I Leadership Practices in K-12 Public Schools For

Leadership Practices in K-12 Public Schools for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: A Qualitative Study

by Erica Jones

B. A. in Psychology, December 2009, Shepherd University M.Ed. in Special Education, May 2013, University of Virginia

A Dissertation submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

January 10, 2019

Dissertation directed by

Kelly Sherrill Linkous Assistant Professor of Education Administration

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certifies that Erica Jones has passed the Final Examination for the degree of

Doctor of Education as of October 1, 2018. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

Leadership Practices in K-12 Public Schools for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students: A Qualitative Study

Erica Jones

Dissertation Research Committee:

Kelly Sherrill Linkous, Assistant Professor of Education Administration, Dissertation Director

Christine W. Nganga, Assistant Professor of Education Administration, Committee Member

Tania N. Thomas-Presswood, Associate Professor of Psychology, Gallaudet University, Committee Member

Abstract of Dissertation

Leadership Practices in K-12 Public Schools for Deaf and Hard-of Hearing-Students: A Qualitative Study

This study aspired to understand the practices implemented by school leaders to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular activities and services commensurate with their hearing peers. The participants for this study were school leaders as well as non-school leaders who worked with deaf and hard- of-hearing students in their nonacademic and extracurricular activities in secondary public schools. The data were collected through document reviews and semi-structured interviews to address the research question: What are the practices, if any, that school leaders implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers? The data were analyzed through the lens of transformative leadership theory and illuminated three themes: administrative guidance, resources, and culture. Key findings indicated the need for more explicit policies at the district and school levels, more access to resources, and greater professional development opportunities to support the development of a strong culture.

iii

Table of Content

Abstract of Dissertation ...... iii

List of Figures ...... iv

List of Tables ...... v

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature...... 19

Chapter 3: Overview of Methodology ...... 63

Chapter 4: Results ...... 74

Chapter 5: Interpretations, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... 103

References ...... 128

Appendix A: Nine Guiding Principles of Leadership ...... 147

Appendix B: Introduction Letter ...... 149

Appendix C: Document Review Sheet ...... 151

Appendix D: School Leaders Interview Protocol ...... 152

Appendix E: Nonschool Leaders Interview Protocol ...... 156

Appendix F: Data Collection Summary Sheet ...... 159

Appendix G: Information Sheet for Potential Participants ...... 160

Appendix H: Informed Consent Form ...... 162

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework...... 59

Figure 2. Maxwell’s (2013) design for qualitative studies...... 67

Figure 3. Occurrence of categories ...... 78

Figure 4. Occurrence of themes...... 79

Figure 5. Revised conceptual framework ...... 90

List of Tables

Table 1. Tenets of Leadership ...... 51

Table 2. Participant Information ...... 73

Table 3. District A Demographics ...... 74

Table 4. District B Demographics ...... 75

Table 5. District C Demographics ...... 76

Chapter I: Introduction

Overview

Students with disabilities have a long and checkered history with regard to public education. For many years students with disabilities were considered unteachable and were denied access to public schools (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

[IDEA], 2004). Those who received some formal education were often segregated into separate schools isolated from their nondisabled peers (IDEA, 2004). Children with disabilities were merely housed in schools with little accountability for what they were learning (IDEA, 2004). Furthermore, parents of children with disabilities had no rights or parental safeguards regarding their children’s education and limited input into how their children were educated or what they would be learning (IDEA, 2004). Additionally, these students were excluded from fully participating in all curricular, cocurricular, and extracurricular activities to which their nondisabled peers had access.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973) guarantees certain rights to people with disabilities. It was the first U.S. federal civil rights protection for people with disabilities (Disability

Rights Education and Defense Fund [DREDF], 1997-2018). Section 504 states:

No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined

in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely due to his or her disability, be

excluded from the participation in or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial

assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive Agency

or by the United States Postal Service. (DREDF, 1997-2018)

Litigation resulted in legislation regarding the education of children with disabilities and the advent of special education (Mills v. Board of Education, 1972);

PARC v. Commonwealth, 1972). In 1975 Congress passed Public Law 94-142, which later became known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), now known as IDEA. This law guaranteed all students with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

In 1990, Congress renamed the EHA the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA). As did the EHA, the IDEA requires schools that accept federal money to provide individualized special education for any student who qualifies as a student with a disability by stating that “education must be tailored to meet the needs of the individual child with a disability” (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a). The purposes of IDEA are:

(1)

(A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free

appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related

services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further

education, employment, and independent living;

(B) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such

children are protected; and

agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities;

(2) to assist States in the implementation of a statewide, comprehensive,

coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system of early intervention services

for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families;

(3) to ensure that educators and parents have the necessary tools to improve

educational results for children with disabilities by supporting system

improvement activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation;

coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; and technology

development and media services; and

(4) to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts to educate children with

disabilities. (IDEA, 2004)

IDEA further mandated that the education of students with disabilities occur in their least restrictive environment (LRE) and that the impact of their disability be considered regarding any disciplinary action that might be taken against them. This legislation gave parents a sense of power and created a movement that forced states to begin to educate students with disabilities (Bakken, O’Brian, & Shelden, 2006).

According to Niskar and colleagues, approximately 14.9% of U.S. children have low-frequency or high-frequency hearing loss of at least 16-dB hearing level in one or both ears (Niskar et al., 1998). Although hearing loss is considered a low-incidence disability, the number of individuals with hearing loss doubled over a 30-year period

(Benson & Marano, 1995; Ries, 1994). The prevalence of hearing loss for those aged 3 or older steadily increased from 13.2 million in 1971 to 28.6 million in 2000 (Kochkin,

2001). Deaf and hard-of-hearing students, when compared to their hearing peers, have a more difficult time acquiring vocabulary, correctly using English grammar and syntax,

and understanding various other components of oral communication (National

Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities, 2004). In 2001, the number of school-aged children with disabilities served in public schools under IDEA was

5,775,722, whereas only 1.2% of that population received services directly related to hearing. This number may not have been an accurate representation of the actual number of students with hearing loss, however, as the disability can occur concurrently with other disabilities. The Department of Education does not report disability data for children aged birth to 5; however, early intervention programs, which are significant sources of information and support for most families, abruptly stop providing services when a child enters kindergarten (Spencer & Koester, 2015). There is no comparable support structure to replicate the important services that early intervention programs provide to assist families as they navigate the numerous challenges throughout a child’s K-12 years

(Olivia & Lytle, 2014).

Because 75% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students are educated in their neighborhood public schools, these schools must be prepared to support this diverse student population (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Public schools must offer the continuum of educational placements in accordance with IDEA, including general education with no special education support, general education with special education support, resource classrooms, and self-contained classrooms. The resource classroom removes students with disabilities from the general education classroom to receive direct instruction from a special education teacher. The self-contained setting is a classroom of only students with disabilities who receive all or some of their instruction from a special education teacher. In considering the continuum of placement options, the view of

general education environment is less restrictive whereas the self-contained option is more restrictive within the public-school setting. The number of resources and placement options, however, varies by school, district, and state.

Although participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities can be an important part of school for many students, those with disabilities often have limited access to these services (Losinski, Katsiyannis, & Yell, 2014). Extracurricular services and activities allow students to examine nonacademic interests, develop social skills, and become more connected to their school community (Pence & Dymond, 2016).

Furthermore, participation in these activities promotes an inclusive school environment

(Maiano, 2011; Murphy, Carbone, & The Council on Children with Disabilities, 2008).

Students with disabilities who participate in these activities tend to have a more active social life than students with disabilities who do not (Garza, Cadwallader, and Wagner,

2002). The literature has defined three types of extracurricular activities: school clubs, organized sports, and performance and creative activities (McCarthy & Cambron-

McCabe, 1992).

Although the literature has noted benefits for students with disabilities participating in nonacademic and extracurricular activities, the rates of actual participation vary based on the disability (Pence & Dymond, 2016), with students with severe disabilities exhibiting the lowest rates of participation (Simeonsson, Carlson,

Huntington, McMillen, & Brent, 2001). According to a 2010 government report, approximately 41% of students with disabilities in Grades 1-7 participated in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. For Grades 7-12 only 33% of students with disabilities participated in these activities (U.S. Government Accountability Office

[GAO], 2010). Zill (1995) found that students who do not participate in a socially appropriate after-school activity were 57% more likely to drop out of school, 49% more likely to use drugs, and 27% more likely to be arrested.

Deficits in communication represent one of the barriers students with disabilities face (Abells, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2008; Carter, Swedeen, Moss, & Pesko, 2010;

Kleinert, Miracle, & Sheppard-Jones, 2007; Lovitt, Plavins, & Cushing, 1999; Orsmond,

Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004). To serve students with disabilities schools must provide reasonable modifications to ensure that such students have an equal opportunity to participate in these activities (Yell, Losinski, & Katsiyannis, 2014). If a school district offers extracurricular and nonacademic activities, they must provide an equal opportunity for students with disabilities to participate by making reasonable accommodations and providing necessary aids and services (Yell et al., 2014). The U.S. Government

Accountability Office (GAO, 2010) revealed that despite legislation requiring states and schools to provide equal access, opportunities for physical activity remained limited for students with disabilities. Common barriers were inaccessible facilities and equipment

(Auxter, Pyfer, Zittel, & Roth, 2010; Block, 2007; Rimmer, 2005; Rimmer & Rowland,

2008; Simeonsson et al., 2001; Stanish, 2010); personnel without sufficient training

(Auxter et al., 2010; Block 2007; Rimmer & Rowland, 2008; Stanish, 2010); and inadequate, noncompliant, or otherwise inaccessible programs and syllabi (Auxter et al.,

2010; Block, 2007; Rimmer, 2005; Rimmer & Rowland, 2008; Simeonsson et al., 2001).

Perhaps the most significant barrier is access to resources, specifically a lack of dollars and personnel, needed to implement the modifications and accommodations necessary for students with disabilities to fully participate (Dieringer & Judge, 2015). Dieringer and

Judge (2015) further stated that providing qualified personnel needed for service delivery during evening and weekend hours is a barrier for schools. Although extracurricular sports programs have been developed for students with disabilities, school leaders have reported a lack of funding and informational support for creating more athletic opportunities for students (GAO, 2010). Limited extracurricular participation is an equity issue, especially among youth with disabilities (Carter et al., 2010). Steps to foster engagement of students with disabilities in extracurricular and other school-sponsored activities include assessing opportunities and barriers, helping students identify interests, equipping students to fully participate, preparing staff to provide meaningful support, keeping families informed, and expanding the roles and experiences of students over time

(Carter et al., 2010). Although the research addressed students with disabilities, there was no clear delineation specifically for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

During the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, specific language was added to address the need for special considerations for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The law stated, and continues to state, current with the 2004 IDEA Reauthorization: Sec. 614

(3) Development of IEP, (B) Consideration of Special Factors:

The IEP team shall (iv) Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the

case of the child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and

communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and

professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode,

academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct

instruction in the child's language and communication mode; and (v) Consider

whether the child requires assistive technology devices and services. (as cited in

Seaver, 2014)

The U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) published “Deaf Students Education Services Policy Guidance” in 1992 in response to a report from the Commission on Education of the Deaf that expressed concerns about

FAPE for students who were deaf or hard of hearing. This commission found that these students had to overcome significant obstacles to access FAPE, particularly regarding communication access. The guidance was intended to help state and local agencies determine FAPE for students who were deaf or hard of hearing and called for the consideration of certain factors during the development of the IEP, which included communication needs and the child’s and family’s preferred mode of communication; linguistic needs, severity of hearing loss, and potential for using residual hearing; academic level; and social, emotional, and cultural needs, including opportunities for peer interactions and communication (Seaver, 2014).

The Deaf Students Policy Guidance further recommended that the needs of a deaf or hard-of-hearing student should be identified by professionals who are knowledgeable about the implications caused by the nature and severity of the deafness and how it impacts the delivery of instruction. This recommendation was a call for educators who were expertly trained in deafness to be involved in the educational planning for deaf and hard-of-hearing students because, without them, the decision making would be left to professionals with no knowledge of or background in deafness or hearing loss.

According to the Deaf Students Policy Guidance, meeting the communication needs of deaf students is critical to ensuring FAPE. The guidance directly states:

Any setting, including a regular classroom, that prevents a child who is deaf from

receiving an appropriate education that meets his or her needs, including

communication needs, is not the LRE for that child. Placement decisions must be

based on the child's IEP. Thus, the consideration of LRE as a part of the

placement decision must always be in the context of LRE in which appropriate

services can be provided. Any setting which does not meet the communication

and related needs of a child who is deaf, and therefore, does not allow for the

provision of FAPE, cannot be considered the LRE for that child. The provision of

FAPE is paramount, and the individual placement determination about LRE is to

be considered within the context of FAPE. (OSEP, 1992)

The guidance also acknowledged that public agencies often assumed the regular education classroom to be more aligned with the LRE for deaf and hard-of-hearing students without consideration for the communication needs of the students. Although general education settings are often appropriate to meet the needs of deaf and hard-of- hearing students, the continuum of placement options needs to be considered on an individual basis for all students, and all placements must be based on the individual needs of the student as reflected by his or her IEP.

IDEA defines nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities as including:

counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational

activities, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the public agency,

referrals to agencies that aid individuals with disabilities, and employment of

students, including both employment by the public agency and assistance in

making outside employment available. (IDEA, 2004); Nonacademic Settings,

2006).

IDEA also stipulates the following:

Each public agency must take steps, including the provision of supplementary

aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child's IEP Team,

to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner

necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation

in those services and activities.

Further, the statute stipulates,

In providing or arranging for the provision of nonacademic and extracurricular

services and activities, including meals, recess periods, and the services and

activities set forth in Sec. 300.107, each public agency must ensure that each child

with a disability participates with nondisabled children in the extracurricular

services and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that

child. The public agency must ensure that each child with a disability has the

supplementary aids and services determined by the child's IEP Team to be

appropriate and necessary for the child to participate in nonacademic settings.

(IDEA, 2004; Nonacademic Settings, 2006)

Statement of the Problem

Public schools are serving increasing numbers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Consequently, it is imperative that schools become well equipped to serve them and that school leaders be trained in the essential skills and practices required to educate this unique population. If school leaders are ill prepared to serve this population, they

will fail to meet their legal requirements under IDEA, and deaf and hard-of-hearing students will miss valuable educational and instructional opportunities that are commensurate to those of their hearing peers.

Although there is a plethora of literature on creating environments that are designed to meet the needs of all students with disabilities as well as the role school leaders play in creating them (Bakken & Smith, 2011), this literature has focused largely on either high-incidence disabilities or intellectual disabilities. The current literature notes inconsistencies among states as well as inconsistencies among programs within those states regarding the requirements of school leadership preparation programs and the appropriate knowledge and training in special education needed to support inclusive schools. In states that have requirements for special education coursework, the requirements are a minimal exposure to special education laws through a Special

Education Law course. Nevertheless, although there is research on this general topic, the research is lacking regarding the knowledge needed by school leaders to ensure they are providing appropriate inclusive school environments for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

Although the literature supports the notion that school leaders may not be sufficiently prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities in their inclusive schools, the fact remains that these students are still attending public schools (Bakken et al., 2006). As previously noted, 75% of deaf or hard-of-hearing students attend their neighborhood public school (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Therefore, public school leaders are faced with ensuring this population has access to a K-12 compulsory education commensurate with that of their hearing peers. The current problem arises

from the fact that the practices utilized by K-12 public school leaders to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their compulsory education to the same extent as their hearing peers are largely unknown.

Research Question

The purpose of this study was to examine the practices school leaders utilize for deaf and hard-of-hearing students to understand the extent to which deaf and hard-of- hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities as compared to their hearing peers. The research question this study aimed to answer was the following: What are the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?

Potential Significance

By highlighting these specific practices, school leaders will be able to more fully comply with federal and state regulations designed to protect the civil rights of students with disabilities. This compliance with regulations will ensure a more effective approach to enabling access to a comprehensive K-12 education for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. There are five areas of potential significance: practical, professional, policy, population, and personal.

The current study aimed to solve the practical problem of identifying how school leaders are ensuring deaf and hard-of-hearing students gain access to all components of their K-12 education as granted to them under IDEA, Section 504, and ADA. With so many deaf and hard-of-hearing students being educated in their neighborhood public

schools, school leaders must be able to ensure that the students’ rights are not violated and that they are educated in accordance with the law. To do this, best practices must be established to guide school leaders in how to successfully serve this population in their schools.

There is also a professional problem regarding the topic of the current study.

Although the literature addresses the role of the school leader in creating inclusive school environments for students with disabilities, the research is generally focused on high- incidence disabilities and intellectual disabilities. Considering the literature revealing that 75% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students receive their education in their neighborhood public schools (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003), school leaders need to be adequately equipped to serve these students. If school leaders lack the appropriate training and knowledge regarding this population, they will be ill equipped to engage in and practice the transformative leadership required to create a sustainable change in culture and to develop a common shift in vision and focus amongst their staff. This study aimed to find commonalities amongst the practices of school leaders regarding the creation of inclusive school environments that meet the needs of students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

This study also aimed to address current issues of policy. There was no existing policy or administrative guidance regulating the special education requirements of preparatory programs for school leaders. Inconsistencies in preparedness create problems regarding the ability of school leaders to adequately develop and train their staff to work effectively with special populations. Insufficient preparation also creates issues that may lead to violations of IDEA, Section 504, and ADA. By identifying commonalities in the

practices used by various school leaders to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the same access to their educational experience as their hearing peers, this study aimed to identify the essential underpinnings that are important for school leaders serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

Deaf and hard-of-hearing students are part of a low-incidence disability category making up less than 15% of the school-aged population (Niskar et al., 1998). The fact that 75% of this population is being served in their neighborhood public schools creates a problem of population. With the increase in this population attending public schools, school leaders need to be able to address their unique needs, understand best practice, and interpret the laws directly impacting this population to develop a new school culture based in transformative leadership.

This study also has great personal significance, as I am currently a teacher of the deaf and hard-of-hearing who aims to fulfill a leadership role within a public school setting. Deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the right to receive an education in their neighborhood schools to the extent that it fulfills the requirements of their LRE. As someone who works closely with this population, I have aimed to secure ways to continually improve their experience and access to a full educational experience. There has been some emphasis on the academic challenges for this population; however, there has been little to no emphasis on the extracurricular and afterschool participation of these students and their families.

Through examination of the current practices in place to educate deaf and hard-of- hearing students in their neighborhood schools as well as the essential underpinnings of leadership required to create an inclusive school community that fully addresses the

needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing population across settings, commonalities were exposed to help deaf and hard-of-hearing students and their families to fully participate in the academic, cocurricular, and extracurricular activities in public school settings.

Theoretical Foundation/Conceptual Framework

The theoretical framework used for this study was transformative leadership theory. Transformative leaders create a positive change in their followers.

Transformative leadership begins with questions of justice and democracy, critiques inequitable practices, and addresses both individual and public good (Shields, 2010).

