept. Meisgeier and Sloat
(1970) suggested "the need for flexibility for meeting the
individual needs of administrators in the preparation programs
at the college level" (p. 393).
23
Marro and Kohl (1975) conducted the first nationwide survey
of special education administration. Their study specifically
examined the roles and functions special educators who dealt
directly with the superintendent or assistant superintendent in
administering school programs. From the 1,066 returned and
usable surveys, they found that at that time, 75% special
education administrators were men, 50% were between 39 to 49
years of age, and that their titles fell into four groupings:
director of special education, coordinator of special education,
supervisor of special education, and director of pupil personnel
services. The authors found little uniformity in the use of
titles and much confusion about the function and roles of each
title. They thus proposed some type of standard taxonomy to help
dispel the various misconceptions and ambiguities.
In addition, Marro & Kohl (1975) reported that most of
their participating special education administrators had been
school psychologists. The next most frequent type of previous
professional experience was teacher of the mentally retarded.
Over 40% of the respondents studied had 1 to 3 years of
experience as an administrator, and the next largest group
between 4 and 9 years of experience.
When asked about their role as administrators, they cited
their major activities as development of educational policies,
24
that they and their staffs had prepared budget proposals based
on program needs. At least two-thirds indicated that they worked
with teachers, administrators, and resource persons in the
development of curriculum.
special education administrators experiences; specifically
focusing on what was identified as “role conflict”. For Herbert
and Miller, the concept of “roles” is defined in terms of “role
expectations which are predetermined by the institution” (p.
215). As a result, they argue,
If there is consensus regarding the behavioral
expectations of a specific role, then the role
incumbent enjoys a well-defined role identity. If
there is disagreement among groups within an
institution, an individual may experience role
conflict (p. 215).
the behavioral expectations of an assigned role are ill defined
25
or contradictory. If the individual is unable to resolve this
“conflict”, the authors posit that he/she will experience
“disequilibrium, frustration, and stress as a result of this
uncertainty” (p. 216). Specifically, they argue that the two
primary influences of potential administrator conflict arise
from a lack of clear role description and clear lines of
authority.
special education supervisor may be exposed to even greater role
conflict than their regular education peers. This higher risk is
portrayed as coming from combining the previously noted conflict
areas (lack of clear role description and clear lines of
authority) to an, “uncertain relationship with general
education” (p. 216). In order to test these premises, Herbert
and Miller conducted in-depth interviews with a group of special
education supervisors (N = 10) who had been participating in a
larger study. It is interesting to note that the authors
definition of Special Education Supervisor is somewhat different
than is often cited in the literature and in modern public
school practice. In this study, a supervisor was not the
administrator in charge of a particular districts special
education program. For Herbert and Miller (1985), a “special
education supervisor” was an individual:
26
their professional title is teacher-consultant. Job
responsibilities included provision of technical assistance
to special education teachers working in various schools
districts and working in cooperation with building
principals in the supervision of special education
programs. The building principal maintains line authority
over the teachers. Although the special education
supervisor performs administrative functions, he/she
maintains a staff level position with no line authority.
(p. 220)
Each supervisor/teacher consultant was interviewed individually
and was asked to comment on the following: 1) Favorable and
unfavorable aspects of the job of supervision; 2) Personality
characteristics and professional competencies requisite of the
special education supervisor; and 3) Perception of the special
education teachers' role expectation of the supervisor. Based on
the results from these questions, the authors generated five
leadership styles which typified special education supervision.
The five styles are presented here (see Table 2.1) as a
reference point for future discussions with the results of the
current study. The Herbert and Miller styles include: the
Activist, the Good Example, the Politician, the Communication
Specialist, and the Counselor (pp. 224-225).
27
handicapped child.
education is incidental compared to the
need.
assistance to teachers, but their help is
often times not sought.
from their superiors.
but never put the information to use.