Freire (1998) stated that transformative leadership connects education and educational leadership with a wider social context. The goal of transformative leadership is to literally transform people and organizations. To do this, a leader must change them in heart and mind; enlarge vision, insight, and understanding; clarify purposes; and make behavior congruent with beliefs, principles, or values (Covey, 1999). The focus of a transformative leader is to develop staff that collaborate, encourage, and maintain the best interest of the organization. Furthermore, these changes should be permanent, self- perpetuating, and momentum building (Covey, 1999). Shields further stated that both transformational and transformative leadership theories share common roots and have at their heart the notion of transforming or changing something.

Summary of Methodology

The purpose of this study was to identify the specific practices public school leaders utilize to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have full access to their comprehensive K-12 education. Based on the purpose, this study took a qualitative approach to research and focused on secondary schools across multiple states in the Mid-

Atlantic region. The sample was purposive as I chose schools based on their alignment with the criteria of having students who were deaf or hard of hearing. Furthermore, only secondary schools were utilized as these offered a wider selection of nonacademic and extracurricular activities for their students.

Limitations/Delimitations

There were several limitations and delimitations for this study. I limited the current study to public school leaders working in schools with students who were deaf or hard of hearing and/or school staff working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students in their nonacademic and extracurricular activities. I further limited this study to secondary schools across multiple states in the Mid-Atlantic region. The sample did not include private schools, residential schools for the deaf, or public schools without deaf or hard- of-hearing students. Nor were student voices included in this study. Although students might be able to provide pertinent information, time limitations and confidentiality concerns led me to exclude student voices from the study.

Definitions of Key Terms

For the purpose of this study the following definitions are used for these key terms:

Communication. Behaviors that relay a message that is understood by a communication partner.

Comprehensive education. An education that is characterized by access to clearly established standards for Grades K-12 highlighted by access to academic, cocurricular, and extracurricular opportunities.

Deafness. A hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, and that adversely affects a child’s educational performance (IDEA, 2004).

Hard of hearing. An impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects the child’s educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness. Although this term is similar in meaning to the IDEA definition of hearing impaired, the term hard of hearing is used throughout this study as it is considered less offensive and is the culturally accepted term within the deaf community.

Inclusion. A setting in which students with disabilities are educated in the general education environment with their nondisabled peers.

Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the public agency, referrals to agencies that aid individuals with disabilities, and employment of students, including both employment by the public agency and assistance in making outside employment available (Nonacademic Services,

1974).

Non-school Leader. A member of the school or district staff who works directly with students, teachers, or staff but does not meet the definition of a school leader.

Resource classroom. A setting in which students with disabilities are removed from the general education setting to receive direct instruction from a special education teacher.

School leader. A principal, assistant principal, or other individual who is an employee or officer of an elementary or secondary school and is responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary building (National Association of Elementary Principals [NAESP], n.d.).

Self-contained classroom. A separate classroom setting with only students with disabilities who receive all or some of their instruction from a special education teacher.

Chapter II: Review of the Literature

History of Special Education

Students with disabilities have a long and checkered history regarding public education. For many years students with disabilities were considered unteachable and were not allowed access to public schools. Those who were fortunate enough to receive some sort of formal public education were often segregated into separate schools isolated from their nondisabled peers. Children with disabilities were merely housed in schools, with little accountability for what they were learning. Furthermore, parents of children with disabilities had no rights or parental safeguards regarding their children’s education and limited input into how their children were educated or what they would be learning.

Because of continued parental pressure, legislation was passed regarding the education of children with disabilities and the advent of special education. In 1975

Congress passed Public Law No. 94-142, which later became known as the Education for

All Handicapped Children Act. This law guaranteed all students with disabilities a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Public Law 94-142 contained four main purposes: to improve how children with disabilities are identified and educated, to evaluate how effective the identification and education efforts are, to ensure due process for students and their families, and to provide monetary provisions to help states ensure that school districts can follow the law (U.S. Department of Education, 2007b)

Several subsequent pieces of legislation have been impactful regarding special education. One such piece of legislation is the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA, 2004). IDEA requires schools that accept federal money to provide individualized special education for any student who qualifies as a student with a

disability (IDEA, 2004). IDEA further explained what was meant by FAPE: “Education must be tailored to meet the needs of the individual child with a disability “(IDEA, 2004).

IDEA further mandates that the education of students with disabilities occur in their least restrictive environment (LRE) and that the impact of their disability be considered regarding any disciplinary action that might be taken against them. This legislation gave parents a sense of power and created a movement that forced states to begin to appropriately serve these students. The public outcry for laws governing the education of special populations occurred nationwide (Mills v. The Board of Education, D.C.; PARC v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). This outcry created a cultural change in schools across the nation.

Although Public Law 94-142 was the catalyst for public education services for students with disabilities, subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA further extended services to families and students to include conditions for parentally placed private school students, Child Find, discipline, and requirements for highly qualified professionals, to name a few. The initial enactment of the law, as were all subsequent reauthorizations of

IDEA, was promulgated by parental outcry as it related to what was perceived to be unfair and inequitable access to all aspects of their children’s education.

In the early 2000s, approximately 75% of deaf and hard-of-hearing students were attending their local public schools (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Of that 75%, 42% of the students were educated primarily in a general education setting, 17% shared time between special education resource rooms and general education classrooms, and 38% received instruction from a teacher of the deaf and hard-of-hearing in a self-contained classroom (Karchmer & Mitchell, 2003). Placement options for students who are deaf or

hard of hearing must recognize that the large majority of deaf or hard-of-hearing students spend most of their time with general education teachers who have not had training in the laws governing equal access; training in specific strategies through which students who are deaf or hard of hearing acquire language, learn to read, and write; opportunities to demonstrate their understanding of curricular requirements; or training in specific methodologies used to communicate effectively with this population.

Educational Placements for Deaf Students

Although most deaf and hard-of-hearing students attend their local public schools, there are a variety of service options and settings in which these students can receive their education. These options include early intervention/preschool programs, residential schools, day schools, mainstream schools, or homeschooling (Seaver, 2014).

Early intervention/preschool programs serve children from birth to 4 years of age.

These programs focus on developing early language skills while simultaneously providing resources and support to families. The programs may be operated through public schools, health and human services departments, residential schools, or private organizations (Arlington County Government, 2017).

Residential schools typically require students to live on campus while receiving their education. These facilities can be private entities or state-run. All the students in attendance are deaf or hard of hearing and are educated by teachers with specific training and certifications in deafness and deaf education. This type of setting provides a strong cultural environment, as students can fully interact with other deaf and hard-of-hearing students and the education is typically delivered via sign language. Deaf culture and

community are often key components of the student’s educational experience, and students are more readily able to access strong deaf role models.

Day-school instruction for the deaf can be oral, signing, or a combination of the two. At day schools, students attend during regular school hours but return home at the end of each school day, unlike at residential schools. Oral schools focus on developing spoken language and utilizing the residual hearing of a student, often with amplification and various other listening strategies without the use or support of sign language.

Signing schools focus on developing language skills using sign language. Although students in signing schools may still utilize spoken language and receive speech therapy, developing spoken language is not the primary focus of these schools. Furthermore, signing schools tend to have a stronger tie to deaf culture and the deaf community than do oral schools.

According to Chimedza (1998), integration within a school setting involves the placement of students with disabilities in general education classes. Mainstreaming, or attending a public school, has been the most popular educational setting for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, with 75% attending their local public school (Karchmer &

Mitchell, 2003). In this setting, deaf and hard-of-hearing students can interact with their hearing peers. Although school systems are required to offer FAPE and LRE to all students, the support and services each school and school district offers can vary greatly.

Because deafness is considered a low-incidence disability, there is limited funding available to fully serve this population. One may argue whether meaningful integration, mainstreaming, or inclusion of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public school settings can occur, as public school placements do not offer the cultural opportunities other

placement options can, and they usually are not able to offer an environment in which students can engage in a shared language.

Within the public school environment, deaf and hard-of-hearing students can receive their education in a general education classroom, a resource classroom, a self- contained classroom, or any combination of those. Within a general education classroom, a deaf or hard-of-hearing student may not need to receive any additional supports or services. In other instances, deaf or hard-of-hearing students may require additional supports including an interpreter, assistive technology, a cotaught class with both a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing and a general education teacher, speech and language services, and much more. All the services the deaf and hard-of-hearing students might need would be provided primarily in the general education classroom. Knudson

(2003) stated that the contextual understanding of IDEA and LRE is for deaf and hard-of- hearing students to be integrated with their hearing peers.

Another setting within the public school environment is the resource classroom.

In this setting the deaf or hard-of-hearing student is in the general education classroom with hearing peers but may be removed from the classroom to receive more targeted and specialized instruction. During this pullout period, the deaf or hard-of-hearing student may be working one on one with a teacher, working with other deaf and hard-of-hearing students, or working with students with other disabilities as well.

Along the continuum of services within a public school is the self-contained classroom. In this setting the deaf or hard-of-hearing student is in a class separate from the general education classroom. The student receives his or her instruction directly from

a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing and is in a learning environment that includes only other deaf or hard-of-hearing students.

Another educational placement is the homeschooled setting. Homeschooled students are educated outside the formal public or private school environment. Education can be delivered by parents or tutors, and the home environment can serve as a nonpublic school placement. The regulations and requirements for homeschooling vary from state to state.

Although there are a variety of placement options offered as educational settings for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, there are also a variety of communication methods available to these students. These communication methods can be categorized into two main groups: sign language and aural/oral (Hardin, Blanchard, Kemmery, Appenzeller, &

Parker, 2014). American Sign Language (ASL) is considered the most widely used manual language in the United States, with the prevalence of users ranging from 250,000 to 500,000 (Mitchell, Young, Bachleda, & Karchmer, 2006). Although ASL is the most prominent, other forms of sign language do exist. Pidgin Sign English (PSE) utilizes the structure of spoken English with components of ASL (Hardin et al., 2014). Signed

English is a system in which users sign words in English word order, including endings such as -ly or -ing (Hauser, 2003).

The other group of communication methods, auditory/oral, is used when deaf or hard-of-hearing persons utilize their residual hearing, and often assistive listening devices such as hearing aids or cochlear implants, to access spoken language (Meadow-Orlans,

Mertens, & Sass-Lehrer, 2003). Auditory users, many of whom have cochlear implants, typically participate in speech therapy to learn to produce spoken language similar to that

of their hearing peers (Hardin et al., 2014). According to the National Institute of

Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (2010), the estimated 188,000 individuals with cochlear implants may or may not communicate primarily through listening and speaking.

Although there are two main categories of communication modes, some individuals utilize both approaches. When this occurs, it is commonly referred to as

Total Communication (TC) (Sari, 2003). This approach combines both oral and manual modes of communication and utilizes all modalities, including signs, finger spelling, lip- reading, facial expressions, gesture and mime, reading, writing, drawing, and amplification (Coryell & Holcomb, 1997). Total Communication involves the use of speech to develop the spoken language and oral communication of deaf children (Sari,

1993). The most important aspect of TC is acceptance of using any means necessary to promote effective communication and linguistic understanding by the learner (Hardin et al., 2014).

Although these communication modes stand on their own, each is often tied to a specific cultural view of deafness. Woodward (1972) made the distinction between deaf and Deaf, stating that the deaf, the medical view, typically communicate through spoken language and feel a sense of belonging to the hearing world. He further stated that the

Deaf, the cultural view, typically communicate through ASL and feel more closely tied to the deaf community. Furthermore, there are individuals who feel a sense of belonging to both the Deaf and the hearing communities. These individuals represent a bicultural view, typically utilize TC, and are comfortable interacting in both the hearing and Deaf

worlds (Most, Wiesel, & Blitzer, 2007). Baker-Schenk and Cokely (1991) further supported this idea and stated,

The word Deaf that begins with an uppercase letter is the political and social term that refers to individuals who are members of the Deaf community and consider themselves to be culturally Deaf. By contrast, the word deaf beginning with a lowercase letter is used to describe the medical or physiological condition of hearing loss or deafness. Marginal identity is defined as when people who are deaf do not feel they belong to either a hearing or a Deaf environment. By contrast, dual or bicultural identity consists of feeling comfortable in both worlds, the Deaf community and the hearing community. (Baker-

Schenk and Cokely,1991)

Deaf culture

Culture is defined in an infinite number of ways (Ellington & Yammarino, 2010).

Research has found commonalities in the attitudes and behaviors of those with membership in a social group. Although individuals within a group may share characteristics, this phenomenon is true to only a certain extent (Ellington & Yammarino,

2010). This working definition and view of culture is simply one approach to understanding the complicated concept of culture and what it entails. Another viewpoint holds that culture is based on ethnicity or class. These categories form subgroups that make up the larger groups within society. From this perspective, culture is a collection of subgroups within one larger dominant group. Deaf culture is relatively new compared to other cultures. The term Deaf culture was coined in the 1970s to explain the belief that deaf communities had their own way of life, which was maintained through sign language (Ladd, 2003). Although Ellington and Yammarino viewed culture as

individuals within a group who share characteristics, Ladd asserted that the Deaf culture is maintained through the commonality of language. Deaf culture has grown and developed over the years. As deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals spent time together, they developed a unique culture with values, practices, shared language, and meanings, which built a sense of membership and belonging and helped to develop their sense of culture. Individuals learn traditions and expectations of their culture through the interactions they have. People commonly acquire their cultural identity through their parents (Richardson, 2014). One’s cultural identity can be described as how one identifies oneself (Dosamantes-Beaudry, 1997). The way a deaf or hard-of-hearing person identifies himself or herself is impacted by degree of hearing loss, age of onset, and the chosen communication mode (Woodward, 1972). These factors can cause differences in the way deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals identify when compared to others with similar hearing loss (Woodward, 1972). Deaf individuals who identify with the bicultural identity tend to be better able to balance the deaf and hearing worlds and, therefore, tend to be more successful in the dominant hearing society (Holcomb, 1997).

A variety of factors impact deaf identity, including mode of communication, community interaction, and home life.

The number of deaf and hard-of-hearing students born to hearing parents presents a challenge to the argument presented by Richardson (2014), as their cultural identity is not acquired through their parents. Additionally, Dosamantes-Beaudry’s (1997) stipulation that cultural identity can be described as how one identifies oneself can skew the cultural identity of students who are deaf or hard of hearing by causing them to see themselves as different and/or disabled.

The medical model of deafness focuses on the problem of being deaf and the preoccupation with the technologies available to cure it. Public attention and focus on medical technologies are rooted in the persistent belief that deafness is a disability that can be cured (Hintermair, 2005). The advent of modern technologies to eliminate deafness may cause damage to the deaf community by inadvertently limiting the number of young children who would otherwise become part of the deaf culture. Hintermair

(2005) argued that the concept of the availability of technology can have a negative effect on families of deaf children as they are led to believe the technology can cure deafness and fix the problem. The medical view of deafness posits that simply the existence of a disability does not create a culture to which one belongs.

The acquisition of cultural identity is dependent on the community to which the individual belongs (Ramirez & Castañeda, 1974). Because individuals may belong to a number of different communities, it is also possible for them to acquire multiple cultural identities or for these identities to blend and create a mixture. This situation can be the case with deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals who live in both the deaf and hearing worlds. Because culture is learned from one’s parents, deaf children acquire culture differently. According to the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication

Disorders (NIDOCD), 2 to 3 of every 1,000 children are born with a detectable level of hearing loss in one or both of their ears; more than 90% of these children are born to hearing parents (NIDOCD, 2015). These hearing families often do not have a shared language with their deaf children, which can lead to cultural learning delays and an inability to socialize and develop friendships (Richardson, 2014). This lack of effective communication often becomes one of the shared experiences of many deaf adults. Once

the deaf individual becomes exposed to sign language and other deaf people, the enculturation process is complete, and that person will begin to identify himself or herself as culturally deaf (Richardson, 2014).

Shared language is an important part of any culture. Communication depends on language, and language facilitates socialization and access to the cultural norms of the wider society (McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 1997). Values learned through contact with others depend upon communication (Stinson & Whitmire, 2000). The integration of deaf students into a school with a verbal or established shared language and culture can be a challenge. Sari (2003) maintained that the social and emotional development of deaf adolescents is dependent upon the effective communication between teachers and deaf students, friendships, and the inclusion of sign language as part of the educational process. School administrators are responsible for facilitating the process of acquiring a shared language. The influence of school administrators upon the educational climate can be attributed in part to their decisions and probably more directly to their methods of decision making (Holst, 1973). Knudson (2003) indicated that the greatest disparity between superintendents of residential schools for the deaf and public school superintendents was the formality of the interactions with their governing boards, in that residential school relationships were determined to be less formal. Grogan stated, “It often falls to the principal, formally and informally, to articulate the philosophical principles that embody what the school stands for” (Grogan, 2013). Grogan further believed that school leaders shape culture by encouraging rituals that celebrate important values. Researchers have identified several obstacles to the cultural integration of deaf and hard-of-hearing students into public schools. Mainstream classes rely more on

spoken language; therefore, it can appear that the educational system values the ability to develop spoken language more than the acquisition of the native language of ASL

(Stinson, 2008).

Chimedza (1998) presented an obstacle pertaining to overcoming traditional beliefs. The roots of deaf education began with the Milan Conference of the Deaf in

1880 (O’Brien, Kuntze, & Appanah, 2014). The Milan conference, the first conference for deaf educators, created a set of standards that shifted deaf education away from sign language and deaf culture to oral education with a goal of making students more

“hearing” (O’Brien et al., 2014). During the conference, there was a push to eradicate the use of sign language with deaf learners. The United States and Great Britain were the only participants to oppose that idea. The views of the hearing majority, including the use of spoken language over the use of sign language to educate deaf students, have continued to be forced on deaf students over the years (Scouten, 1984). This notion has caused a negative connotation toward those who are deaf and has impacted the development of cultural identity, which is an important aspect of developing self-esteem, a sense of belonging, and shared values with the larger group. Another obstacle to overcome is the inability of public schools to build a community inclusive of deaf culture. Residential schools for the deaf are critically important for building their sense of culture (Giroux & McLaren, 1989). These schools have shared language, values, and experiences that help to establish culture. Giroux and McLaren also insinuated that it would be very difficult to recreate this model in a public school. One reason for this difficulty is that, because deafness is a low-incidence disability, there are typically not many deaf and hard-of-hearing students in a single building. Although school-based

programs do a better job at creating a culture, the small number of students typically limits this to the development of a subculture instead of a whole school culture (Giroux &

McLaren, 1989). The importance of the residential setting as opposed to the public school setting is the positive impact residential settings seem to have on enhancing the self-esteem of deaf children (Padden & Humphries, 1988).

Self-esteem is an important component of overall mental health. Self-esteem is how a person evaluates his or her worth as a person (Rosenberg, 1979); it is an important factor in a person’s cognition, motivation, emotion, and behavior and is highly correlated to achievement (Jambor, 2005). It is equally important for deaf and hard-of-hearing students to have the foundation of a strong cultural identity reflected in their educational environment, where they are expected to flourish and grow. This identity is something that occurs naturally with hearing students in hearing schools. Deaf students, however, must work hard to ensure that this cultural identity exists. Social identity, formed as a result of shared experiences, differs from personal identify, which is fostered through biological and emotional bonds (Wright, 1987).

An important factor impacting self-esteem is belonging to a minority group

(Jambor, 2005). A minority group is made up of members who share at least one characteristic; an example of a minority group is deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Such groups are often stigmatized, and those within the groups may frequently fall victim to stereotypes and generalizations. This characterization is especially true regarding deaf students in a suburban public school setting. Suburban schools typically have more resources and have a more homogenous student population than urban schools do.

Belonging to a deaf cultural group does not preclude one from being part of other

minority groups. A deaf person can have membership in multiple cultural and ethnic groups (Anderson & Bowe, 1972). Research from the Lexington School for the Deaf suggests that a Black deaf person is neither a Black person who is deaf nor a deaf person who is Black but someone with his own persona (Grace, 1989). Jambor (2005) found that the reason membership in these minority groups is so important for self-esteem is twofold. First, by having a sense of belonging within a specific group, members can overlook the opinions of nonmembers. Second, members can focus on the positive appraisals of those within the group. The combination of these two factors helps to promote a healthier sense of self-esteem.

There are also factors specifically related to self-esteem amongst deaf and hard- of-hearing students. Jambor (2005) noted that deaf minority groups struggle with self- esteem because of the overwhelming prejudice they face from the majority group. Even though deaf people face prejudice, the way in which it impacts their self-esteem varies greatly within the deaf community. Some research has found that deaf individuals have lower self-esteem than hearing individuals. On the other hand, other research has indicated that deaf individuals’ self-esteem is not impacted by the prejudice they face

(Jambor, 2005). Jambor’s research identified specific factors affecting deaf individuals and their self-esteem; the factors may enhance and protect the self-esteem of these individuals. The first factor is the use of and exposure to a method of communication at home. Typically, deaf or hard-of-hearing children raised by deaf parents have more of an advantage over those raised by hearing parents because they grow up in an environment in which there is a shared, visual language. This type of environment allows the members of the family to better express and understand each other’s feelings. The

second factor is the type of schooling that an individual receives prior to attending college. Deaf and hard-of-hearing students have a variety of schooling options available to them, ranging from residential schools for the deaf to a fully mainstreamed oral education. Jambor (2005) conveyed that deaf and hard-of-hearing students who attend residential schools using American Sign Language as the shared language tend to have higher self-esteem. These students are sheltered from a great deal of the negative attitudes from hearing students during their daily lives. The third factor is the age at which an individual’s hearing loss is identified. This factor can impact individuals’ long- range ability to effectively communicate with others. Those who are prelingually deaf or hard of hearing, or those who are identified with hearing loss before 12 months of age, will likely face greater communication challenges than individuals who are able to acquire spoken language prior to the onset of their hearing loss. The next factor is the severity of hearing loss with technology supports. There is a wide selection of assistive technology for individuals with hearing loss, including, for example, hearing aids, cochlear implants, FM amplification systems, Bluetooth technologies, and sound fields.

This type of technology has increased the level of access that individuals with hearing loss have. Similar to the age of onset, severity of hearing loss can greatly impact one’s ability to communicate with others. Also, the more profoundly deaf an individual is, the more likely he or she is to come to terms with and accept the deafness. The final factor is group identification. If an individual has accepted his or her hearing loss and has assimilated into the culture, he or she is less likely to be impacted by issues that can negatively impact self-esteem (Jambor, 2005). Numerous factors influence how students experience school communities, including the mission of the school, the cultural climate,

various organizational structures, and the role of the school leader (Scanlan & Lopez,

2012). School leaders play an important role in ensuring that students with disabilities, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing, are successfully enculturated in their schools. Theoharis and Causton (2014) pointed out that school leaders are instrumental in creating and carrying out a vision that maximizes access to general education for all students with disabilities.

Although school administrators in many states are required to receive training regarding special education, much more training is required for administrators to be prepared for leadership roles in inclusive, culturally diverse settings (Volts & Collins,

2010). School leaders who are successful at creating inclusive schools can set a vision, develop implementation plans, use staff in systematic ways, create collaborative working teams, provide learning opportunities, monitor service delivery and develop a climate of belonging for students and staff (Theoharis & Causton, 2014). Pazey and Cole (2012) further supported the need for a more comprehensive training program for school administrators, encompassing the inclusion of students in K-12 special education. Cosier

(2010) asserted that for every additional hour spent in general education, there is a significant gain of achievement across all disability categories. According to Theoharis and Causton (2014), the achievement of students with disabilities is based on their access to general education, quality instruction, and peers in the social and emotional aspects of schooling. O’Brien et al. (2014) pointed to four tools for cultural proficiency: ways to overcome the barriers to developing cultural proficiency, nine guiding principles of cultural proficiency as an expression of values, a cultural proficiency continuum, and essential elements of cultural proficiency.

An important component of moving toward cultural proficiency is understanding and reflecting on the history of deaf education. Deaf and hard-of-hearing students continue to be largely unaddressed by federal regulation (Fitzpatrick & Theoharis, 2014).

School leaders need to understand the many inequities deaf and hard-of-hearing students face (O’Brien, 2014). Unfortunately, because these students constitute such a low- incidence population, most school leaders are not familiar with deaf education and the unique needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. To overcome these barriers, school leaders must become aware enough to educate themselves about the ways the current system negatively impacts this population (O’Brien, 2014). School leaders also need to set aside any sense of privilege and entitlement they may have because of their hearing status. Such a feeling may cause educators to resist changes that may be crucial to the success of students. McLaughlin (2010) indicated that educational equity has three foci: providing an education for students until they enter the workforce, providing a common curriculum for all students, and ensuring that students of diverse backgrounds attend the same school. McLaughlin further explained that equity is based on the state’s provision to make available specific educational opportunities whether or not a student chooses to access or benefit from the education. Berne and Stiefel (1984) identified two types of equity: Horizontal equity is defined as schools having equal inputs, and vertical equity assumes that different inputs may be required to obtain equal outcomes.

O’Brien (2014) described nine guiding principles that lead to cultural proficiency.

These principles are highlighted in Appendix A.

The cultural proficiency continuum proposes a culturally relevant way of thinking about how to create cultural change in leaders. The continuum contains six points

ranging from cultural destructiveness to cultural proficiency (O’Brien, 2014). Cultural destructiveness encompasses the negative half of the continuum and represents actions that are negative or disrespectful to other cultures. As is the case with many school leaders who are unfamiliar with deaf culture, they are often unaware of these innuendos.

The positive half of the continuum acknowledges individuals who recognize the differences amongst cultures (O’Brien, 2014). Furthermore, an individual, or more pertinently, an institution, will recognize and seize opportunities to learn more about the differences being encountered by members of a nonmajority group. For leaders in schools with deaf and hard-of-hearing students this action is crucial to building a strong sense of community. O’Brien pointed out the following:

A culturally relevant leader personifies the vision and mission of the school with

stated goals that include all members of the school community. The school leader

encourages the school community toward its goals and strives to encourage

teachers and staff to increase their knowledge by placing them in leadership roles.

This person communicates clearly to members of the school community by

seeking them out regularly, and always tries to be available to the school

community. (O’Brien, 2014).

A culturally responsive leader in deaf education considers how the educational environment incorporates the culture and language of deaf individuals (O’Brien, 2014).

The leader must acknowledge the differences in language and culture among the entire school staff. A culturally competent leader models the importance of high levels of communication skills and ensures that education is equally accessible to all students.

Special Education Law

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EACHA) of 1975 emphasized school leaders’ responsibilities for providing students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE must occur at the expense of the public, meet state standards, and include appropriate preschool, elementary, and secondary education (Sumbera, Pazey, & Lashley, 2014). This public education was to be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for each student as determined by the student's

Individual Education Plan (IEP) (Sumbera et al., 2014). LRE specified that students with disabilities must “be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with peers without disabilities” (Yell, 2012, p. 270). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) gave school leaders even more responsibility for these students. After NCLB, the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), and its subsequent reauthorization again gave school leaders more responsibilities that included special education leadership (Provost,

Boscardin, & Wells, 2010). Principals are now accountable for the educational performance of their students on state and district assessments (Gordon, 2006; Lashley,

2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Principals are often required to fill the role of the local education agency (LEA). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act states that a representative of the local educational agency:

must be qualified to provide or supervise the provision of specially designed

instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable

about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability

of resources of the local education agency. (IDEA, 2004, Section

34CFR300.321(d)).

Federal courts have heard cases involving IDEA’s provisions on nonacademic and extracurricular services on several occasions. Poole v. South Plainfield Bd. of Education found that 504 is applicable to interscholastic activities of a school system that receives federal funding even if none of those funds are specifically utilized on interscholastic athletics (Poole v. South Plainfield Bd. of Education, 1980). Mr. & Mrs. I. ex rel. L.I. v.

Me. Sch. Admin (2004) found that “educational performance in Maine is more than just academics” and the regulations define educational performance to include both academic and nonacademic areas. Mary P. v Il State Bd of Educ (1996) found that “educational performance means more than a child’s ability to meet academic criteria. It must also include reference to the child’s development of communication skills, social skills, and personality”. Meares v. Rim of the World Unified Sch. Dist. (2016) found that “requiring disabled students to prove an educational benefit, when nondisabled students need not, does not afford disabled students an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular and nonacademic activities”. IDEA regulations required an IEP team to consider supplementary aids and services for participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities regardless of an activity's relationship to an educational objective Indep. Sch.

Dist. No. 12, Cenennial v. Minn. Dep’t of Educ, 2010).

In August 2011, the Department of Education authored a guidance document interpreting these provisions alongside the requirement for the same under §504 of the

Rehabilitation Act. This federal guidance put forth the following critical recommendations:

• Knowledgeable adults create the possibility of participation among children and

youth both with and without disabilities. Physical activities may be guided by a

wide range of support personnel with various levels of training including other

students, general and special education teachers, paraprofessionals, adaptive

physical education specialists, and related service providers (e.g., occupational

therapist or speech language pathologist). Appropriate personnel preparation and

professional development to adapt games and activities to various ability and

fitness levels are needed in order to increase opportunities for children and youth

with disabilities.

• PE and athletics can be offered in various degrees of inclusion in programs and

activities with children and youth without disabilities. IDEA requires that each

child with a disability participates with nondisabled children in these programs

and activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of that child.

• Each public agency must take steps to provide nonacademic and extracurricular

services and activities, including athletics, in the manner necessary to afford

children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services

and activities

• For students served under IDEA, the student’s IEP must include, among other

things, a statement of the special education and related services, and

supplementary aids, services, and other supports that are needed to meet each

child’s unique needs in order for the child to: (1) advance appropriately towards

attaining the annual goals; (2) be involved in and make progress in the general

education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic

activities; and (3) be educated and participate in such activities with other children

with disabilities and nondisabled children.

• An individual student’s IEP must include goals and accommodations for PE and

athletics, as needed (IDEA, 20 U. S. C. §1414(d)).

• Assessment in PE and athletics should be planned and implemented so that

progress and achievement can be rated accurately and fairly. Assessment

instruments that compare the individual against herself or himself are able to

measure both attainment and growth. These comparisons show the trajectory

toward health and fitness, while avoiding the inappropriate application of some

standardized benchmarks of health and fitness to children and youth with

disabilities.

The principal's interpretation of appropriate can have a significant impact on the outcome of an IEP (Yell, 2012). Principals’ understanding of special education law and policy informs their decision making throughout the development of a student’s IEP (Sumbera et al., 2014).

Congress has promulgated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, The ADA, and

IDEA as means by which to provide legal protections for individuals with disabilities; these protections also extend to student athletes with disabilities (Forster, 2015). It is the individual school’s responsibility, with district support and statewide resources, to provide access for students under the procedures outlined in federal laws and Department of Education regulations. The United States Federal Education Code, supported by the

ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA, requires schools to provide FAPE. Therefore, a school must not deny a student with disabilities access to participate in school-sponsored

athletics based on a discriminatory failure to provide reasonable accommodations

(Forster, 2015). Federal regulation 34 CFR 300.117 states that in providing nonacademic and extracurricular activities, schools must ensure that each child with a disability has the supplementary aids and services determined by the child’s IEP. If the IEP team determines that participation in a particular activity is appropriate for the education of the child, it must identify and list in the child’s IEP the accommodations that will be provided in relation to that extracurricular activity (Marcellino Pena v. Minnesota, 2013).

There is further guidance regarding the communication requirements for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist. and D.H. v. Poway

Unified School District found that compliance with IDEA regarding deaf and hard-of- hearing students may not meet the requirements for communication under IDEA and there are differences between 504 and Title II of the ADA. K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch.

Dist. and D.H. v. Poway Unified School District also found that requirements regarding communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals under ADA are different than those imposed under IDEA. According to U.S. Department of Justice (2014) districts may have to provide services that are not required under IDEA in order to comply with

Title II because Title II has specific effective communication requirements for individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, public school students are covered under Title

II regardless of their eligibility for special education under IDEA. The U.S. Department of Justice (2014) states:

Public schools must apply both the IDEA analysis and the Title II effective

communication analysis in determining how to meet the communication needs of

an IDEA‐eligible student with a hearing, vision, or speech disability. In some

instances, in order to comply with Title II, a district may have to provide the

student with services that are not required under the IDEA. In other instances, the

communication services provided under the IDEA may meet the requirements of

both laws for an individual student. Schools need to be knowledgeable about

requirements of both Federal laws in order to meet the communication needs of

students with disabilities.

These regulations specifically sate that “public schools provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in all school activities and that public schools ensure, through the provision of auxiliary aids and services, that communication with students with disabilities is as effective as communication with students without disabilities” (28

C.F.R. pt 35). Auxillary aids and services are those that “make aurally or visually delivered information available to students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities so that they can receive information from, and convey information to, others as effectively as students without disabilities” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). The Title II regulations state that a person who is deaf or hard-of-hearing may require “interpreters, note takers, exchange of written materials, real-time computer-aided transcription services (e.g., CART), assistive listening systems, accessible electronic and information technology, and open and closed captioning.” Title II further stipulates that interpreters must be qualified meaning “the interpreter must be able to interpret both receptively and expressively.” It goes on to state that “a teacher or other staff member who signs ‘pretty well’ is not a qualified interpreter.” and that:

being able to sing ‘pretty well’ does not mean that person can process spoken

communication into proper signs; nor does it mean that he or she has the proper

skills to observe the person signing and change the signed or finger-spelled

communication into spoken words.

The Title II regulations also require that when a public school is deciding what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary to ensure effective communication, “primary consideration” must be given to the particular auxiliary aid or service requested by the person with the disability. Schools must provide the person with the disability or a parent or guardian the opportunity to request the aid or service they feel will provide effective communication and the public school must honor the choice of the student with disability unless the school can prove an alternative is as effective. Title II also states that the communication determination must occur on a case-by-case basis and “the student, the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved and the context in which the communication is taking place” must be considered.

School leader’s knowledge of special education.

Today’s administrators face an increasing number of daily tasks and are required to have command of a wide variety of topics and population groups (Bakken et al., 2006).

One of the population challenges that administrators are increasingly faced with is understanding and serving students with disabilities. School administrators’ knowledge of special education laws is directly related to the establishment of a successful environment for students with disabilities (Protz, 2005). With the increased popularity of school-based management, school leaders are now more responsible than ever for special education programs that mandate students’ access to the general curriculum (Patterson &

Protheroe, 2001). Today’s school leaders must have a strong understanding of special

education in order to effectively implement FAPE however, many principals lack the instructional knowledge to do so.

Nevertheless, many principals receive minimal exposure to special education policies during their administrative preparation programs (Cusson, 2008; DiPaola &

Walther-Thomas, 2003; Pazey & Cole, 2013; Wakeman, Browder, Flowers, & Ahlgrim-

Delzell, 2006). Protz (2005) reported that few administrators reported having a significant level of understanding of special education law; moreover, 54.9% perceived that further training, such as seminars and workshops, was needed. In contrast to this finding, Protz also found that 72% of principals and assistant principals believed their education had adequately prepared them to meet the needs of special education students.

This perception was indicated despite the finding that at least half of these leaders reported zero years of formal schooling on special education, and 94% reported fewer than 5 years of any education experience at all. Such a disconnect is problematic, indicating a need for further research.

School Leaders and Professional Development

The principal sets the tone for the school and therefore is responsible for implementing a strong instructional program (Greenfield, 1987; Smith, 1989;

Sergiovanni, 1990; and Olivia, 1993.) According to Will (1986), principals should control the programs at their sites and should be empowered to control the resources to run those programs. Because administrators are expected to control these resources, they should also work to prepare their staff in order to build the capacity of their buildings

(Luft, 2013).

Flannery, Lombardi, &McGrath-Kato (2013) suggest that it is imperative for administrators tasked with implementing special education policies to undergo ongoing professional development and work to ensure their teachers also receive ongoing training on IEP development. School leaders need to continuously pursue strategies designed to increase the awareness of their staff with regard to students with disabilities. Flannery,

Lomabrdi, and McGrath (2013) suggest providing opportunities, resources, and access to state and national conferences in order to stay informed on the latest policies. Petcu et. al

(2014) further supported this notion when they stated that “special education administrators increase administrative support for special educators and facilitate their access to resources that will help them be more familiar with teaching self-determination skills.” Wehmeyer et al. (2012) further stated that it is the responsibility of school administrators to implement strategies to support self-determination.

The establishment of standards for highly qualified practitioners in accordance with school-based management calls for increased knowledge by school administrators regarding instructional principles, management, and evaluation of student and teacher performance. Although Bakken and colleagues (2006) argued that administrative tasks are increasingly more varied, and Protz (2005) asserted that school administrators’ knowledge directly correlates to student achievement, there is still little direction, consistency, and guidance regarding the knowledge and expertise school administrators are required to have about special education regulations and compliance when developing and implementing programs for students with low-incidence disabilities.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.

The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) created a set of common standards for school leaders to help guide school improvement efforts (Protz,

2005). These standards have the greatest influence on the preparation of special education administrators (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2003). The ISLLC set forth six standards; each of the standards was followed by the knowledge required for the standard, the disposition or attitudes manifested by the accomplishment of the standard, and the performance that can be observed by an administrator who is versed in the standard. Nevertheless, although this attempt was made, research indicates that, in most states, the certification process for principals has not required an emphasis on special education programs beyond a basic understanding of the law (Yet, Patterson, &

Protheroe, 2001). A study conducted by Davidson and Algozzine (2002) found that less than half of school principals believed they had a moderate level of understanding and only 10% believed they had a significant level of understanding of special education law.

This lack of knowledge of the law is problematic. Furthermore, many state licensure programs for administrators may not explicitly require special education law coursework

(Valesky & Hirth, 1992). Large gaps still exist regarding the knowledge and skills of special education administrators (Voltz & Collins, 2010).

Culturally responsive administrators. An effective principal “endeavors to improve student learning and instructional strategies and needs to be an active participant in the learning process who can’t leave teachers alone to deliver curriculum” (Provost et al., 2010). A multicultural school is set up to “bring about a transformation of the school so students from both genders and from diverse cultural and ethnic groups will have an equal chance to experience success” (Banks, 1997). Public schools are becoming more

and more diverse. In 2007, 42% of students were of color, 20% spoke a language other than English, and 14% had been identified as students with a disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a). Of the students with disabilities, more than half spent 80% or more of their school day in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education,

2007b). The office for Civil Rights (OCR) has found several discriminatory practices in schools that contribute to the overidentification of certain ethnic groups in special education (U.S. Department of Education OCR, 1995).