This supervisor rarely exhibits any
leadership in special education
minor planning committees.
administrative and technical assistance
As their opinions are adjustable, they
typically encounter minimal resistance to
their suggestions and get along well with
teachers and administrators.
education and is now seeking an
administrative position in general
The Politician is weary of convincing
parents, teachers, and general
handicapped.
elitist organization and to watch its
movements with some suspicion.
education and generally ineffective.
supervisor and is respected by their
colleagues for their skill in resolving
difficult situations.
and refreshing and have a keen political
sense and highly developed communication
skills.
functions, he/she is excellent in both
realms.
education organizations and frequently
listening to the teachers and is often
generous with advice, both professional and
personal.
formal counseling is not part of the
supervisory job description.
repertoire of humorous war stories which
often cast administration in a less than
positive light.
the teachers and although popular them, is
usually not held in the highest
professional regard.
*Table developed by researcher from the work of Herbert and
Miller (1985).
In the final section of the current literature review, an
alternative conceptualization of role theory is presented which
incorporates several of the ideas presented within the research
by Herbert and Miller (1985).
29
Eighteen years after the findings of Marro & Kohl (1975),
another national study of special education administrators was
conducted by Arick and Krug (1993). The foci of this study were
different however, and the issue of special administration role
was addressed focused on only one of their research areas:
quality of training/preparation. From the 1,468 returned
surveys, it was noted that over a third of the respondents “did
not have certification in special education, nor did they have
any appreciable experience teaching in special education” (p.
5). Arick and Krug did find however that, “the majority of
special education directors to have adequate training and
experience in the field” (p. 5). In addressing the research
questions regarding quality of training/preparation, several
findings of interest were generated. Out of 1468 respondents,
(60%) reported holding a degree in special education. Similarly,
(64%) reported holding a teaching certification in special
education. In addition, (65%) reported having 2 or more years of
teaching experience within special education classes. Regarding
facets of administration, (58.3%) of the respondents reported
holding an administrative certification in special education. In
addition, a staggering (85%) of the respondents reported having
2 or more years of special education administrative experience.
30
educators participate in a wide range of standards-driven reform
and accountability initiatives. The Interstate New Teacher
Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the National Board
for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and the National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards
have been interlinked and aligned to provide teacher education
with a well-integrated set of expectations and outcomes upon
which to base their practice. The Council for Exceptional
Childrens (CEC) Institutional and Program Requirements are
aligned with INTASC, NBPTS, and NCATE Standards to provide
special education teacher educators with expectations and
outcomes that are linked to those in general education.
In addition, the accrediting organizations cited have joined
together to develop special education administration leadership
competencies that emphasize integration of expectations and
outcomes. In 2001, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
joined with NCATE to develop Professional Preparation &
Credential Standards (2001). These eight standards were designed
to address the following: 1) Foundations (philosophical,
historical, and legal); 2) Characteristics of learners (human
development, principles of learning); 3) Assessment, diagnosis,
and evaluation; 4) Instructional content and practice; 5)
31
Managing student behavior and social interactions; 7)
Communication and collaborative partnerships and; 8)
Professionalism and ethics. The knowledge and skills embedded in
these Standards were linked to the Common Core of the
Performance-Based Standards for beginning special education
teachers. The language and approaches suggested by these
standards was also grounded in the special education knowledge
traditions. As a result, special education administration
continued to be an activity that is separated from the general
education program.
A number of researchers (Lashley and Boscardin, 2003;
Crockett, 2007; and Voltz and Collins, 2010) noted that it was
only a short time later that in cooperation with the Educational
Leadership Constituent Council, NCATEs newest Standards for
Educational Administration, were aligned with the Interstate
School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, to and
created seven additional principles: 1)A shared vision of
learning; 2) Culture and programs conducive to student and
personnel learning; 3) Safe, efficient, and effective learning
environments; 4) Collaboration and working with the community;
5) Ethical behavior; 6) Understanding and influencing political,
social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts and; 7)
Internships that are standards-based and cooperatively delivered
32
principles were identified as being grounded in current research
on educational reform and accountability as well as in the
general education and educational administration knowledge
traditions. These standards continue to demonstrate a disregard
for diverse populations by the general education administration
establishment.
standards for the preparation of special education
administrators reflects the existence of the dual systems of
general and special education that have marked the history of
efforts to educate children with disabilities. Lashley and
Boscardin (2003) describe the preparation of special education
administrators as,
department and focusing on the special education knowledge
tradition. While understanding the premises and assumptions
of special education as a discipline is an important
component of training for special education administrators,
such a focus limits their capacity to engage in experiences
that deepen their understandings of leadership,
organizational dynamics, and general education (p. 11).