A culturally responsive administrator has the skills and ability to influence others to change their values, beliefs, and attitudes (Bakken et al., 2011); it is the role of the principal to establish a school’s vision and climate. To create culturally responsive schools, the school leader must lead by example and provide the necessary professional development to staff and teachers to help improve the academic achievement of students

(Bakken et al., 2011). Phuntsog (1999) further supported this notion and argued that a culturally responsive school will improve academic achievement if the school administrators and teachers work to ensure that the instruction is responsive to the students’ needs. When dealing with multicultural special education populations, the need for a strong culturally responsive school leader becomes even more important (Murtadha-

Watts & Stoughton, 2004).

Administrators and instruction. Through standards-based reform, educators are being pushed to create better educational outcomes for students in a more inclusive setting

(Voltz & Collins, 2010). Nevertheless, special education administrators do not feel prepared in many areas related to serving students in an inclusive setting (Volts &

Collins, 2010). Aspedon (1992) found that over 40% of principals had never had any

special education course; 85% of principals felt that formal training in special education is needed in order to be a successful building principal; over 80% of principals had moderate to very high interest in receiving special education training; and despite lack of special education training, over 75% of principals had exclusive or shared responsibility for supervising and evaluating special education teachers in their schools. Valesky and

Hirth (1992) found that only 33% of all regular administrator endorsements were required to have a knowledge of special education law and that no state requirement for a general knowledge of special education existed for 45% of the regular administrator endorsements. In 1991 Hirth and Valesky surveyed United States universities that offered graduate degrees in school administration and found that only 27% of all regular administrator endorsements offered required knowledge of special education law and

57% of endorsements had no requirement for a knowledge of special education (Hirth and Valesky, 1991). Administrators need to be knowledgeable about legal issues relating to the identification and placement as well as the legal issues surrounding expulsion and suspension of students with disabilities (Monteith, 1994). Langley (1993) found that 97% of aspiring school leaders believed that coursework in special education would be useful and 95% felt that it would greatly benefit them in terms of performing their job duties.

Because of increased rates of inclusion and a closer look at what truly is a student’s LRE, principals need more training in special education in order to create inclusive environments for students (Monteith, 1994). Therefore, leadership preparation programs need to address the need for robust special education knowledge in both theory and practice (Monteith, 1994). This special education training should have a required field

experience and culminating internship allowing for aspiring leaders to actively interact with special education students and develop their ability to serve them (Monteith, 1994).

Wigle and Wilcox (2002) found that special education administrators do not feel highly skilled in more than half of the Council for Exceptional Children standards.

Special education administrators also do not have confidence in the ability of special education teachers to teach the state standards to special education students

(Defur, 2002). Supporting teachers who teach students with disabilities is a continued area of need with regard to preparing special education administrators (CEC, 2000).

Special education administrators currently lack the knowledge and skills required to facilitate successful inclusion of students with disabilities in their schools (Goldstein,

2004). Administrators are tasked with creating environments that help to ensure that all students meet state accountability. It can be difficult for school administrators to balance state accountability requirements and the need to establish culturally responsive environments for all students.

Principals and inclusion. Inclusion can be defined in a variety of ways. For this literature review, inclusion is defined as an approach in which special education students spend as much time with their nondisabled peers as appropriate according to their LRE

(Cobb, 2015). According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization (UNESCO), inclusive education is “the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, building an inclusive society, and achieving education for all”

(UNESCO, 1994, p. 9).

Although the terms inclusion and mainstreaming are often used interchangeably, they are distinctly different concepts. Mainstreaming focuses more on how ready

individuals with disabilities are; it requires the involvement of parents, teachers, and administrators. Mainstreaming requires a cultural shift within a school. Each participant in the mainstreaming environment needs to have the proper knowledge and training to make it a success. The focus of inclusion, however, is on a student’s right to a FAPE

(Walton & Neal, 2012).

Today’s schools are more inclusive than ever before. Student populations in schools across the nation are characterized as multicultural, multiracial, and multilingual.

Additionally, since the implementation of federal regulations, students with a wide variety of disabilities are also attending the nation’s public schools. This phenomenon gives school administrators a great deal more responsibility. Principals are responsible for establishing their schools’ climate, which includes implementing an inclusive school environment. It is the role of the administrator to ensure that his or her school fosters an inclusive environment for all students.

There are typically five roles principals will take on when leading inclusive special education programs: visionary, advocate, innovator, interpreter, and organizer

(Cobb, 2015). Foremost, the school leader is the individual who establishes the vision for a school. Therefore, it is the principal who drives the school’s inclusionary vision. For example, if the principal believes in the benefits of a heterogeneous classroom, that belief will directly impact the practices of the school staff (Cobb, 2015). Through their vision, principals set forth the expectations for establishing and practicing elements that fully support diversity, including special education, and work to ensure those expectations are met by all staff as they continually strive to develop and refine the school climate.

Furthermore, principals are responsible for developing an inclusive mentality that can be

implemented school wide (Cobb, 2015). To do this, principals need to strive on a daily basis to find ways to support the special education community within their building.

According to Cobb, “inclusive principals accept ownership of all students and enact and support policies and practices to ensure individual student success” (Cobb, 2015).

Although the principal is fulfilling this role, he or she must consider staff retention, job satisfaction, and the development of schoolwide positive attitudes toward students with disabilities (Cobb, 2015).

Next, principals should be advocates responsible for encouraging inclusion in their buildings. This role includes working with the school board to garner resources for their schools, including classrooms, teachers, counselors, and other related services that may be required to meet the needs of students.

Principals also need to be interpreters. What this means is that principals are the individuals responsible for knowing and interpreting the research and policies about special education (Cobb, 2015). Principals are charged with being educated on the special education policies and how to ensure that students are provided FAPE and LRE.

The way a principal interprets these policies determines how inclusive an environment the building is.

Principals are also organizers. They are responsible for structuring the building in a manner that fosters an inclusive environment. This responsibility requires them to structure the school in a way that students with disabilities are not segregated from their peers (Cobb, 2015). Schools are currently serving a higher number of deaf students than in the past, thereby providing an opportunity to maintain a high level of inclusion that reaches a level deeper than “just add the deaf and stir” (Komesaroff & McLean, 2006).

When individuals with disabilities and those without disabilities have the opportunity to interact as equals, many of the stereotypes that foster inequity will be disrupted (Helms,

1990). If inclusion is simply viewed as a way to manage disabilities in the education system, however, inequity and injustice will continue to divide the organization and divert the focus away from social reform (Castañeda & Peters, 2000).

Theoretical Perspective

Transformational and transformative leadership theory. Recent research has suggested that the practices and systems schools utilize are inherently discriminatory, oppressive, and unjust (MacArthur, 2005). In particular, deaf students suffer cultural injustice at a greater rate than other disability groups due to language and communication issues (MacArthur, 2005). Barriers to participation exist within schools that find themselves under federal regulations and requirements with limited training, resources, and support needed to provide meaningful opportunities (Dieringer & Judge, 2015).

School leaders are tasked with working to build organizations that overcome these injustices. This study aimed to address these issues of inequity and social justice through the lens of transformative leadership theory. Transformative leadership is often confused with transformational leadership, but they are inherently different (Shields, 2010).

Therefore, an understanding of the similarities and differences of the two theories is essential to understanding the theoretical framework for this study.

Transformational leaders. Transformational leadership is the process through which leaders and followers motivate each other and build a moral institution (Burns,

1978). Transformational leadership is concerned with end-values such as liberty, justice, and equality (Burns, 1978). Shields (2010) indicated that transformational leadership

focuses on improving organizational qualities, dimensions, and effectiveness. According to Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson, “transformational leaders inspire followers to transcend self-interest and perceptions of their own limitations to become more effective in pursuing collective goals” (Bass et al., 2003). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and

Fetter stated, “Transformational leaders communicate a high level of confidence in the team’s ability to achieve ambitious collective goals” (Podsakoff et al., 1990).

Transformational leaders model desired behaviors and encourage followers to engage in analysis, show concern for the needs of their followers, promote cooperation amongst members of the team, and cultivate the potential in their employees (Schaubroeck, Lam,

& Cha, 2007). The transformational leader generates a shared vision that keeps in mind the individual differences amongst workers (Lowe & Galen, 1996).

Transformative leaders. Transformative leadership questions justice and democracy, criticizes practices of inequality, addresses both individual and public good, and promises not only greater individual achievement but also a better life lived in common with others (Freire, 1998; Shields, 2010). Educational leadership is closely embedded in social context through transformative leadership, making it a vehicle for inclusive and socially just schools (Shields, 2010). Although the promise of liberation, social justice, and educational revolution may not immediately be linked to images of school leaders and bureaucratic systems, these concepts are the foundation of transformative leadership (Shields, 2010). Applebaum (2004) indicated that because education is both transformative and an issue of social justice, educators, as critical theorists, share the view that education has transformative potential. The goal of transformative leadership is to make schools more inclusive, socially just, and

academically successful by challenging the power and privilege that create or perpetuate inequity and injustice (Shields, 2010).

Shields (2010) set forth a dynamic mapping of the foundational characteristics and essential processes of both transformational and transformative leadership. She asserted that although the focus of transformational leadership is to create an organization that runs smoothly and efficiently by developing a greater understanding of the organization’s culture, setting directions, developing people, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program, transformative leadership is rooted in the disparities outside the organization that impinge on the success of individuals, groups, and the organization. This phenomenon is seen through the deconstruction and reconstruction of social/cultural knowledge frameworks that generate inequality and acknowledgement of power and privilege through dialectic exchanges between individuals and society. Table 1 highlights the tenets of leadership set forth by Shields

(2013).

Table 1.

Tenets of Leadership

Tenet Transformational Transformative

Starting Point Need for the organization Material realities and the

to run smoothly and disparities outside the

efficiently organization that impinge

on the success of

individuals, groups, and

organizations as a whole

Foundation Meet the needs of complex Critique and promise

and diverse systems

Emphasis Organization Deep and equitable change

in social conditions

Process Understanding the Deconstruction and

organizational culture, reconstruction of

setting directions, social/cultural knowledge

developing people, frameworks that generate

redesigning the inequity, acknowledgement

organization, and of power and privilege,

managing the instructional dialectic between

program individual and social

Key Values Liberty, justice, equality Liberation, emancipation,

democracy, equity, justice

Goal Organizational change, Individual, organizational,

effectiveness and societal transformation

Power Inspirational Positional, hegemonic, tool

for oppression as well as

for action

Leader Looks for motive, develops Lives with tension and

common purpose, focuses challenge, requires moral

on organizational goals courage, activism

Related Theories School effectiveness Critical theories (race,

School reform gender)

School improvement Cultural and social

Instructional leadership reproduction

Leadership for social

justice

Mezirow (1991, 1996) outlined a process of transformative learning theory prompted by self-reflection as a tool for deep and lasting personal change, emphasizing the need to deconstruct and reconstruct knowledge frameworks. Davis (2006) emphasized that transformative learning involves the acquisition (or manipulation) of knowledge that disrupts prior learning and stimulates the reflective reshaping of deeply ingrained knowledge and belief structures. Teachers and students need to look inward and examine their motivations and examine how their interactions with the current social constructs of their own privilege contribute to the oppression of others (Sleeter, Torres, &

Laughlin, 2004).

King and Biro (2000) indicated that transformative learning starts with a

“disorienting dilemma” that progresses through a dynamic pathway of stages to a reintegration of a new frame of reference. Shields (2010) put forth the common elements of these transformative approaches to include the need for social betterment, enhancing equity, and a thorough reshaping of knowledge and belief structures. Quantz, Rogers, &

Dantley (1991) indicated that transformative leadership requires a language of critique and possibility, noting that a transformative leader must introduce the required

mechanisms for various groups to begin conversations around controversial issues.

Weiner (2003) discussed the responsibilities of the transformative leader to instigate structural transformations, reorganize the political space, and understand the relationship between leaders and subordinates dialectically. He further stated that transformative educational leaders must be able to work from within dominant social formations to exercise effective oppositional power, resist courageously, and be activists and voices for change and transformation.

Transformative leaders must confront issues of power, control, and inequity

(Shields, 2003). Furthermore, transformative leaders must utilize benchmarks for the development of socially just education, engage in dialogue, examine current practices, and develop a pedagogical infrastructure that values the lived experiences of students.

Astin and Astin (2000) described transformative leadership as enhancing equity, social justice, and the quality of life. It expands access and opportunities, strengthens democracy and civic responsibility, and promotes cultural enrichment, creativity, and personal responsibility. Shields (2010) recognized that transformative leadership begins with critical reflection and analysis, moving through enlightened understanding to action to address wrongs, and ensures that all members of the organization are provided with a level playing field. Transformative leadership at best supports the good of everyone in the school system and has the potential to work for the common good of society (Shields,

2010). Transformative leadership considers the material realities and works to ensure more equitable and inclusive opportunities for all (Shields, 2013). Shields (2013) further explained that it is by doing things differently that the transformative leader can implement changes to rectify inequities and create a more level playing field. According

to Shields (2013), transformative leaders must think differently about their roles and how they communicate so as not to inhibit meaningful learning for all students. Wheatley

(1997) asserted that transformative leadership requires a clear vision of the organization, trust in colleagues, and room for messiness around the edges. Freire (1970) described transformative leadership as a critical approach grounded in critical awareness, critical analysis, and critical action against injustices. The scope of this study was through the lens of transformative leadership, as it is only through the critical analysis of what exists that school leaders can enact critical actions upon their organizations to ensure equal access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students with equity of access to all components of their K-12 education commensurate with their hearing peers.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework for this study.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

School leaders in schools with special programs are tasked with developing a unique culture within their schools. School leaders are responsible for acquiring and allocating resources, developing the culture, and creating the climate of a school. To ensure that deaf students have equitable access to their educational experience, these

school leaders should utilize transformative leadership to build a network of support for deaf and hard-of-hearing students to ensure equitable access to all parts of their education

Although many deaf and hard-of-hearing students are accessing their education in a public school setting, they are not participating in nonacademic and extracurricular services at the same rate as their hearing peers. For this level of participation to occur, school leaders must interpret policies to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have equal opportunities for access, gather and utilize resources to support the specific needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, collaborate with stakeholders to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their education, and have knowledge of both special education law and the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. Furthermore, for school leaders to ensure an inclusive and supportive school culture for this population, transformative leadership is essential.

Through transformative leadership the structure of the organization can exhibit lasting and sustainable change that generates an inclusive school culture. A critique of the organization’s realities and disparities will provide the foundation for deconstructing what exists and rebuilding a framework that provides equity for all (Shields, 2013). It is only through the transformation of the individuals within the organization that the larger social realm can generate equity. While the organization undergoes changes at many levels there will be tension and challenges that require transformative approaches to move beyond the injustices the organization has defined. Through the challenges of inequity and the activism of a transformative leader, equal access can be realized

(Shields, 2013). Figure 1 illustrates the organizational structures necessary to ensure that

deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the same access to nonacademic and extracurricular services as their hearing peers.

The tenets of transformative leadership referenced in Table 1 make up the foundational lens through which this study looked to explain the disparity in the access deaf and hard-of-hearing students have to nonacademic and extracurricular activities compared to their hearing peers. Transformative leadership requires recognition of the disparities within an organization that impact individuals, groups, and the organization as a whole. In the context of this study, transformative leadership requires that school leaders actively assess and evaluate the equity of access. Through this evaluation, school leaders will develop a vision that drives the organization toward equitable practices. The process will require a shift within the organization with regard to how deaf and hard-of- hearing students are viewed as members of the community, a deeper understanding of their needs as a group, and social change in the desire to include them with other members of the school community to the greatest extent possible. To achieve this shift, transformative leadership requires that the organization deconstruct itself to reconstruct through a deeper knowledge of social and cultural frameworks to overcome previously existing inequities. School leaders must work to change the overall belief systems within the school that impede the social and cultural inclusion of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in that community. The privilege of the majority group, in this case hearing individuals, must not compete with the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It is the role of the school leader to manage this culture to grow an equitable environment.

The goal of transformative leadership is to create a societal transformation within the organization. School leaders must not only work to ensure that the needs of deaf and

hard-of-hearing students are not viewed as something additional that staff must do, but also work to ensure that meeting these needs becomes the new norm for the school. As these tenets are not currently the driving force within many schools, deaf and hard-of- hearing students are not engaging in equitable access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.

Chapter III: Overview of Methodology

Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology used to study the complex nature of serving the deaf and hard-of-hearing population in public schools to understand the educational policies and practices that impact student access to nonacademic services and extracurricular activities. Although there has been a substantial amount of research on students with disabilities and their participation in nonacademic services and extracurricular activities, the research has focused largely on students with specific learning disabilities or intellectual disabilities and not on deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This study contributes to the literature by examining the specific, if any, school leaders utilize to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic services and extracurricular activities commensurate with their hearing peers. To provide the information, I conducted a basic interpretive qualitative study consisting of document reviews and semi structured interviews. Creswell (2007) indicated that qualitative methods can be an effective means of data collection; further, the methodology lends itself to multiple interpretations of a single event (Merriam, 2009).

Research Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to examine the current practices, if any, in place to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities (Nonacademic

Settings, 2006) for deaf and hard-of-hearing students as well as the essential underpinnings of leadership required to create an inclusive school community. Exploring the practices school leaders utilize for deaf and hard-of-hearing students to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services can promote successful compliance with

IDEA, ensure these students have full access when compared to their hearing peers, and inform policymakers and practitioners.

The topic investigated in this study had not been extensively explored; consequently, there was not a previously established wealth of knowledge from which to pull. I was interested in gathering information from this study to answer the question:

What are the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers? It was expected that themes might arise related to facilities, program offerings, staffing, policies, resources, collaboration, and culture. This study focused on access to nonacademic and extracurricular services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students attending public school.

Research Procedures

The study components needed to answer the research question included locating schools, finding appropriate participants, and considering the methodological foundation for the study. The research design evolved as the study progressed and influenced the methodology of data collection and analysis of data.

This proposed study was submitted for approval from the Internal Review Board

(IRB) between October and November 2017. Information was disseminated via introduction letters and e-mail beginning in December 2017. Document reviews and semi structured interviews were conducted from January 2018 to February 2018, based on the availability of the participants. Ongoing transcription and coding of the interviews occurred as new participants were interviewed. The goal for completing all interviews,

transcriptions, and coding was March 2018. The results were written, and the full dissertation was submitted to my committee in May 2018.

Epistemology

Epistemology addresses the production of knowledge and how that knowledge is found. For knowledge to be generally accepted as truth there should be evidence (Soini,

Kronqvist, & Huber, 2011). Creswell (2013) discussed the relationship between the researcher and the research topic and stated that the relationship is important to the epistemological perspective. As the knowledge gathered about the research topic was based on document reviews and semi structured interviews, it was important to note the importance of the relationship during the interview process. Seidman (2013) stated that the purpose of interviewing is not to test hypotheses or evaluate but to explore an interest in understanding the experience of others and the meaning they make because of that experience. At the heart of the interview is an interest in the experience of others.