33
As a result, they argue, the combination of extensive special
education expertise and limited leadership, organizational and
general education knowledge and skills,
…exacerbates the division between general and special
education, reducing opportunities to unify the dual system
of education and it becomes a challenge to the educators
who are responsible for preparing school leaders to address
the needs of all students; they should develop approaches
that integrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions from
special education, general education, and educational
administration (p. 11).
In conclusion, the prospective administrators who wish to work
in a modern special education system must be equipped to forge
new designs for inclusive, diverse, unified schools.
Supervisor of Special Education – Pennsylvania Definition
According to the Commonwealths Department of Education a
person holding a valid certificate as a Supervisor of Special
Education is qualified to serve as a supervisory administrator
and work in and with elementary, middle, secondary levels;
grades pre-Kindergarten through 12. This individual is qualified
to function as a liaison between the school administration and
the certified professional special education staff of a public
school for the purpose of:
34
goals by authorizing activities using judgment not equally
shared by all professionally special education certified
staff;
Providing direct input to administrators, which affects the
employment, assignment, transfer, promotion, layoff,
discharge or other similar personnel actions of other
professional-level employees certified in special education
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2007).
While a certified principal in Pennsylvania is permitted to
supervise and direct special education staff within a particular
building, the supervisor of special education ultimately bears
the primary responsibility for the conduct and performance of
the special education support staff. The supervisor of special
education may also provide staff development services above and
beyond those offered at the individual school level and more
tailored to the specific needs of special education personnel.
Lastly, in the Pennsylvania educational system, the authority of
Supervisor of Special Education is highly specialized. They are,
for example, not permitted to provide supervisory support for
teachers and educational programs beyond special education
services.
35
schools maintain a unique position in the landscape of the
American educational system. This distinctiveness is further
underscored when one takes into account the widely differing
state laws which govern public charter school operations. An
additional factor to consider is the inherent conflict between
special educations traditionally more centralized authority and
the foundational concepts of public charters schools which
emphasizes decentralized functionality.
State Level Differences
The levels of independence and self-government afforded to
public charter schools can vary widely from state to state. As
of March 2007, only ten states had not passed any form of public
charter school legislation. The Center for Education Reform
conducts yearly rankings of charter school laws (state,
commonwealth and U.S. territory) based on ten criteria
concerning charter school operations and relationships with the
chartering entity or agency. The score for the laws of each
region is then assigned a classification as being either strong
(encouraging the development of charter schools and/or
innovative practices) or weak (discouraging the development of
charter schools and/or restricting practices) (Center for
Education Reform, 2006). According to these ratings, as of 2006,
Pennsylvania ranked 11 th (earning a rating of “B”) out of the 41
36
District of Columbia. Complicating matters is the marked
variety from state to state over such issues as whether charter
schools are considered their own local education agencies for
special education purposes or are under the wing of school
districts. Just who is responsible for what in serving students
with disabilities in charter schools is sometimes unclear, and
sorting matters out is often made harder by the chilly relations
between charter and other public schools in many states and
communities.
Despite the relative strength or weakness of a particular
state or commonwealths laws for charter school creation and
operation, they remain secondary to the laws which govern
special education processes and procedures. As Hendrie (2004)
notes, “The idea of breaking free from rules and regulations has
been near and dear to the charter school movement since it got
rolling in the early 1990s. Yet what many charter schools have
discovered, often the hard way, is that the IDEA is one piece of
red tape that they simply can't cut” (p. 58). Citing Elizabeth
A. Giovannetti, the vice president for education program design
at New American Schools, Hendrie noted that,
Here's this highly prescriptive, process-oriented law that
kind of hits them in the face. They are out there to open
37
new doors to learning. But it's like, „Dont get too
excited; youve got to do all these little things, in this
order, for this group of kids. (p. 58)
“Autonomy versus regulation is the basic tension,” says Eileen
M. Ahearn, who has studied how charter schools serve youngsters
with disabilities as the project director for the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education. “Special
education has been implemented for over 25 years in regular
public schools, and now we have charter schools that have to hit
the ground running and deal with things that they probably never
thought they would have to deal with” (Hendrie, 2004, p. 59).
Ahearn continues by noting that, “This is the one mandated area
that no one can avoid” (Hendrie, 2004, p. 59).
Authority Versus Functionality
has generally relied on a strong centralized authority. For most
districts, the supervisor of special education and their direct
subordinates (e.g., program directors and area directors) are
often based out of a school district administration building.
The site or school based special education professionals (e.g.,
teachers, aides, and speech and language professionals) operate
at the individual campuses. In contrast, the physical structures
and staffing hierarchy of most public charter schools are often
smaller and more compacted than their regular public school
38
counter parts. In many instances there is only one school
building providing instruction to students ranging in grades
from kindergarten to high school. It is also not uncommon for
teachers to provide instruction to students in multiple grades
or have administrators having overlapping supervisory roles and
also teaching courses. Ensuring that charter schools get all the
special education legal obligations done has proved to be a
challenge not just for the schools themselves, but also for the
states and districts where the independent but publicly financed
schools have taken root.
aspects of special education supervision and research regarding
current practices have been critically reviewed and several
areas of concern were noted. The professional definition of a
Supervisor of Special education for Pennsylvania has been
provided and explored.
Special education supervision was examined in particular
and even more concerns regarding role conflict, as a result of
role expectations were presented. In the final section, the aim
of the literature review narrows even further and focuses on an
exploration of what is meant by the complex term: “role”.
Several theoretical constructs are presented and a model is
offered as a context by which the current study is evaluated.
39
“Perhaps one never seems so much at ease as when
one has to play a part” (Wilde, 2008, p. 15).
The study of the "roles" in which human beings engage is
possibly the most basic concept in sociology. In this next
section, an attempt is made to generate an understanding of the
varied frameworks that examine the concept. Specifically, the
concept of role is generically defined and two of the main
paradigmatic traditions operating are identified and examined.
The discussion concludes by positing the use of a unification of
the "multi-paradigmatic" approach. Life course analysis is
presented as an example of this practice at work.
"Role Theory" via Paradigmatic Traditions
One of the most important characteristics of social
behavior is that human beings behave in ways that are different
and unpredictable, often depending on their respective social
identities and the situation. Some confusion on the subject has
persisted in the literature because roles most basic theatrical
metaphor has been applied only loosely and because its earliest
proponents differed in the ways they used some of the initial
terminology. While all role traditions start from the
assumption that roles are variable and tied to social
characteristics, beyond this core premise one finds common words
and ideas used in rather disparate, confusing, and arbitrary
40
known as "role theory". For brevity, the following sections
specifically deal with the two most prominent traditions: the
structural tradition, which came from the work of Ralph Linton
(1936); and the interaction tradition, which came from the work
of George Herbert Mead (1934). The focus of this section is to
provide a framework of each traditions essential assumptions
and to suggest how role can be conceived of as having "multi-
paradigmatic" status.
Those authors and theorists who fall within the of the
social fact paradigm tend to focus on large-scale structures and
institutions and how they affect individual thought and action.
In a similar notion, the concerns of the structural role
theorist are an interest in the content, organization
(structure), and functions of social statuses and roles. In an
educational system this would be translated into how the
structures of the school organization affect and or shape the
roles played by the educators who work there.
The Social Definition Paradigm
The most basic premise of this tradition is that social
interaction is required for the development of the
characteristics which make a person into a social being. In
41
other words, it is the act of engaging in social interaction
with other individuals which provides the person with their
concept of “self”. Cooley (1902) described this as the
"looking-glass self", which is the process through which we
develop our sense of self based upon the reactions of other
people to ourselves or our actions. The interactionist approach
to role builds on this fundamental idea. Through social
interaction and role interpretation, people develop a self, or
identity; enacted largely through the particular role(s) in
which one chooses to engage.
Integrated Theory Paradigm
importance of the socially patterned sequence of changes in role
expectations that defines the journey from life to death (Baltes
& Reese, 1984; Clausen, 1987). This approach to studying social
development is informed by both traditions of role. First, life
course researchers examine the different events facing two
different cohorts when they were the same age (Schuman & Scot,
1989). Obviously, the larger social structure is being
considered in this type of analysis. Second, life course
researchers also look at birth cohorts by comparing how the
same, society wide event affects members differently by
emphasizing the individual characteristics (i.e. education,
social class, health, level of activity) (Hogan & Astone, 1986).