I have had several past experiences directly related to the topic of this study. At the time of the study I was a teacher of the deaf and hard-of-hearing and worked with deaf students as well as hard-of-hearing students. Because of my experience with students who are deaf or hard of hearing in public schools, there was an inherent bias regarding what was deemed essential or required. This bias was derived from the instructional perspective and not from the perspective of a school leader who was accountable for all the students in the school and who needed to manage and create ideals that were inclusive for all the students—with or without disabilities. Although I advocated for the acquisition of materials and resources specifically to meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, ultimately the decisions made about these resources

were left up to school leaders. Furthermore, I had never held a leadership position in any school with deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

Concepts within the framework that might affect access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities for deaf and hard-of-hearing students included interpretation of policies, gathering and utilization of resources, collaboration with stakeholders, and knowledge of the law and populations. Experiences of school leaders were different for each participant and meaning derived from these experiences influenced how access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students was perceived. These differences could not be categorized as right or wrong but rather reflected the individual perceptions of each participant.

Research Design

The overall research design evolved continuously throughout the interaction of the design elements (Maxwell, 2013). Utilizing an interactive research design allowed for learning how people interpreted their experiences, how they constructed their realities, and what their experiences meant to them, which are the tenets of a basic qualitative study (Merriam, 2009). The interactive research design allowed for common themes to emerge and form the basis of what practices, if any, school leaders implemented and employed to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities for deaf and hard-of-hearing students as compared to hearing students. Figure 2 highlights Maxwell’s (2013) interactive design for qualitative studies.

Figure 2. Maxwell’s (2013) design for qualitative studies.

Participant Selection

The participants for this study included school leaders at schools with school- based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students and/or school staff from those schools who worked with the deaf and hard-of-hearing students during their nonacademic and extracurricular activities in school districts across the Mid-Atlantic region. Choosing schools with school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students was a means to guarantee that each school would have a population of deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

Nevertheless, all deaf and hard-of-hearing students at these schools were included regardless of their affiliation with the school-based program. Furthermore, only secondary schools were considered due to the wider selection of nonacademic and extracurricular activities offered for their students.

For this study, a school leader was defined as “a principal, assistant principal, or other individual who is an employee or officer of an elementary or secondary school; and

responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary building” (NAESP, n.d., p. 1). Although the nature of an interpretive qualitative study does not set a required minimum or maximum number of participants, but rather requires a number that satisfies the study (Merriam, 2009), the estimated number of expected participants was n = 20. I selected the districts for the study due to the population of deaf and hard-of-hearing students at the secondary level.

Saturation occurred when new themes pertinent to the research question were no longer introduced during interviews. In order to ensure saturation was reached, non-school leaders who worked with the deaf and hard-of hearing population at the school were included in interviews.

Purposive sampling was conducted by outreach to school leaders through mail and e-mail with follow-up phone calls when necessary to set up interviews and document reviews. A letter of introduction was sent to school leaders who had school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in their schools. The letter included my contact information as well as a summary of the research design and research question.

School leaders were encouraged to contact me directly if they were willing to participate in the study. This process helped to ensure confidentiality for participants. If school leaders suggested the participation of other individuals who might have additional knowledge about the subject, snowball sampling was allowed. Appendix B presents a copy of the introduction letter.

Methods of Data Collection

Document review. A document review was conducted to gain insight into the procedures and practices being implemented at each school. Received documents

included meeting agendas, professional development calendars, leadership team meeting minutes, whole school staff meeting minutes, department meeting minutes, district policies, and school policies. These documents were identified by the participants based upon their relevance to the research study. As the study progressed, other documents were recommended and reviewed throughout the process. During the document review process, I noted the relevance of the documents with specific regard to the deaf and hard- of-hearing student population and whether they were discussed as part of the decision- making process. The compilation of information was recorded on a three-column

Document Review Sheet (see Appendix C). This document reflected the nature of the document reviewed, whether or not the deaf and hard-of-hearing population was discussed, and the context and setting in which the population was discussed, if applicable. I looked for key terms that specifically addressed nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities to code them for essential elements related to administrative guidance interpretation, provision of resources, and collaboration.

Interviews. Semi structured interviews were conducted with school leaders at each school following a review of documents. While utilizing a survey may have been more convenient and allowed for a greater possibility of including a larger number of participants, I chose to utilize interviews instead. Through the interview process I was able to gain an understanding of each participant’s experience at a deeper level than surveys would have allowed. Also, because snowball sampling was used, I was led to several additional participants through the interview process which may not have been the case with a survey.

The protocol for these interviews can be seen in Appendix D. Interviews are important because they help to provide insight into how individuals view their own experiences (Merriam, 2009). The interviews were structured in a way that allowed participant responses to be compared to each other while also leaving room for each participant to describe his or her individual experience. The interview was structured around three main categories: (a) How do school leaders interpret policies to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the same access to opportunities as their hearing peers?

(b) What resources do school leaders provide for deaf and hard-of-hearing students? and

(c) How do school leaders collaborate with other key stakeholders to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their education? The purpose of these interviews was to gain deeper insight into how school leaders ensured access to the deaf and hard-of-hearing population at their schools. The interviews were conducted individually to ensure the participants were comfortable, to ensure participant answers were not skewed by the group, and to protect the confidentiality of the respondents and their responses. Based on the definition of a school leader being used for this study, non- school leaders who interacted with the deaf and hard-of-hearing students during nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities were included as they might provide valuable information regarding what the school leaders were or were not doing to support these students. Their responses provided a different lens through which to evaluate the degree of access school leaders provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing students during nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.

The interview protocol for school leaders (Appendix D) was designed to be inclusive of the research question but recognized that not all questions would be

applicable to all of the interviewees. Furthermore, participants who did not meet the definition of school leader, such as coaches and club sponsors, were interviewed using a different interview protocol with questions that differed from the School Leaders

Interview Protocol (Appendix D). The interview questions for non-school leaders are presented in Appendix E. Additionally, the semi structured interview itself guided which questions were asked of the individual participants. During the interviews, I also took field notes. From the field notes and the transcription of the interviews I completed the

Data Collection Summary Sheet shown in Appendix F. The Data Collection Summary

Sheet was designed to help highlight and organize themes within the data.

Analysis methods. Data analysis began with the first piece of data collected and continued throughout the data collection process. Each piece of data was analyzed as it was collected. Data were gathered during the document review process and the interview process; data gathering culminated with the compilation and review of all protocols.

The semi structured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with the consent of each participant through Rev Recorder software. This app allowed each interview to be stored separately and provided transcripts of each of the interviews.

Interview coding occurred within 2 weeks of each interview to allow for follow-up interviews to be arranged when necessary. The audio files were then submitted through

Rev Recorder for transcription. The Rev Recorder transcription was then uploaded into the password-protected web application Dedoose for coding, which I reviewed. The

Dedoose web application analyzed the data for themes to reveal the hidden patterns within the data and allow for exporting the data into the research platform. Responses were categorized into subheadings: Interpreting Policies, Resources, and Collaboration,

with common themes highlighted among school leader responses. The number of school leaders responding with similar practices was recorded and appropriate percentages assigned. These data formed the basis of the themes related to the conceptual framework that were essential to understanding how deaf and hard-of-hearing students gained access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. These themes were sorted to create both common and unique perceptions. Emerging themes were compared to each new interview to test the ideas generated regarding the perception of school leaders providing access to deaf and hard-of-hearing students in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.

I reviewed my field notes to check for my own judgments during the research process. If any of my field notes showed bias, I had a colleague or cohort member review them as well. I had several past experiences directly related to the topic of this study. At the time of the study I was a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing and had had the opportunity to teach in schools serving deaf and hard-of-hearing at both the elementary and secondary levels.

Because of my past experience teaching deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools, there was an inherent bias regarding what was deemed essential or required. This bias was from the instructional perspective and not from the perspective of a school leader accountable for all the students in the school and responsible for managing and creating ideals that were inclusive for all the students—with or without disabilities. Although I had advocated for the acquisition of materials and resources specifically to meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students, ultimately the decisions made about these resources were left up to school leaders. Furthermore, I had

never held a leadership position in any school with a program for deaf and hard-of- hearing students.

Confidentiality. So that school leaders could be comfortable sharing their perspective and approaches, they were not identified by name or by school. Each respondent was assigned a number, and the data reflected only the responses received, which were not attributed to any respondent. Additionally, the location of each school was referred to by a number that was assigned randomly; no identifying information embedded in any of the responses was reported. All the information collected, including consent forms, was stored electronically on a password-protected computer. The files were further secured in a password-protected Dropbox folder.

All document reviews and semi structured interviews were thorough, and results included perspectives that were common as well as perspectives that were unique. Field notes were reviewed to ensure that my own perspectives and reasons for research decisions were unbiased.

Summary

This chapter has provided information on the methodology of the qualitative study. The research purpose and question, as well as research procedures, were discussed. Additionally, the research design, including participant selection, data collection, and data analysis procedures were considered. The chapter concluded with the topic of confidentiality of the study.

Chapter IV: Results

Overview

This study focused on the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have equal access to nonacademic and extracurricular activities when compared to their hearing peers. I identified a problem based on a review of literature and selected participants. Data from participants and document reviews were collected and analyzed to address the research question. This chapter focuses on the analysis of the data beginning with a review of the purpose and research question. Next, an overview of the data analysis is provided, followed by participant demographics. Last, the themes that emerged from the data are explained to introduce the discussion presented in Chapter Five.

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to examine the practices school leaders utilize to understand the access deaf and hard-of-hearing students have to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. The study specifically focused on leadership practices at public schools with programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, thereby ensuring a greater likelihood that staff members interacted with students identified as deaf or hard of hearing throughout the school day. Although there has been a plethora of literature on students with disabilities participating in nonacademic and extracurricular activities, that research has been primarily limited to students with high- incidence disabilities. Because of the gap in the literature, this study focused on the deaf and hard-of-hearing population.

The data presented include information collected through interviews from both school leaders and non-school leaders as well as a review of school and district

documents to inform the research question: What are the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?

Study Demographics

I selected schools based on the criterion of having a program for deaf and hard-of- hearing students. All schools were from the Mid-Atlantic region and consisted of K-12 public schools. Once I received IRB approval, individual school principals were contacted via e-mail for permission to conduct research at their school beginning in

January 2018. Once the principals agreed to have their school participate in the study, I began conducting the initial interviews with the principals and assistant principals. Next,

I interviewed the teachers of the deaf, members of the leadership team, and support staff at each school. I used snowball sampling to recruit other participants (i.e., coaches, club sponsors, and other districtwide school leaders) who worked with the deaf and hard-of- hearing population. I categorized the school leaders into two subgroups: school-based leaders and districtwide school leaders. Each interview took place at an identified school and lasted between 45 and 90 minutes. Although most interviews were individual, some schools requested small-group interviews to limit the disruption to staff and the school day. Group interviews consisted only of similar participants (i.e., only school leaders or only non-school leaders).

Before each interview the participant was provided with an introduction letter and an informed consent form outlining the purpose of the study. I opened the conversation

with a discussion of my research design and allowed time for the participant to ask me questions and for me to address any of the participant’s concerns. The study involved a total of 20 participants (n = 20) from districts spanning Grades 6-12 across the Mid-

Atlantic region. Participants were recruited until saturation was met. Participant information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participant Information

Participant District A District B District C Total

Category Participants

School Leader 5 2 1 8

Non-school 6 3 3 12

Leader

Total 11 5 4 20

Participants

The total participants consisted of eight school leaders and 12 non-school leaders with varying levels of experience and backgrounds. Tables 3 and 4 show detailed demographics of each group.

Of the eight school leaders two are principals (P), four are assistant principals

(AP), and two are coordinators (C). None of the school leaders had experience specifically with deaf education prior to assuming their current positions and only three have experience with special education in general. Two assistant principals and one principal had their previous experience in a different district. Only one of the school

leaders was new to their current role. The two coordinators were central office administrators in charge of assisting each of their schools with running their special education programs in compliance with IDEA and report directly to the Director of

Special Education.

There were 12 non-school leader participants. Their years of experience ranged from first year educator to experienced educator with 15 years of experience. Four of the non-school leaders, one of them a veteran, have spent their entire career at their current school. The non-school leader participants have varying backgrounds but only two have any experience in deaf education before their current roles. Only three of the non-school leaders have teaching certification in special education. Table 3.

District A Demographics

Participant School Role Years in Years of Years of

Leader or Current Special Deaf

Non School Role Education Education

Leader

1 School Principal 6 0 0

Leader

2 School Assistant 4 0 0

Leader Principal

3 School Assistant 1 7 0

Leader Principal

4 School Assistant 15 25 0

Leader Principal

5 School Coordinator 3 6 0

Leader

6 Non School Teacher 3 0 0

Leader

7 Non School Teacher 8 5 5

Leader

8 Non School Teacher/Coach 12 0 0

Leader

9 Non School Teacher 15 15 1

Leader

10 Non School Club Sponsor 3 0 0

Leader

11 Non School Teacher 1 0 0

Leader

Table 4.

District B Demographics

Participant School Leader Role Years of Years of Deaf

or Non School Special Education

Leader Education

12 School Leader Assistant 0 0

Principal

13 School Leader Principal 0 0

14 Non School Teacher 1 0

leader

15 Non School Teacher 15 0

Leader

16 Non School Teacher/Club 3 0

Leader Sponsor

Table 5.

District C Demographics

Participant School Leader Role Years of Years of Deaf

or Non School Special Education

Leader Education

17 School Leader Coordinator 7 0

18 Non School Teacher 4 0

Leader

19 Non School Teacher 8 0

leader

20 Non School Activities 0 0

Leader Coordinator

Themes

I studied the collected data through the lens of the conceptual framework presented in Chapter Three. After transcribing the interviews and reviewing the

documents, I grouped the commonalities among the ten categories into three themes. I grouped the categories of collaboration, professional development, co-teaching, and resources under the heading of resources. Culture, deaf and hard of hearing, extracurricular activities, inclusion, and special education fell under the heading of culture, whereas planning and policies fell under the heading of administrative guidance.

The themes and subsequent headings highlighted school leaders’ and non-school leaders’ perceptions of their schools with regard to how deaf and hard-of-hearing students were accessing the various components of their comprehensive education. Figures 3 and 4 depict the occurrence of these categories and themes.

Through the study of the commonalities within these categories, the themes of administrative guidance, resources, and culture emerged. Throughout the process, I continued to account for personal biases by reviewing my field notes in an attempt to ensure they were not inadvertently affecting the analysis of the data.

30 Non school Leaders District Documents 40

35 25 30 20 25

15 20

15 10 10 5 5

0 0

Figure 3. Occurrence of categories.

140

120

100

0 AdministrativePolicies GuidenceCollaborative Resources Resources InclusiveCulture Culture School Leaders Non school leaders District Documents School Documents

Figure 4. Occurrence of themes.

Resources

I combined several subcategories under the theme of resources: collaboration, professional development, co-teaching, and resources. Both school leaders and non- school leaders spoke about the importance of things relating to resources. Through data analysis, it became clear that school leaders and non-school leaders reflected different perspectives regarding collaboration. During the interview process, school leaders discussed topics relating to resources 84 times whereas non-school leaders did so 40 times.

Resources were the second-most discussed topic for school leaders. Each of the school leaders shared that collaboration was a core component of their personal leadership style. One school leader described the importance of their open-door policy by saying:

The only way we can collaborate is if people feel comfortable talking to one

another. I like to think that everyone here feels comfortable to come to me with a

problem and sometimes even with the answers because I don’t have all the

answers. That’s okay. We can work together to get there but they’ve got to feel

comfortable coming to me.

School-based leaders and central office leaders expressed a shared belief in the importance of their staff perceiving they would be heard when they had a problem or concern. Two of the assistant principals and both coordinators emphasized this with one of the coordinators stating, “often times when people come to you they just want to vent and if you let them they feel like you’ve fixed their problem even when you actually haven’t done anything at all.” One of the assistant principals also stated “I can remember feeling isolated when I was in the classroom and sometimes I just needed to complain.

I’ve held on to that and I want my staff to know that if they just need an ear that I am here to be that for them.” School leaders also believed that their staff worked collaboratively with each other. All of the principals and assistant principals spoke to this belief. One of the principals specifically talked about the shared planning time and stated “We had to do a lot of work with the master schedule because I wanted to make sure collaboration was happening. It’s one thing to tell teachers to collaborate but that can’t happen unless there is time for that. I realized we had to build that time in to the schedule itself. Now grade level teachers of the same content areas are able to meet twice weekly and the entire content area across all grade levels at least once per month.” The assistant principal at this school also supported this by stating:

We now give teachers shared planning time. If the expectation is for common

formative assessments and that they are doing the same things we had to give

them a way to make that happen. Each one of our administrators is assigned a

content area and we try to make it a point to go to their meetings when we can.

We have also moved our special education to departmentalization so they can also

have that common planning because the expectation is that our special education

students will be exposed to the same rigor as our general education students.

Although school leaders generally shared the same beliefs with regard to resources, there was one area in which school-based and districtwide leaders differed.

School-based leaders believed there was clear collaboration happening throughout their buildings with teachers, staff, and community members. They shared a belief that, through their collaborative practice, they could gather resources needed or knew how to acquire them. When asked what these resources included specifically with regard to deaf and hard of hearing students, all of the school-based leaders named “captioning and interpreters”. Only one of the assistant principals named “opportunities for meaningful professional development”. In contrast, districtwide school leaders did not believe there was effective and meaningful collaboration happening at schools, across schools, within central office, or between central office and schools. Districtwide school leaders were unsure about the areas of responsibility with regard to supporting the deaf and hard-of- hearing population. One of the districtwide leaders began the interview by speaking very highly of the collaboration that took place in that district and noting how many resources were available to students. When asked to go into more detail about the process and procedures for accessing resources, however, the participant stated:

To be honest with you I’m not really sure who I would go to for that. That’s a bit

concerning. I would think that would be our audiologist who would help with

those things but to be honest I’m just not sure. That person is supposed to be the

highest-ranking individual for this population and should be on the front lines, but

we don’t even know what their job actually entails. That’s a real problem.

From that point on, the participant asserted that there was not clear collaboration and that, as a result, getting deaf and hard-of-hearing students the resources they needed was inefficient and not a clearly defined process. Another participant stated “I feel like some people collaborate more than others. There isn’t really any consistency or standard especially with who needs to be collaborating.” Two more participants stated, “I collaborate with people in my building but not so much outside of that.” and, “I think there are attempts to make collaboration possible but it doesn’t happen as often as it probably should. Because it isn’t structured people don’t seek it out.”

All of the districtwide school leaders spoke about the lack of professional development options for district employees. The participants indicated that if a staff member were to independently seek out a professional development opportunity in an area of interest, the district would support it. When asked about the professional development opportunities specifically geared toward working with deaf and hard of hearing students one of the coordinators said, “I don’t know of any that the district has provided. That might happen on a smaller scale at the school level and be provided by the teacher of the deaf there but even if that happens I am not aware.” I further inquired how staff working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students would get additional professional development and the participant said, “It would be on the individual to seek

that out. If they found something to meet their needs the district would support that but they would need to find that themselves.” This participant went on to explain that the school principal had the discretion to allow this outside professional development to replace, or not replace, other district offerings.