42
that modern life involves a continuous process of adjustment to
new developments and demands. Role strain, larger societal
events, and individual factors may interfere with our attempts
to meet society's role expectations. This in turn, may impact
the choices we select from when interpreting and "making" our
roles. It is evident that life-course builds on the classical
conception of role and changes in one's roles resulting from
both: 1) the broader patterns of social stratification and
institutionalization, the uniqueness of historical cohorts, and
the acceptance of culturally defined roles; as well as 2) the
significance of interaction for a person within their
environment, and how this is continually sustained and
reconstituted in an ongoing way across the life-course.
Role Theory in Studies of Schools Systems
One of the first studies which utilized role theory in
public schools was conducted by Bridges (1967). In this study of
elementary school principals, Bridges describes the process of
role assumption as a dynamic interplay between the unique style
and personality of the individual and the expectations and
demands of the institution as occurring in discrete stages.
Initially, the individuals particular characteristics are the
primary driving force behind the way in which their role is
43
enacted. This is usually a time of high excitement and tension
within an organization as seekers of change and those wishing to
continue the status quo, vie for influence on the principals
decisions. Over a period of time, the new principal often finds
their behavior more influenced by the subtle, but long
established bureaucratic values and expectations of their school
system. Contributing to this process of socialization is: a
formally established system of rules and regulations, a tight
hierarchical organizational structure, a somewhat impersonal
orientation towards superiors and subordinates, and the
understanding that their continued employment is contingent upon
their conformity to the established bureaucracy.
Approximately 25 years later, Marshall (1992) began
conducting a similar series of studies regarding the role of the
assistant principal. Her findings suggested that a large amount
of role ambiguity existed when the assistant principals were not
provided a detailed job description, a clear and consistent
outline of expectations and duties, and an understanding of how
their performance is to be evaluated. Also within this study,
Marshall uses the term “assumptive worlds” to describe the
implied limits on the assistant principals roles and personal
values within the school structure. She notes that for those
individuals who wish to pursue careers in school administration,
success is typically perceived as being measured by attainment
44
greater pay/compensation, and of course a higher role in the
administrative hierarchy. Similar findings were noted in the
“professional socialization” of principals (Parkay & Hall,
1992). In their book, Parkay and Hall describe the stages of
role entry, how a neophyte principal learns a new role to become
a member of the educational administrative profession over time,
and, in so doing, develops an identity with that profession.
In her later study (1993) Marshall additionally found that
the assistant principals tended to make their career choices by
first comparing their personal philosophies and values to the
institutions values and norms in order to seek congruence. In
the second stage, incongruities are then weighed against the
practical needs of the given situation (i.e. the decision is
made of how much dissimilarity is the assistant principal
willing to accept to have the job). If accepted, the final stage
begins wherein the individual assistant principals behaviors
are shaped by the informal and often unstated rules that govern
the daily functioning within the school and the system at large.
Generally, Marshalls work continues to reflect the earlier
themes espoused by the previous researchers. The most current
work in role theory in public education has been conducted Hart
(1993, 1994) and Hart and Bredeson (1996). These researchers
postulate that a principals role in the school environment
45
constitutes an artificial form of identity which is used to
fulfill the established needs and functions of a particular
social position. This role also helps to ensure that the
individual conforms to the expected norms and values which are
created by the shared expectations of the others in the
particular social unit (e.g., a school building).
Section Summary
of the two main theoretical traditions related to role theory
were explored. Later theorists have suggested that the somewhat
disparate understandings of structural and interactional are not
only more similar that would first appear, but are indeed
reconcilable. A model of this integrated view of role theory,
life-course analysis, is presented as a potential method of
analyzing educators self-perceptions of their differing roles
and the influences which shape them within their work
environment. While role theory has been used in some research
studies, none have attempted to utilize a unification of the two
main traditions in a life-course type analysis.
Chapter Summary
both substantive and lacking. The laws which provide for the
creation and enforcement of special education of charter schools
nationally, and specifically in Pennsylvania, has been revealed
46
supervisor of special education remains unaddressed. As the
current literature provides no substantial information related
to the three research questions it is proposed that the current
study be continued and implemented through the methods detailed
in the next chapter.
As was described in the previous chapters, the past seven
years introduced many dramatic changes within the American
public education system. In particular, those programs for
students identified as exceptional have been tested to comply
with often complex and occasionally, contradictory state and
federal laws. Yet, despite a national prioritization of
accountability within the United States (Public Law 107-110) the
current system failed to encourage a deeper exploration into the
process of service delivery along its entire course.
Specifically, the system failed to evaluate the manner in which
special education services are administered in the non-
traditional, but still public education system of charter
schools. The research is virtually silent regarding the unique
legal environment faced by educators within public charter
schools. As noted by Shavelson and Towne (2002),
Questions are posed in an effort to fill a gap in existing
knowledge or to seek new knowledge, to pursue the
identification of the cause or causes of some phenomena, to
describe phenomena, to solve a practical problem, or to
formally test a hypothesis. (p. 55)
48
research. In addition, role theory has been discussed in the
current literature review as providing a possible
interpretational framework for these experiences. The current
study adds to the knowledge base by exploring the role of
special education program administrators within Pennsylvania
charter schools. In an effort to achieve a detailed descriptive
picture of this small, but important subgroup, the study
solicited a variety of data from special education supervisors
who were employed in a Pennsylvania charter school. This
exploration was defined in the first chapter of the current
research by postulating the following questions:
1. What are the current roles and responsibilities of those
engaged in special education administration in PA charter
schools?
2. What were the significant forces or conditions that shaped
these roles in this manner?
3. How do the current position holders perceive the
effectiveness of their positions?
For the current research a mixed methods study was deemed
most appropriate in order to delineate the roles of and explore
the challenges faced by charter school special education
supervisors. In mixed method research, both quantitative and
qualitative data (Yin, 2003) are gathered at different times. In
practice it is like including two separate mini studies (a
quantitative mini-study and a qualitative mini-study) in one
overall research study. As Creswell (2003) explains, “mixed
methods research allows the researcher to use theory deductively
(testing theory) or inductively (develop emerging theory)” (p.
140). In addition, Gay and Airasian (2000) argue that,
“Quantitative and qualitative approaches should be thought of as
complementary methods that, when taken together, provide broader
options for investigating a wide range of important educational
topics than either one alone” (p. 316). For the current study,
the use of mixed methods was specifically chosen because of its
gestalt-type or interactive aspect (i.e. that the information
gained from both types of data is generally greater than the sum
of the parts).
evaluation research designs can sometimes be problematic. Green,
Caracelli, and Graham, (1989) suggest that based on the existing
50
in five distinct ways: triangulation, complementarity,
development, initiation, and expansion. For the development
orientation, the purpose of a research study, “seeks to use the
results from one method to help develop or inform the other
method, where development is broadly construed to include
sampling and implementation, as well as measurement decisions”
(p. 259). Based on this definition (Green, Caracelli, & Graham,
1989), the structure of the current study would fall into their
category of development. The authors continue by noting:
The salient feature of our recommended development design
is the sequential timing of the implementation of the
different methods. One method is implemented first, and the
results are used to help select the sample, develop the
instrument, or inform the analysis for the other method.
(p. 267)
In the current research, the development pattern was used
in the following phases. First, a pilot study of the new survey
instrument was conducted in order to provide reliability and
validity data. Second, after the pilot study responses were
received and analyzed, the data was used to develop the final
format of the main study and help to provide focus areas for the
follow-up telephone interview. Lastly, the data collected from
51
the main study was used to assist in the analysis of the data
gleaned from the phone interviews.
Quantitative Research
scientific investigation of different phenomena and their
relationships. The specific objective of a quantitative approach
is to develop and use mathematical models, theories and
hypotheses to describe the phenomena under investigation.
Generally, higher scores indicate that more of the variable is
present than do lower scores (Fischer, 2005).
In this mixed methods study, quantitative data was derived
from a survey and its purpose was to provide an overview or
broad perspective of the participants perceptions of their
experiences as supervisors of special education in charter
schools. The underlying themes of the survey were organized
around the three primary role theory perspectives from the
literature: social facts, social definition, and life course
analysis.
Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest that a benefit of
qualitative research is that it allows the researcher to gain a
“holistic overview of the context under study, its arrangements
and implicit rules” (p. 6). Merriam (1998) describes five
particular characteristics of qualitative research. These
52
include: 1) a focus on the meaning people have constructed from
an experience or event; 2) the researcher is the primary
instrument for data analysis; 3) qualitative research usually
involves fieldwork rather than a laboratory; 4) primarily
employs an inductive research strategy; and 5) the product of a
qualitative research study is richly descriptive (pp. 6-8).