School leaders tended to believe their school performed well with regard to resources whereas non-school leaders did not. At one of the sites a school leader stated,

“We have implemented CLT’s here to make sure that our teachers are collaborating on a regular basis. We have seen a positive impact as a result.” but a non-school leader at that same site stated, “I think there is an assumption that a lot of collaboration is happening because have these required meetings but in reality, no one wants to be there so they tend to be a waste of time.” At another site a school leader reported:

I try to make sure that I collaborate with my teachers to make sure they have

everything they need and sometimes that includes reaching out on their behalf to

get some of the things they need to be successful. If my teachers are telling me

they need something to help students I am going to do whatever I can for them to

try and get it. I think that is a great example of one of the ways collaboration

happens here and I’m really proud of that.

However non-school leaders at this site reported, “collaboration only happens when I seek out something I need from someone else.” and:

I don’t know how to answer that to be honest. I mean we collaborate because we

use common formative assessments. That is mostly because we have to. If we

didn’t have to do that or if I didn’t want to pick someone’s brain about and idea I

don’t know if I would collaborate with other people here at all.

Another non-school leader at this site also stated, “Sure, if someone needs something or comes to me with a problem then I will try to help them out. I’m a mentor here so it comes with the territory.”

There were differences in how school leaders and non-school leaders discussed resources. School leaders spoke about collaborating with other school leaders or teachers collaborating with teachers. School leaders also discussed collaborating with central office and the school board. Non-school leaders discussed resources more negatively with three participants stating that they had asked for professional development specific to supporting deaf and hard-of-hearing students but were not supported. All of the non- school leader participants said they would collaborate with the school-based teacher of the deaf if they needed support and they were unaware of who else they could go to. The non-school leaders who worked with deaf and hard-of-hearing students during nonacademic times reported that no collaboration occurred before these students attended their activity with one participant saying “I didn’t know I had a deaf and hard-of-hearing student in my club until two weeks in. No one told me and that student didn’t have any support during my club.” Another participant reported “I did not know I was going to have the student in my club until they showed up. The first activity we did as a group was analyzing video clips and they were not captioned. I felt awful that the student was excluded because if I had known I would have made sure to get the content captioned.”

Despite the differences in perception between school leaders and non-school leaders, both relied heavily on one common resource: the school-based teacher of the deaf. Both participant groups spoke about going to the school-based teacher of the deaf as their first choice when they needed support or information regarding the deaf and hard-

of-hearing population at their schools. The teachers of the deaf reported feeling as though they were tasked with solving problems and finding solutions to issues that arose simply because their school leaders relied on their expertise. One of the teachers said

It is flattering that people see me as an expert and are comfortable coming to me

but it can also be frustrating. I tend to get pulled away from my responsibilities

and my teaching to help other people. I don’t think my coworkers realize that I’m

just a teacher just like them.

When asked to go into more detail, the participant said:

I just don’t feel like I should have to handle all of the issues on top of all of my

teaching responsibilities, but people seem to forget that I am a teacher and my

core responsibility is teaching. I have the same amount of time as everyone else,

yet I am expected to do so much more because no one else has learned or sought

out information about our deaf students.

Another school-based teacher stated:

I think part of my frustration is that there is no one supporting us. Other teachers

have their administrators but for us we don’t get that. They end up asking us what

we think when we bring issues to them. Even when we offer up solutions they

aren’t always well received. It is even more frustrating that so many other

disabilities have a go to person at central office that they know they can call for

support or advice or whatever and we don’t get that. The only people at central

office are itinerant teachers who are exactly the same as us. I’m not sure my

school realizes that I am completely on my own here.

School-based teachers of the deaf also shared frustration with the lack of support and understanding their students received with regard to nonacademic and extracurricular activities. One participant said:

One of my students was put into after school remediation to get ready for the

state test. This was great and he definitely needed it and would benefit from it.

But he didn’t have an interpreter. No one thought about ‘hey, this kid uses an

interpreter all day long so he will need it during this too’ and to make matters

worse when I went and advocated for that and even volunteered I was told I

wasn’t allowed to do it because it was outside of my contract and that they didn’t

have money in the budget to hire an outside interpreter. They also said they were

‘required’ to have this student in remediation by the state. So, it is frustrating that

this great resource that could really help this student isn’t accessible and my

school is using my student essentially. They care more about looking good to the

state than they do about my actual student and there is nothing I can do about it.

Another school-based teacher expressed frustration with the lack of understanding about the social and emotional needs of his/her student stating:

All day, in every one of their classes my students rely on an interpreter. For some

reason they go to lunch where they are able to socialize and be a normal kid for a

few minutes and their communication is stripped away. I understand that the

interpreters need a break too. But think about the only opportunity you have to

make friends and be a kid is taken away from you because you can’t hear. Then

you end up in trouble because you don’t listen to the cafeteria staff and are

required to eat lunch with your classroom teacher. No one seems to understand

how the decisions of the adults have set this child up to fail and it falls on me to

explain it to them. So, I ended up having lunch club and had to give my time to do

that so that my student could socialize with his friends.

Culture

The second theme that emerged from the data relates to the development of culture. This theme included the categories of culture, deaf and hard of hearing, extracurricular activities, inclusion, and special education, representing the largest number of initial categories gleaned from the data. Culture was the most discussed theme by both school leaders and non-school leaders as well as the most frequently mentioned topic in the documents as shown in Figure 4. Figure 3 shows the occurrence of the categories related to culture

District documents discussed students with disabilities. The references to inclusion of special education students appeared in the section of district documents that discussed special education policies and procedures with regard to ensuring that students had access to their least restrictive environment. One document explicitly addressed the inclusion of students with disabilities in nonacademic and extracurricular services and copied verbatim the wording from IDEA. Other district documents stated that students with disabilities “would not be excluded “from these activities even if the district were required to provide an alternative option (e.g., sports). None of the district documents explicitly mentioned deaf and hard-of-hearing students and their inclusion in activities.

School documents discussed topics relating to the school culture as well as the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. School documents failed to mention extracurricular activities and the deaf and hard-of-hearing population explicitly. School documents

focused on inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom and did not tend to focus on nonacademic or extracurricular times.

When school leaders discussed culture, it related to developing more opportunities for inclusion within the master schedule. This was reflected in school documents. School leaders spoke about culture most frequently to other school leaders.

This took place primarily in leadership meetings. According to non-school leaders, the only time school leaders spoke with them was when inquiring about their differentiation practices when parents called and questioned methods. Non-school leaders discussed culture less frequently and tended to have these conversations with other non-school leaders. Their conversations centered on how to make sure students from other programs

(second language, low incidence, and autism programs) had opportunities to feel they were included with their peers. The non-school leaders actively discussed planning options for how to make this happen and shifted individual student schedules to make sure these students had opportunities for this. One teacher said “I think it is important that these students don’t feel left out just because they are learning English for the first time.

They are here in our school and they should feel as though they belong. It is our job to help make that happen for them.” Another teacher said “We don’t get a lot of help from admin with making sure these kids aren’t left out. We have to figure it out ourselves.

What’s nice about that is that we have come together for the greater good, but it does seem like these things should be figured out by the higher ups.”

School leaders discussed special education frequently within the theme of culture.

Similar to the data collected during the document review, school leaders talked about

special education with regard to reducing the number of self-contained class offerings and increasing the number of inclusion classes. One of the assistant principals said:

It is the belief of the school board, and I believe this too, that we need to get these

special education students out of separate classrooms. They belong in a classroom

with everyone else and I would love to be the school that sets the standard for no

special education classes.

When asked what that would look like and what kind of planning has gone in to making that happen the participant replied:

I think we are already doing it. We are at the IEP meetings and encouraging case

carriers to take a real hard look at their decisions. If you are going to say a student

can’t learn in the general ed classroom, the least restrictive environment, there

needs to be a very good reason and data to back that up.

One of the coordinators spoke about things differently when they said:

When you are talking about inclusion of students with disabilities a big part of

making that happen is to ensure that everyone knows the game plan. If everyone

is not functioning under the same plan it is all going to fall apart.

When the participants were asked what the school or district definition of inclusion was with regard to special education they all provided different answers. One school leader stated, “ It means putting as many students with disabilities as we can in inclusion classes. We have a high number of inclusion classes to meet the needs of our special needs population.” Another stated, “We support our special education teachers getting certified in a content area so that we can have more inclusion classes.” Yet another school leader stated:

I don’t think we have an actual definition written anywhere but my understanding

is that inclusion is having students with disabilities in classes with students who

don’t have disabilities. The idea that students with disabilities can be around their

peers is what inclusion is. At least that is my understanding of it.

A non-school leader stated, “inclusion is when everyone comes together for an activity. It doesn’t matter what class you are in because you can participate.” Another non-school leader said, “Is there an actual definition of inclusion?”.

Although non-school leaders did discuss special education during their interviews, they mentioned the category only seven times. Instead, non-school leaders discussed culture more frequently, second only to inclusion. This discussion was generally negative in nature, with one participant stating that he or she “receive[d] no support from administration” and another that the administrators needed to “step up and ensure the right things [were] happening.” Many comments were based on what happened during the school day. In response to follow-up questions geared more toward the nonacademic and extracurricular times of the day, the participants said their previous statements also applied in those areas.

When the school leaders were asked about the role IEPs played in nonacademic and extracurricular services, all indicated that IEPs did not play a role and that nonacademic and extracurricular times were not considered in the writing, development, or implementation of IEPs. One of the school leaders clarified by stating “all students have the opportunity to be included in the activities of their choosing. I’m not aware of anyone who has not specifically because of their disability”. When asked to elaborate, this participant discussed an instance in which a student from their program for severe

disabilities had an assistant stay with them during an afterschool robotics club. The participant was not able to provide an example of supports that were provided for deaf or hard-of-hearing students even though they were able to recall several instances when the students participated in extracurricular activities. Another school leader stated, “well the

IEP is for the school day so I’m not sure why we consider things that are not a part of that when writing one.” One more school leader said:

My understanding, and I don’t come from a special education background, is that

the IEP is for academics and their classes. That’s why a student would have one.

If they can’t get the content then we address it through an IEP. Clubs and sports

are not classes so they would not need an IEP for that. Again, I might be wrong so

in a situation like this if a parent was asking for that I would probably check with

the special education teacher or the director.

When non-school leaders were asked the same question, three, who were from same site, responded by discussing an example of a deaf and hard-of-hearing student who joined the wrestling team only to quit a week later because he did not have an interpreter. At another site, a non-school leader stated, “I don’t think many of our kids who have disabilities participate at all. The ones who do maybe have attention issues but nothing more noticeable.” Another at that same site said, “I’ve heard students talking about different things but I don’t think they ever follow through and join. I’m not sure why.” At another site two non-school leaders shared a story about student who wanted to join the robotics club but didn’t because the student didn’t know how to ask for accommodations.

One stated:

(the student) was so excited about joining the robotics team and filled out all the

forms. I didn’t know he didn’t actually join until I asked the robotics teacher

about him and he didn’t know who he was. I asked (the student) about the club

and he said he didn’t go because I wasn’t there and I always go to classes with

him so that I can help and he was scared he wouldn’t be able to do it.

The other participant stated:

I remember talking to (the student) about the club and he was so upset about it.

He said (his teacher) always tells him to advocate for himself and ask for the

things he needs in class but this wasn’t a class. He didn’t know who to ask or even

if he was allowed to have help. He decided to miss out on something he was

excited about because he was afraid he would look stupid and get made fun of if

he didn’t know what was going on. As an educator that’s a heartbreaking thing for

a child to tell you. No one should feel that way.

The participants differed in the way they discussed cultural awareness or deaf culture. Many of the non-school leader participants reported that the main source of cultural awareness or deaf culture came directly from the school-based teacher of the deaf. One participant elaborated: “We have the teacher here who has been really great and answers all of our questions, and she’s done everything.” In contrast, a school leader went as far as to say:

I’ve heard of that, but I don’t think that we want to promote that here. Our focus

is more on developing a whole school culture so that everyone feels welcome

here. If we were to focus on developing a deaf culture but didn’t do the same for

other cultures that would be divisive and wouldn’t create the cohesiveness that we

as a school want to build.

Policies

The policies reviewed in this study specifically refer to those relating to special education services, accessibility, and/or nonacademic and extracurricular services and are categorized into two subsets: district policies and school-based policies. District policies are derived from IDEA and are interpreted by the state. Although evidence of both district- and school-based policies emerged as part of the document review process, they were also discussed during interviews with both categories of participants.

Special education policies for each of the participating districts were publicly accessible through their respective district websites and aligned with their corresponding state regulations. The policies included the following: definitions, special education processes and guidelines, private schools, dispute resolutions, independent evaluations, and discipline. School-based policies were less consistent and included intra-district and cross-district variations. It should be noted that only participants from District A referred to local school board policies during interviews.

District policies. District A’s policies were accessible through their website. The overview of the district listed their core values, which referenced “an inclusive school community” and collaboration. The Office of Special Education provided links including program services, resources, and contact information. The homepage of the Office of

Special education presented the mission and vision statements, which specifically referenced an inclusive community, a culture of respect, and professional growth. There was also a direct link to the district’s Special Education Policy and Procedural Manual.

This manual provides schools with guidelines to implement special education regulations in their buildings. The Policy and Procedural Manual link on the website was the “draft” version; however, when the district was contacted about the current manual a link was provided back to the draft, and I was informed that this was the correct version. The

Policy and Procedural Manual specifically stated that it was the responsibility of school administrators to monitor IEPs for students in their building and that the Director of

Special Education was responsible for coordinating the procedures and programs. The manual provided definitions that were linked to the state regulations; this practice of linking the document back to the regulations existed throughout the document.

The Office of Special Education website further provided links to all of the program and service offerings, including hearing services and countywide programs.

From these links, parents and community members could access a robust description of programs available to deaf and hard-of-hearing students as well as services currently being provided, along with contact information for the individuals who could provide information that is more detailed. The only references to deaf and hard-of-hearing students involved discussion of the school-based program as a placement option.

Furthermore, references to students with disabilities and nonacademic activities occurred in two places: accommodations and least restrictive environment. The first section indicated that accommodations could be provided for students to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities. The least restrictive environment section stated that the IEP must explain the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with nondisabled peers in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities.

When discussing the process for getting the resources deaf and hard-of-hearing students needed to fully participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities, participants frequently responded by stating that somehow things just “seemed to work out.” Two of the participants stated, “The teacher of the deaf makes sure the kids have what they need.” Two school leaders echoed this sentiment by stating, “I would have a conversation with my deaf and hard-of-hearing teacher to make her aware of the need because I’m sure she knows what to do.” and, “Our teachers of the deaf here are amazing so I would think they would handle it and if they couldn’t then they would let me know.”

Another participant stated, “I’m sure there is a procedure for making sure they have what they need but I don’t know what that is.”

The school-based documents included leadership team meeting minutes, school management plans, and mission and vision statements. These documents revealed little evidence of administrative guidance discussion, development, or implementation specific to the deaf and hard-of-hearing population even though the school maintained a program specifically for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The documents also did not address any nonacademic and extracurricular activities for this population. There were only two references to deaf and hard-of-hearing students across these documents. The first reference was about a planning session for a 2-hour school opening delay and scheduling a school wide assembly. The leadership team meeting notes that discussed the proposed schedule included the draft schedule where the “hearing impaired” students were clearly noted on the schedule. Leadership team meeting minutes referenced deaf and hard-of- hearing students for the second time. The leadership team discussed the need for ensuring captioned media and referred teachers to the school-based teacher of the deaf

and hard-of-hearing to help in this regard. The minutes read, “please give [the teacher of the deaf] any materials you will be using so that she can caption them.” There was no discussion of their access to and participation in activities.

The website for District B provided access to many of their documents through a

“policies” link. The policies differed in language from the federal laws. One such example was the use of the term school-related opportunities when referring to nonacademic and extracurricular services; this was the same terminology used by all of the interview participants from this district as well. The district’s special education website provided links to special programs offered by the district, including programs specifically for deafness and deaf/blindness. The definitions provided for hearing impairment and deafness matched the definitions set forth in IDEA. District B listed the types of school-based programs the district offered but did not provide the locations or names of the schools where these programs were housed. I had to call the central office to find the actual schools. The central office staff was helpful and very quickly provided me the names of the schools that housed each program. I asked if this information was listed somewhere on the website in case I possibly missed it and was told it was not listed for

“safety reasons.” The special education portion of their website provided both a definition of inclusion as well as a description of the inclusive practices in their district.

District B’s emphasis on inclusive practices was articulated with a discussion of the annual celebration of Inclusive Schools Week each December. Additional reviewed documents outlined resources available in District B to further support inclusive practices including certified interpreters, a continuum of service delivery methods, and assistive

technology. District B used the terms “teachers for the hearing impaired” and “students with hearing impairments” in reference to the deaf and hard-of-hearing population.

The non-school leaders in District B described the resources available to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students. When asked about policies related to acquiring additional supports and resources, the non-school leaders provided the name of the person they contact at the district level whereas school leaders referred to the school- based teacher of the deaf. When asked whether deaf and hard-of-hearing students participated in non-academic or extracurricular activities, the general response was that they did not. The non-school leaders believed that the deaf and hard-of-hearing students were simply not aware of the offerings and stated, “those activities are on the morning announcements but the room these kids are in for homeroom doesn’t even have a TV.

Even if it did the announcements are not captioned so they wouldn’t be able to understand them anyway.”

District C’s documents were contained in one manual available electronically on the district’s website. The manual explicitly addressed the inclusion of students with disabilities in nonacademic and extracurricular services and defined what these services included, consistent with the definition set forth in IDEA. The district’s documents specifically referenced the deaf and hard-of-hearing population when discussing the special education evaluation process. The documents discussed students with disabilities in relation to inclusion in the “least restrictive environment to the greatest extent possible.” Contained in this manual was specific mention of how students with disabilities would be included in nonacademic and extracurricular services.

100

District C had the smallest number of participants. This resulted in interviews in which responses appeared vague and follow-up questions often received responses of

“I’m not sure,” providing neither a deeper understanding nor any additional detail. The non-school leaders had fewer experiences interacting with deaf and hard-of-hearing students and reported that none of the deaf and hard-of-hearing students at their school participated in nonacademic and extracurricular services.

Summary of the Chapter

This chapter began with a discussion of the data analysis procedures and an overview of the results. Data were gathered through interviews with school leaders and non-school leaders and from document reviews across three sites in the Mid-Atlantic region. A review of the data yielded 10 categories: collaboration, culture, deaf and hard of hearing, extracurricular activities, inclusion, planning, policies, professional development, resources, and special education. These categories were then grouped into three overarching themes: administrative guidance, resources, and culture. The theme of policies was discussed through the lens of districtwide documents relating to policies specific to deaf and hard-of-hearing students, regulations governing their rights under

IDEA, and their participation in extracurricular and nonacademic activities. Interviews with school leaders and non-school leaders offered insight into how these districtwide policies were being implemented at schools in which programs for deaf and hard-of- hearing students were housed. The topics of accessibility of resources as well as oversight of student needs and direct program implementation were also evident in the data review. Evidence of collaboration, professional development, and resources specific to deaf and hard-of-hearing students also emerged through document review as well as

101

during the interview process. Specific references to collaboration and professional development were not evident at the district level. Culture consisted of references relating to culture, deaf and hard of hearing, extracurricular activities, inclusion, and special education. Districtwide mentions of culture and deaf and hard-of-hearing populations were not evident. Additionally, there was no school-level mention of deaf and hard-of-hearing students and extracurricular activities.

In Chapter V, I examine the data in relation to transformative leadership, with references to the research, in an effort to answer the research question: What are the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?