The qualitative phase of the current mixed methods study
generated richly descriptive data; collected during phone
interviews. As noted previously, data from the quantitative
survey was used to develop the final format of a telephone
interview and to help analyze the qualitative data from the
phone interviews. Identical to the quantitative survey data, the
underlying themes of the qualitative data collection were
organized around the three primary role theory perspectives from
the literature: social facts, social definition, and life course
analysis.
The goal of the qualitative portion of this mixed methods
study was to allow the research to more fully explore and plumb
the intricacies and subtleties of these roles and to derive a
fuller and more textured understanding of the role dimensions of
charter school special education supervisors from the
supervisors own perspectives.
Case Study Research
The form in which case study research is conducted does not
necessarily follow only one particular pathway. In the current
research, the entire project was treated as a single case study.
This decision allowed the researcher, as a participant observer,
to take advantage of an insiders view and to provide “thick
descriptions” of participant perceptions. Merriam (1998)
suggests that a case study “can be defined in terms of the
process of actually carrying out the investigation, the unit of
analysis, or the end product” (p. 34). Furthermore, for Merriam,
the end product of a case study is a, “holistic description and
analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social unit” (p.34).
For the current research, the single phenomenon of investigation
is the role of Special Education administrators in Pennsylvania
Charter Schools.
Yin (2003) echoes Merriam writings and specifically notes
that case studies are “a method of choice when the phenomenon
under study is not readily distinguishable from its context” (p.
4). He continues on and proposes that there are at least six
different types of case studies. The following 2 x 3 matrix best
illustrates his understanding of the ways in which case study
research can be conducted (see Table 3.1). For clarification,
the number of cases refers to whether a single-case (a single
phenomenon) or multiple-cases (multiple phenomena) are to be
54
exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory.
Type of investigation
*Table developed by researcher from the work of Yin (2003).
The types are defined by Yin (2003, p. 5) as follows: 1)
Exploratory case study – This type is aimed at defining the
questions and hypotheses of a subsequent study or at determining
the feasibility of the desired research procedures; 2)
Descriptive case study – This type presents a complete
description of the phenomenon within its context; and 3)
Explanatory case study – This type presents data bearing on
cause-effect relationships and attempts to explain how events
happened. Based on Yins diagram, the current study fell under
the single case, exploratory type of investigation.
Justification of Design
For the current research, the use of a mixed methods
approach is justified for two reasons. First, the focus of the
current study was exploratory. The primary value for using a
mixed methods approach with a development design was that it
enabled the researcher to “cast a wide net” to include a larger
55
variety of data for analysis and to make more solid conclusions
regarding the data. Green, Caracelli, and Graham, (1989)
suggest that:
equal status. Mixed-method studies with a
developmental intent can occur within a single study
or across studies, conducted sequentially to
capitalize on the benefits derived from each method
type. (pp. 267-268)
Second, the use of a development approach to the mixed-
methods design allowed the researcher to fine tune the both the
quantitative and qualitative research phases for an in-depth and
more comprehensive representation of the perceptions of role for
the participating supervisors of special education. For example,
information derived from the pilot study helped shape the final
format of the survey instrument. Similarly, the survey data
helped shape the final format of the phone interview. Lastly,
the qualitative interview data helped to provide clearer
contexts and depth for the quantitative survey data.
Participation Criteria
For the current study, the research focus was on the role
of the special education supervisor; currently employed within a
Pennsylvania in a charter school. The two specific criteria for
all participating individuals included: 1) employment in a
56
special education” or in an equivalent administrative position
within the charter school which oversaw the operation of its
special education programming.
In spring 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Education
(PDE) database listed 126 regular charter schools as actively
providing educational services within the commonwealth during
the 2007-08 school year. The initial phase of this exploratory
case study focused on attempting to obtain quantitative survey
data from the special education supervisors from all one hundred
and twenty-six (126) regular charter school sites. Cyber-charter
schools were excluded from the current study due to their
ability to recruit students from outside the commonwealth.