102

Chapter V: Interpretations, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their comprehensive education commensurate with their hearing peers. I specifically focused on school leaders and non-school leaders in schools across the Mid-Atlantic region that were associated with school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Through a basic interpretive lens, I hoped to determine the practices, if any, used by school leaders to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students had full access to all parts of their education, including extracurricular and nonacademic services. The analysis of data revealed 10 categories: collaboration, culture, deaf and hard of hearing, extracurricular activities, inclusion, planning, policies, professional development, resources, and special education; these categories were then grouped into three themes: administrative guidance, resources, and culture. Each of these themes contributed to the study of the research topic and helped to answer the research question.

In this chapter, I revisit the conceptual framework in relation to the findings, establish key findings related to the research question within the context of the literature highlighted in Chapter Two, describe any limitations of the current study, provide implications for administrative guidance development and districtwide and schoolwide practices, and offer recommendations for future studies.

Interpretations and Conclusions

The findings from this research study were based on the analysis of documents and interview responses. Because the data were grouped by school leaders and non-

103

school leaders, as well as district documents and school-based documents, the interpretation of the data is presented in a similar fashion.

Consistent with the elements of the conceptual framework, factors that may have affected access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities for deaf and hard-of-hearing students included interpretation of policies, gathering and utilization of resources, collaboration with stakeholders, and knowledge of the law and populations.

From the analysis of the data three themes emerged: administrative guidance, resources, and culture.

Since the experiences of the participants varied, their background influenced how they perceived access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Their perceptions, shared through the semi structured interviews, were different for each individual. These differences could not be categorized as right or wrong but instead reflected the individual experiences and perceptions of each participant.

An interactive research design allowed for the researcher to learn how people interpreted their individual experiences and constructed their realities, as well as understanding the meaning of those experiences in relation to their practice. These elements are the basic tenets of a qualitative study (Merriam, 2009). The interactive research design also allowed for common themes to emerge which formed the basis for determining what practices, if any, school leaders implemented and employed to provide access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities for deaf and hard-of- hearing students as compared to hearing students.

As the data emerged through analysis it formed the basis of the themes which, when looked at through the lens of the conceptual framework are essential aspects of the

104

integral parts of the conceptual framework which include deconstruction, reconstruction, and transformation; critiquing for equitable change; and recognition of current conditions and disparities. Through the lens of these tenets, the themes of administrative guidance, resources, and culture emerged and comparisons were drawn. These themes form the basis of Transformative Leadership in that the deconstruction, reconstruction and transformation of an organization cannot occur without the necessary policies, resources to support them, and a culture of inclusivity to ensure equity for all members within that organization.

The data analysis revealed the importance of both the themes and the three tenets of the conceptual framework and supported the notion that both are of equal importance when building an equitable organization. The tenets of transformative leadership cannot exist without the policies, collaborative partnerships to ensure resources, and a culture of acceptance and inclusion. Conversely, when well established policies are pervasive within an organization, there are resources to fully support them, and all members of the organization are of one accord, the organization will be able to transform itself in a responsible way where everyone gains and all needs are met. Without the implementation of the themes which emerged from the research data, the three tenets of transformational leadership cannot be attained. Likewise, without the three tenets, the themes that emerged from the data cannot be implemented in any meaningful way to support an organization such as schools that are designed to be dynamic organizations that undergo change on a regular basis. Only when both the themes and the three tenets of the conceptual framework are in place can the organization move toward an equitable

105

system of accessibility. This relationship is depicted in the revised conceptual framework shown in Figure 5.

Recognize current Deconstruct, condition and reconstruct, disparities; transform; develop administrative collaborative culture guidance Equity and Access

Critique for equitable change; develop culture of inclusion through teacher leaders

Figure 5. Revised conceptual framework.

The original conceptual framework consisted of three pillars representative of the tenets of transformative leadership theory: deconstruction, reconstruction, transformation; critiquing for equitable change; and recognition of current conditions and disparities.

After the data analysis, I realized a revised framework was needed. I removed the pillars representing the tenets of transformative leadership in favor of a continuous circle. Each arrow in the circle leads to the themes that emerged from this research as well as the tenets of transformative leadership theory. As the organization moves through the stages of transformation it is necessary to review each of the themes that emerged through the data. This is an ongoing process at each stage of organizational transformation and it is through this cycle that equity and access can be established as the core of an organization.

106

I wanted to highlight the importance of the equal relationship between the tenets of transformative leadership and the themes that emerged during the course of this study.

The data analysis demonstrated that organizations need to have administrative guidance, resources, and a strong culture. As a result, they were added to the conceptual framework. The revised conceptual framework emphasizes the significance of ensuring that both the tenets and the themes are present and necessary in order to drive the organization toward equitable access for all.

Research Findings

Through an analysis of the gathered data, three key findings emerged that answer the research question.

Key Finding 1.

School leaders do not communicate effectively with stakeholders in order to understand the resources needed for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing students to access their comprehensive k-12 education commensurate with their hearing peers.

School-based leaders perceived there was adequate support for deaf and hard-of- hearing at their school. They believed their staff also felt supported and would echo this belief in relation to the deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Although many school-based leaders expressed feelings of unpreparedness with regard to their broad knowledge of special education as well as their specific knowledge of deaf education, they indicated that even if they did not know exactly what resources were needed, they knew how to acquire them as specific issues arose. In contrast, districtwide leaders tended to feel better prepared with regard to special education, as many of them had a background or training in the field. Nevertheless, even with knowledge of special education, none of the

107

districtwide leaders had a background specifically in deaf education. The districtwide leaders perceived there was an inability to adequately acquire and provide resources for deaf and hard-of-hearing students during both academic activities as well as nonacademic and extracurricular activities. They attributed this inability primarily to a lack of knowledge and structural issues within the organization, as roles were not clearly defined.

Additionally, they were not clear that the IEP process can be used to support students in nonacademic and extracurricular activities.

School leaders tended to believe their school performed well with regard to resources whereas non-school leaders did not. Non-school leaders discussed resources a total of 40 times during their interviews. School leaders generally discussed resources in a positive light, whereas non-school leaders tended to identify collaboration as a missing resource. Many of the non-school leaders reported receiving little to no professional development prior to working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students. The individuals who worked with deaf and hard-of-hearing students during nonacademic and extracurricular times reported they often did not know when one of these students was enrolled in their activity and were not prepared to support the student. Many of the non- school leaders reported that the only training they received came directly from the teachers of the deaf at their respective individual school.

Key Finding 2.

School leaders were unable to clearly articulate and implement special education policies.

The research revealed a lack of explicit policies and procedures regarding the deaf and hard-of-hearing population. Even when an administrative guidance existed, school

108

leaders were unaware of it. School leaders were unaware of the federal mandate that IEP teams are required to consider a student’s participation in nonacademic and extracurricular activities when writing an IEP.

School leaders expressed a desire to develop inclusive environments for all students as evident at the school and district level; however, only one district provided a working definition of what inclusion meant to them and how it was implemented at their schools. Even within that district, none of the leaders themselves were able to provide the definition set forth by the district when asked about it during the interviews. School leaders referred to inclusion as a setting (e.g., “in an inclusion class”) instead of as a set of practices to allow access for students with disabilities. There were varying uses of the term inclusion but only two concrete examples of what it looked like in schools. One school leader stated:

With our kids who are in a completely self-contained program, we try to make

sure that their homeroom class is with a general education teacher so that they can

have at least some part of their day in inclusion.

Another school leader pointed to classes such as P.E. and electives which was seen as an opportunity for students with disabilities to participate in an inclusive setting stating:

For some of our students making sure they are supported means they require a

self-contained setting. When they have opportunities, we do our best to make

sure they can participate. In P.E. for example, we have students who have a

personal assistant with them as a means of making sure they can participate. The

other kids don’t seem to mind it and everyone gets used to having extra adults

around rather quickly. This is, for those students at least, their opportunity for

109

inclusion. And it’s nice because then I can say that all of our students have

opportunities for inclusion so it really is a win-win situation.

School leaders lacked clarity with regard to what inclusion meant for their schools and how their schools provided inclusive environments for students. Furthermore, inclusion was rarely mentioned with regard to deaf and hard-of-hearing students and their involvement in nonacademic and extracurricular services.

Key Finding 3.

School leaders are unable to provide meaningful professional development to support their staff in developing inclusive school environments for Deaf and Hard-of-

Hearing students.

Consistent with the literature (Bakken et al., 2006), school leaders generally thought they lacked knowledge with regard to special education. Although some school leaders reported experience with special education, none of them had any direct training or background in working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This lack of knowledge made it difficult for school leaders to anticipate and understand the needs of the populations they served, support and develop necessary skills in their staff, and implement inclusive practices to help create a more equitable organization. Although districts supported professional development opportunities, they were unaware of what the areas of need were.

All of the districtwide school leaders also spoke about the lack of professional development options for district employees. The participants indicated that if a staff member were to independently seek out a professional development opportunity in an area of interest, the district would support it. Nevertheless, if the professional

110

development offered through the district did not meet the needs of a staff member, it was the responsibility of the staff member to seek out additional professional development options. Whether or not the professional development would replace district offerings or was considered in addition to district offerings was largely at the discretion of the school principal.

Based upon the analysis of the data it became clear that the school-based teacher of the deaf was the resource upon which school leaders and non-school leaders depended the most. Both school leaders and non-school leaders reported depending on the teacher of the deaf for the majority of their training and information. The participants stated that the relationship between the teachers of the deaf and the school leaders was inverted with school leaders’ tending to lean on the teachers for support, development, and guidance, thereby leaving the teachers without support.

Both participant groups found themselves going to their respective teachers of the deaf when an area of need arose. The teachers of the deaf reported feeling as though they were tasked with solving problems and finding solutions to issues that arose simply because their school leaders relied on their expertise. They reported such occasions took away from the time they had to support their students in classrooms and led to a higher rate of pull-out services rather than push-in services. Although the school-based teachers of the deaf were largely viewed as the experts, they themselves reported feeling isolated and lacking in resources

School leaders are largely unaware of the various resources and supports a deaf and hard- of-hearing person may need to have in order to access the same academic and nonacademic opportunities as their hearing peers. Due to their limited experience and

111

knowledge of the deaf and hard-of-hearing population, school leaders involved in this study were able to discuss only two resources: sign language interpreters and closed captioning. School leaders are largely unaware of the accommodation options available to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.

Although school leaders reported that resources were easily acquired as issues arose, non-school leaders perceived that there was not enough support from school leaders and that a lack of training made supporting deaf and hard-of-hearing students in extracurricular and nonacademic activities challenging. Furthermore, the school-based teachers of the deaf reported feeling overwhelmed, noting that the lack of knowledge and support from others in their district was negatively impacting their ability to support students in inclusive environments.

Summary of Findings

The previous section presented discussion of the findings of this study, their relationship to the research question, and how they are situated within the context of the conceptual framework. Based upon the literature gaps noted in Chapter Two and the data collected as part of this research study, three key findings were discovered to help answer the research question: “What are the practices school leaders implement and employ, if any, to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?” The first key finding identified a disparity between school leaders and non-school leaders across districts with regard to knowledge of available resources and how to access them to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students in extracurricular and nonacademic services

112

and activities. The second finding highlighted a lack of districtwide and schoolwide policies and procedures to address deaf and hard-of-hearing students and their participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services. The third key finding indicated a lack of professional development opportunities for school leaders and non- school leaders to help ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities commensurate with their hearing peers.

Limitations and Delimitations

Thorough data were collected, and participants were interviewed in the setting of their choosing in which they felt most comfortable. Most often the participants chose to have the interviews conducted at their school, with a few opting for telephone interviews.

Documents were analyzed in conjunction with the interviews. Despite this process, the study contained limitations and delimitations.

Limitations. One limitation of the study was the sample. Participants were selected based on the criterion of either being a school leader in a school with a school- based program for deaf and hard-of-hearing students or working with deaf and hard-of- hearing students during nonacademic and extracurricular services. This requirement limited the study and excluded the perspectives of school leaders who might have had deaf and hard-of-hearing students at their schools who did not require the support of a school-based program. The sample was limited in this way to ensure there would be a population of deaf and hard-of-hearing students at each school. I further limited this study to secondary schools, as middle and high schools offer a greater variety of nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Another limitation was

113

researcher bias. Because I was working in the field of deaf education it is possible that my own biases may have influenced this study. I used memos throughout the process in an attempt to mitigate any of my possible bias from influencing the study (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016). A large portion of the information I learned through this process was collected from the interviews. This information was self-reported and therefore may not be fully transparent. The participants did not include representatives from residential schools for the deaf or private schools. Student voices were also not included in this study.

Delimitations. A delimitation of this study is that all of the data were collected from within one geographical region. This region was impacted by the resources available as well as regional culture. The districts chosen each reflected a socioeconomic status above the national average. Furthermore, the percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree or higher was above the national average. Snowball sampling was utilized to gain more participants. As a result, important information may have been missed, as other qualified participants could have been overlooked. Lastly, the definition I chose to use for school leader could have impacted my data collection (NAESP, n.d.). Because the definition was broad it could have included participants that others might not classify as school leaders.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The findings of this research study indicated that school leaders serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students face unique challenges. The majority of participants had a limited background in special education and no background in deaf education prior to their work with deaf and hard-of-hearing students at their current school. It became clear

114

the research question, at a very basic level, could be addressed through the lens of special education and the knowledge of how that process should be used to provide access for students to non-academic and extracurricular activities. A working knowledge of IDEA and 504 regulations will provide school leaders with the legal underpinnings of why it is essential to provide the necessary accommodations to students throughout their school day and during school sponsored events. When school leaders have this understanding they can influence staff with regard to the inclusivity of the school and move the school to more fully embrace social justice and equity for all as a guiding principle.

I approached this study through the definition of school leader, “a principal, assistant principal, or other individual who is an employee or officer of an elementary or secondary school; and responsible for the daily instructional leadership and managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary building,” provided by the NAESP. In my attempt to understand the practices school leaders utilize in their schools to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to their comprehensive education, themes emerged that pointed to specific areas of weakness. The goal of the following implications for policy and practice are intended to address these weaknesses.

The research revealed that districts do not have explicit policies with regard to accessibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Even though IDEA states IEP teams must consider a student’s participation in nonacademic and extracurricular services, school leaders were unaware of this and were not using the IEP process to document the supports deaf and hard-of-hearing students needed to increase participation in their full educational program. This lack of understanding of the law could potentially lead to exclusionary practices and further isolate deaf and hard-of-hearing students from their

115

peers. School districts should look at the practices they embrace for their schools and develop a guidance document clearly defining and outlining how schools should implement best practices for the inclusion of all students. This manual should outline a timeframe for inclusive practices while building the capacity of each school through stages that include developing and practicing an equitable school climate, a comprehensive needs assessment and subsequent focus on professional development, ongoing cyclical observations of teachers and staff to ensure that school staff are reflecting on their practice, lesson design and instructional practices that clearly exhibit differentiation and accommodations to meet the needs of all students in the building, and school wide outreach to all stakeholders in order to assess the level of their practice from those they are designed to serve.

Although there is currently no national standard for the requirements leading to administrative licensure with regard to special education, there are nine guiding principles that lead to cultural proficiency for leaders (O’Brien et al., 2014). These principles are presented in Appendix A. None of the school leaders, however, mentioned these principles, or anything similar, during their interviews. One of the participants explicitly mentioned that the district did not provide competencies that school leaders were expected to meet and master, expressing a desire for more guidance in that regard.

These nine guiding principles could serve as the competency areas school leaders should aim to master to ensure culturally inclusive and equitable schools. School districts may want to consider developing district wide competencies for school leaders to specifically address the knowledge and background needed to support special populations within their schools. These competencies can include a more in depth working knowledge of special

116

education processes, IDEA regulations, and the implementation of supports and accommodations for academic, non-academic, and extracurricular activities.

School districts also need to ensure that their policies are clearly communicated to school leaders who can articulate them within their buildings. These policies should be founded on federal law and interpreted by each district to meet the needs of the organization. There should be clearly defined procedures for ensuring that school leaders and their staff are aware of the policies and the steps the district has put in place to implement them. If school leaders are aware of the policies and the procedures for implementing these policies, they can ensure that staff are supporting students in compliance with district expectations and, as an extension, federal regulations and requirements.

One of the major areas of weakness that arose from the research was a lack of awareness of the process for acquiring resources needed to support the deaf and hard-of- hearing population. Districts need to have clear procedures and explicitly assigned roles.

This information needs to be disseminated across the district, especially to school leaders at schools with school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. While this study looked at schools with school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, there may be students who are identified as deaf and hard-of-hearing in schools where these programs do not exist. It is equally important that school staff throughout the district know how to access resources and support these students.

School leaders and their staff also need meaningful professional development opportunities. School leaders need continued education and training on special education policies and procedures. This training should be tailored to the populations served at

117

their school. Professional development should occur prior to the implementation of a school-based program for students with disabilities to enhance the staff’s capacity for implementing inclusive practices and building community.

To develop the capacity for inclusive and equitable schools, districts must clearly define what inclusion means and what inclusive practices look like in their district.

These definitions need to come from the district level and should be clearly communicated to school leaders across the district who can create a vision of how these practices will be implemented and practiced in their buildings. This daily practice leads to a sense of community where all students are considered and all staff are knowledgeable of the school practices and can clearly articulate them to other stakeholders. There should be ongoing evaluation and revision of these definitions to ensure that they remain equitable and continue to be viable as the school begins to evolve in its transformative state to a more equitable and socially just organization.

Finally, school and district leaders need to continuously engage in a cycle of ongoing evaluation to ensure their practices and methods are continuing to move the organization toward equitable practices. Continued evaluation at each level of the organization is necessary. Transformative leadership is a means of ensuring that this evaluation occurs. The transformative leadership theory indicates that organizations need to do three things: deconstruct, reconstruct, and transform; critique for equitable change; and recognize the current conditions and disparities. The three themes that emerged from this research—administrative guidance, resources, and culture—are directly tied to successful transformative change.

118

Recommendations for Future Practice

The purpose of this research study was to understand the practices school leaders were utilizing to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students had access to all aspects of their comprehensive education. Understanding the practices currently in place and uncovering what is missing can contribute to the ongoing reassessment of practices that help create more equity-centered leaders. Gaining insight into the importance of equitable administrative guidance and practices, resources, and culture helps to shed light on what is required for transformative leadership to occur. Educators can use this information to expand and improve upon the recruitment and training of equitable school leaders and the development of more inclusive schools.

Better Preparation Programs

To better prepare their staff to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students in inclusive settings, school leaders should educate themselves on special education policies. School leaders self-reported feeling ill-prepared with regard to special education. School leadership programs should determine the efficacy of their programs and evaluate if the required coursework and training is enough to genuinely support school leaders with regard to special education. It is clear from the current research that the inconsistencies across leadership preparation programs leaves school leaders underprepared to support their staff and students. This lack of knowledge can lead to violations of IDEA.

States should also evaluate their licensing requirements to ensure future leaders have adequate knowledge of special education policies and procedures in order to lead their staff. For the districts in this study, the states only require one course in special

119

education law. These courses provide a brief overview of special education law and policies. One of the individual districts provided additional training for administrators to become a LEA. Despite this training, school-leaders still did not thoroughly understand the special education process or the considerations necessary for the development of an

IEP. As a result, deaf and hard-of-hearing student access to nonacademic and extracurricular activities were not considered during the writing of an IEP thus creating a violation of their right to equal access.