The information of research interest was solicited from the
individuals who were identified or otherwise designated as being
responsible for special education services at each charter
school and constitutes the entire regular charter school
membership currently listed and authorized by the Department of
Education within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Consequently,
the use of all 126 regular Pennsylvania charter schools on the
list reflected an attempt to include the entire population of
potential participants.
it was found that this population was considerably smaller than
had been indicated from the data supplied by the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (see Table 3.2). The population
reduction amounted to (-36) possible targets or a total decrease
of -28.57%. When analyzed, it was discovered that the smaller
population number was due to two primary factors: list errors
and charter school design factors.
List errors.
In addition to the site-based charter schools, the PDE list
also included all the commonwealth certified, cyber-charter
schools. As was indicated in the methods section, the focus on
the current study was only on site-based charter schools, so the
cyber-charter schools should not have been included as part of
the target population. Second, a numeration error was found on
Pennsylvania Department of Education list. There was no charter
school (cyber or site-based) listed for #36 (see Appendix G).
While neither discovery of these errors (external to the study)
were viewed as critically affecting the possible study outcomes
it was important to indicate and acknowledge their presence.
58
During the selection of sites for the pilot study, two
additional factors were revealed which also affected the size of
the overall target population. First, it was discovered that two
Table 3.2
Numeration Error -1
Schools reporting no special education
students
-14
of the target charter schools incorporated a system design with
a central administrative location, and multiple instructional
sites. Specifically, one of the charter schools has a total of
five sites and the other has a total of 3. The administrative
location and each of the academic centers for both charter
schools were erroneously identified on the Pennsylvania
Department of Education list as separate charter school
entities, so the 8 original targets were in actually only 2
charter schools.
were contacted either during the pilot study or during the
59
survey itself, reported that they did not have any students
receiving special education supports and services. As a
consequence, they did not employ any individuals for special
education instruction or supervision. The absence of special
education students was initially confirmed via the (2007-2008)
special education reports (Penn Data) for sixteen of the charter
schools. Due to the aforementioned concerns with list errors,
additional confirmation of this data was obtained by phone as
part of the pilot study and survey. Of the sixteen charter
schools in question, fourteen confirmed that they did not have
any special education students or staff. The remaining two
charter schools could not be contacted as they had ceased
operation.
Lastly, during the survey data collection, an additional
two of the listed charter schools were found to have ceased
operations; bringing the total number of closures to four. It
could not be determined whether they had ever had provided
special education services to their students or had any
individuals in charge of that part of the curriculum.
Participation in the Second Phase
The second phase of the current research continued to
explore the nature of the special education supervisor role by
collecting qualitative data through the use of follow-up phone
60
interest and provided additional consent (see Appendices B and
C). All of the participants who provided consent were considered
for involvement in the phone interviews. The final number of
phone interviews which were conducted was based on the total
number of consents received; and categorized on the basis of
both years of special education supervisor experience and the
charter school size (small, medium, or large).
Therefore, the primary researcher analyzed the responses of
each participating special education supervisor as component
parts of an individual case study; where the unit of analysis
was the role of special education administrators in charter
schools. This sample allowed the researcher ample opportunities
to report robust findings based on comparisons and contrasts
among the various charter school settings.
Research Strategies and Implementation
implemented prior to and during the actual data collection. The
current section begins by presenting the source of the technical
and ethics guiding the current research and includes issues of
informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity. The section
61
concludes by describing the methods by which access to the
participants and the data were gained.
Technical and Ethical Considerations
activities. Therefore, in advance of beginning the current
study, the primary researcher successfully completed the
computer-based assessment for conducting ethical research at the
Pennsylvania State University. In the following sections, the
ethically sensitive areas of: informed consent, confidentiality,
and anonymity and practice will be discussed in detail as they
were utilized in the study.
Informed consent.
Pennsylvania State University (2008), the process of obtaining
informed consent,
participants are provided with information about the
research study that is understandable and permits the
participant to make an informed and voluntary decision
about whether or not to participate. (p. 16)
62
In addition, the act of providing informed consent should not be
viewed as a singular moment which occurs prior to beginning a
research project, but rather, “as an ongoing educational
interaction between the investigator and the research
participant that continues throughout the study” (p.16). In the
current study, informed consent was provided to the potential
pa