Development of Administrative Guidance

School districts must make a concerted effort to create and implement policies that provide clear guidance regarding how to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students in their schools. These policies need to provide clear guidance on the special education process and procedures for ensuring students with disabilities receive FAPE in their LRE.

Districts also need to work to define “inclusion” and provide school leaders with clear examples of what it should look like at their sites. It may also be beneficial to create policies to guide professional development to ensure school leaders are remaining up to date on the latest policies at both the state and district levels.

Professional Development

While one district offered additional training, this support was not ongoing. One of the limitations with this is that there were no opportunities for school leaders to remain up to date on the latest trends and policy changes with regard to special education. This ongoing training should be tailored to disability categories school leaders will be tasked with serving at their sites. For example, if a school leader is at a site with a program for students with intellectual disabilities utilizing an alternate curriculum, that leader should

120

receive ongoing training centered around that population. This will in turn help them develop and implement policies to support teachers and staff in developing more meaningful inclusive practices.

School leaders are tasked with developing staff who can support diverse student populations. This study found that school staff generally feel ill-prepared to support deaf and hard of hearing students on a daily basis. If school leaders receive ongoing education and training on special populations they will have a better understanding of what teachers and staff need in order to support students across settings.

The professional development for an inclusive school model to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students would focus on the following areas: communication, culture, and accommodations. School leaders need to work to build clear lines of communication with stakeholders in order to effectively identify and acquire the necessary resources.

These resources include technology, language services, and training for staff.

Recommendations for Future Research

The research goal was achieved through the use of interviews and document review. Further research is needed to develop a deeper understanding of equitable access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Based on my findings, the following are recommended.

This study should be replicated and expanded to include school leaders in a broader geographical area. Although the focus of a qualitative study is not generalizability, expanding outside the Mid-Atlantic region would lead to a deeper understanding of current practices (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005). Practices of school leaders and non-school leaders outside of the Mid-Atlantic region might be helpful in

121

determining which, if any, of their policies, resources, and inclusive practices have the most positive effect on students with disabilities having full access to their academic and nonacademic education.

The study should be replicated to include school leaders from schools serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students without school-based programs. This study included only schools with school-based programs to ensure a population of deaf and hard-of- hearing students at each school. This comparative study might yield results that could enhance school wide practices for deaf and hard of hearing students who do not have a cultural group aside from the hearing population during the school day.

The study should be replicated to include a larger number of school leaders with different educational backgrounds. The majority of the school leaders participating in this research had backgrounds in general education with an additional certification in administration and supervision. Of the participants who responded (n = 20), only three had a background in special education. It would be helpful to know whether or not the background and experience school leaders have with regard to special education will significantly impact their ability to access resources and provide accommodates throughout the academic and nonacademic aspects of the school day.

The study should be expanded to include student perspectives and experiences.

Although this study included the perspectives of school leaders and non-school leaders, student voices were not included. The student perspective would provide further insight into the equity and access currently available to deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This would provide helpful insights into how they perceive their education and what the deaf and hard of hearing students feel is most important to them for success.

122

Another study should be conducted to gain deeper understanding with regard to the co-occurrence of some of the categories discussed in this study. Although this study was able to illuminate many of the topics discussed by school leaders, the study did not examine the discussion topics in relation to each other. Further research needs to occur to understand the topics that school leaders are discussing in tandem with one another to guide their administrative guidance and decision-making process.

Further research is needed to address the development of deaf culture in conjunction with school culture. The literature shows that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals can belong to several cultural communities (Richardson, 2014). Further research is needed to help discern how school leaders are bridging these cultures together while still maintaining a cohesive school culture.

To enhance the findings, additional interview questions should be considered. In the current study there were two sets of interview questions: one for school leaders and one for non-school leaders. Additional questions were added during the course of the interview as needed. To gain a better understanding of the patterns and themes as they emerged, additional questions could be designed for inclusion in subsequent interviews.

Closing

Initially this study focused on school leaders and their role in developing inclusive schools through transformative leadership. I intended to focus on school leaders and how they were utilizing transformative leadership theory to develop their staff. While school leaders themselves were not directly utilizing transformative leadership, I discovered numerous teacher leaders who were. At each of the sites the site-based teacher of the deaf was the person filling this teacher leader role. These teachers were able to develop into

123

teacher leaders because school based leaders were not knowledgeable or prepared in the what is required to support students who are deaf and hard of hearing in an inclusive environment. This void created an opportunity for the teachers of the deaf to step into that role. All of the school leaders interviewed relied heavily on the site-based teacher of the deaf to provide information and insight into resources needed to support deaf and hard of hearing students, guide and direct additional teachers and support personnel within the school in strategies for participation, access, and inclusion, and to interact with central office personal in order to communicate what was needed and appropriate for supporting students who are deaf and hard of hearing. These practices allowed the teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing to become transformative teacher leaders; however, the way in which this role was cultivated varied among the research sites.

The role of the school leader in developing these teacher leaders varied from site to site. At some sites these teacher leaders evolved into that role out of necessity because the school based leaders were uninvolved in the day to day logistics of supporting deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These sites directly correlated to the sites where collaboration was discussed the least and there was less of an emphasis on collaborative planning and collective responsibility. At other sites these teacher leaders were more intentionally cultivated. While the school-based leaders had relaxed leadership styles, they intentionally encouraged the site-based teacher of the deaf to become a leader. In both scenarios the site-based teacher of the deaf reported feeling overwhelmed with the leadership role.

School based leaders need their own professional development on how to develop these teacher leaders. The inconsistency in how teacher leaders were developed led to

124

frustration and confusion with staff. Because of the overall lack of administrative guidance in place regarding inclusionary practices for students with disabilities and nonacademic and extracurricular activities, school based leaders should develop potential teacher leaders who are well versed in special education and inclusion.

This study focused on the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their comprehensive education commensurate with their hearing peers. All of the participants in this study worked with deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Interviews and document reviews were used to address the central question: “What are the practices, if any, school leaders implement and employ to ensure deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to all components of their comprehensive education commensurate with their hearing peers?” Three major themes emerged from the data: administrative guidance, resources, and culture. As a result of my findings, the conceptual framework was revised to better depict the process of transformative leadership in schools serving deaf and hard-of- hearing students.

One of the goals of conducting this research was to highlight the weaknesses in leadership preparation programs. School leaders are tasked with ensuring the success of all students, including those with disabilities; however, many feel undertrained and ill prepared to fully support special populations (Bakken et al., 2006). Components of this study help to illustrate the gaps in current leadership preparation programs and to highlight the struggles school leaders face with regard to supporting special populations at their school. Furthermore, this study highlighted current lack of administrative guidance and proposed recommendations.

125

Through this research, in answering the question “what are the practices, if any, that school leaders in schools serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?”, it became clear there were implications for schools as well as for school districts. In order to be more inclusive in their practices schools should:

• Develop clear guidelines for teachers and staff with regard to expectations for

inclusive practices that include all. These guidelines should include a clearly

defined school focus and a road map of how the focus will directly affect daily

school wide practices.

• Design a classroom observation/teacher evaluation form highlighting the non-

negotiable evidence all classrooms must have as part of an inclusive school

focus. These may include elements of lesson design, physical design of

classrooms, and visually engineered points of reference

• Schedule school wide meetings throughout the school year to revisit, redesign,

and refocus as a staff on the school wide practices for inclusive practices and

equity of access.

School districts should consider:

• Developing a guidance document of district wide expectations for supporting

inclusion. This guidance document should be developed with input from

stakeholders responsible for ensuring the practices are met. Additionally, the

guidance document should have a tiered system of implementation depending

126

upon steps individual schools take toward implementation.

• Requiring schools to develop action plans based on the guidance document

specific to their schools. This will allow school leaders to implement specific

practices that more fully support the mission of the school. School leaders should

be held accountable at the district level for the implementation of the action plan

with data to support where their specific school is on the continuum of inclusion

and equity.

The findings of this study contribute to the existing literature. Much of the current research has neglected deaf and hard-of-hearing populations and their inclusion in nonacademic and extracurricular services. This study has helped to fill these gaps in the research. Researchers must continue to evaluate the equity of schools with regard to access for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. It is my hope that this study is the beginning of more continued and comprehensive research on this topic.

127

References

Abells, D., Burbidge, J., & Minnes, P. (2008). Involvement of adolescents with

intellectual disabilities in social and recreational activities. Journal on

Developmental Disabilities, 14(2), 88-94.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).

Anderson, G. B., & Bowe, F. G. (1972). Racism within the deaf community. American

Annals of the Deaf, 117.

Applebaum, B. (2004). Social justice education, moral agency and the subject of

resistance. Educational Theory, 54(1), 59-73

Arlington County Government. (2017). Parent-Infant education program (PIE).

Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://health.arlingtonva.us/public-

health/health-clinics-services/parent-infant-education-program-pie

Aspedon, M. (1992). Principals’ attitudes toward special education: Results and

implications of a comprehensive study. A paper presented at the 70th Annual

Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Baltimore. MD.

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher

education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.

Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., Zittel, L., & Roth, K. (2010). Principles and methods of adapted

physical education and recreation (11th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Baker-Schenk, C., & Cokely, D. (1991). American Sign Language: A teacher’s resource

text on grammar and culture. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

128

Bakken, J., O’Brian, M., & Shelden, D. L. (2006). Changing roles of special education

administrators: Impact on multicultural learners. Educational Considerations,

34(1), 4-9.

Bakken, J. P., & Smith, B. A. (2011). A blueprint for developing culturally

proficient/responsive school administrators in special education. Learning

Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 33-46.

Banks, J. (1997). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. Banks & C. A.

M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 3-

31). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance

by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 207-218.

Benson, V., & Marano, M. A. (1995). Current estimates from the National Health

Interview Survey, 1993. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

10(190).

Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school finance:

Conceptual, methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Block, M. E. (2007). A teacher’s guide to including students with disabilities in general

physical education (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

129

Carter, E. W., Swedeen, B., Moss, C. K., & Pesko, M. J. (2010). “What are you doing

after school?” Promoting extracurricular involvement for transition-age youth

with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 275-283.

Castañeda R., & Peters, M. (2000). Ableism: Introduction. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld,

R. Castañeda, H. Hackman, M. Peters, & X.Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity

and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism,

ableism and classism (pp. 181-188). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chimedza, R. (1998). The cultural politics of integrating deaf students in regular schools

in Zimbabwe. Disability & Society, 493-502.

Cobb, C. (2015). Principals play many parts: A review of the research on school

principals as special education leaders 2001-2011. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 19(3), 213-234.

Coryell J., & Holcomb, T. K. (1997, October). The use of sign language and sign systems

in facilitating the language acquisition and communication of deaf students.

Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 28(4), 384-395.

Cosier, M. (2010). Exploring the relationship between inclusive education and

achievement: New perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse

University, Syracuse, NY.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2000, Fall). Research connection in special education.

Arlington, VA: Author.

Council for Exceptional Children (2003). What every special educator must know:

Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators. Arlington, VA: Author.

130

Covey, S. R. (1999). Living the 7 habits: Stories of courage and inspiration. New York,

NY: Simon & Schuster.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cusson, M. (2008). Current and emerging educational organization patterns for the

delivery of services to students with disabilities: Implications for the preparation

of school administrators. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

Davidson, D. N., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Administrators’ perceptions of special

education law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15, 43-48.

Davis, S. H. (2006). Influencing transformative learning for leaders. School

Administrator, 63(8).

Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with

disabilities: One state’s approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203-211.

Dieringer, S. T., & Judge, L. W. (2015). Inclusion in extracurricular sport: A how-to

guide for implementation strategies. Physical Educator, 72(1), 87-101.

DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The

critical role of school leaders. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on

Personnel Studies in Special Education.

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF). (1997-2018). Doing disability

justice. Retrieved from https://dredf.org

131

Dosamantes-Beaudry, I. (1997). Embodying a cultural identity. The Arts in

Psychotherapy, 24(2), 129-135.

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and

Framework for Action on special needs education. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

Ellington, R., & Yammarino, F. (2010). What is culture? Generating and applying

cultural knowledge. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Fitzpatrick, M., & Theoharis, R. (2014). The law and the IEP: Establishing and

maintaining high expectations for deaf students with disabilities. Odyssey: New

Directions in Deaf Education, 15, 80-84.

Flannery, K.B., Lombardi, A., & McGrath-Kato, M. (2013). The impact of professional

development on the quality of the transition components of IEPs. Career

Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. doi:

10.1177/2165143413489727.

Forster, I. (2015). Fair play for those who need it most: Athletic opportunities for high

school student athletes with disabilities. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal,

22(2), 693-726.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham,

MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

132

Garza, N., Cadwallader, T. W., & Wagner, M. (2002). Students’ participation in

extracurricular activities. In M. Wagner, T. W. Cadwallader, L. Newman, N.

Garza, & J. Blackorby (Eds.), The other 80% of their time: The experiences of

elementary and middle school students with disabilities in their non-school hours

(pp. 46-59). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle.

(MR29). Albany, NY: Albany State University of New York.

Goldstein, L. (2004). Highly qualified? Teaching students with disabilities to high

standards will depend on the skills of their teachers. Education Week, 23(17), 62-

67.

Gordon, S. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. Brigham Young

University Education and Law Journal, 189-224.

Grace, C. (1989, June). Increasing staff awareness and sensitivity toward the needs of

Black deaf children—A training manual. New York, NY: New York State

Education Department.

Greenfield, W. (1987). Instructional leadership:Allyn & Bacon.

Grogan, M. (Ed.). (2013). The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (3rd ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hardin, B. J., Blanchard, S. B., Kemmery, M. A., Appenzeller, M., & Parker, S. D.

(2014). Family-centered practices and American Sign Language (ASL):

Challenges and recommendations. Exceptional Children, 81(1), 107-123.

133

Hauser, P. C. (2000). An analysis of codeswitching: American Sign Language and cued

English. In M. Metzger (Ed.), Bilingualism and identity in deaf communities (pp.

43-78). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Helms J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. New

York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Hintermair, M. (2005). Ethics, deafness, and new medical technologies. The Journal of

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(2), 184-192.

Hirth, M., & Valesky, T. (1989). Principals’ knowledge of special education law.

National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journa, 6, (3),

130-141.

Holcomb, T. K. (1997). Development of deaf bicultural identity. American Annals of the

Deaf, 142, 89-93.

Holst, A. (1973, November). Educational climate: A prime responsibility of the school

administrator. The Clearing House, 48(3), 168-171.

Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, Centennial v. Minn. Dep’t of Edcu., 788 N.W. 2d 907, 2010

Minn. LEXIS 614 (Minn. October 7, 2010).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 (C) (2004).

Jambor, E. (2005). Self-esteem and coping strategies among deaf students. Journal of

Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 63-81.

Karchmer, M., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of

deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.),

Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Volume 1 (2nd ed., pp.

21-37). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

134

King, K. P., & Biro, S. C. (2000). A transformative learning perspective of continuing

sexual identity development in the workplace. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 112, 17-27.

Kleinert, H. L., Miracle, S., & Sheppard-Jones, K. (2007). Including students with

moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in school extracurricular and

community recreation activities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45,

46-55.

K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist. (United States District Court for the Central District of

California December 3, 2013).

Knudson, B. G. (2003). Superintendents of American residential schools for the deaf: A

profile. American Annals of the Deaf, 148(1), 49-55.

Kochkin, S. (2001, December). MarkeTrak VI: The VA and direct mail sales spark

growth in hearing aid market. The Hearing Review, 8(12), 16-24, 63-65.

Komesaroff, L. R., & McLean, M. A. (2006). Being there is not enough: Inclusion is both

deaf and hearing. Deafness and Education International, 8(2), 88-100.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture in search of deafhood. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Langley, A. (1993). A comparative study of university preparation programs in realtion

to job responsibilities of secondary principals in South Carolina public high

schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, South Carolina State University,

Orangeburg.

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework.

Exceptionality, 15(3), 177-187.

135

Losinski, M., Katsiyannis, A., & Yell, M. L. (2014). Athletics and students with

disabilities: What principals should know. NASSP Bulletin, 98(4), 310-323.

Lovitt, T. C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. (1999). What do pupils with disabilities have to

say about their experience in high school? Remedial and Special Education, 20,

67-76.

Lowe, K. B., & Galen, K. K. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385.

Luft, P. (2013). Multicultural and collaborative competencies for working with families.

In R.W. Flexer, R.M. Baer, P. Luft, & T.J. Simmons (Eds.). Transition planning

for secondary students with disabilities (4th ed., pp. 46-66). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education.

MacArthur, J. (2005). Tensions and conflicts: Experiences in parent and professional

worlds. In L. Ware (Ed.), Ideology and the politics of (in)exclusion. New York,

NY: Peter Lang.

Maiano, C. (2011). Prevalence and risk factors of overweight and obesity among children

and adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Obesity Reviews, 12(3), 189-197.

Marcellino Pena, Relator, v. Freeborn County, Minnesota, Respondent. Court of Appeals

of Minnesota. (July 29, 2013).

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

McAnally, P. L., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. P. (1997). Language learning practices with

deaf children. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.

136

McCarthy, M., & Cambron-McCabe, N. (1992). Public school law: Teachers’ and

students’ rights (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students

with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.

Meadow-Orlans, K. P., Mertens, D. M., & SassLehrer, M. A. (2003). Parents and their

deaf children: The early years. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Mary P. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 919 F. Supp. 1173, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3366

(N.D. Ill. March 20, 1996).

Meares v. Rim of the World Unified Sch. Dist., 269 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 2016 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 168451 (C.D. Cal. September 2, 2016).

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly,

46(3), 158-172.

Mills v. Board of Education, DC. 348 F.Supp. 866 (D. DC 1972)

Mitchell, R. E., Young, T. A., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. A. (2006). How many

people use ASL in the United States? Why estimates need updating. Sign

Language Studies, 6, 306-335.

137

Monteith, D. S. (1998). Special Education Administration Training for Rural Minority

School Leaders: A Funded Proposal.

Most, T., Wiesel, A., & Blitzer, T. (2007). Identity and attitudes towards cochlear implant

among deaf and hard of hearing adolescents. Deafness and Education

International, 9, 68-82.

Mr. and Mrs. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

21525 (D.Me. October 27, 2004).

Murphy, N., Carbone, P., & The Council on Children with Disabilities (2008). Promoting

the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical

activities. Pediatrics, 121, 1057–1061.

Murtadha-Watts, K., & Stoughton, E. (n.d.). Critical cultural knowledge in special

education: Reshaping the responsiveness of school leaders. Focus on Exceptional

Children, 37(2), 2-8.

National Association of Elementary Principals. (n.d.). Principal wins in ECA. Alexandria,

VA: Author. Retrieved from

naesp.org/sites/default/files/docs/Principal%20Wins%20in%20ECA.pdf

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities. (2004, January).

Deafness and hearing loss (Pub. No. FS3). Washington, DC: Author.

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (2010). Quick

statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/

health/statistics/Pages/quick.aspx

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D.C. (2008). Why has high-stakes testing so easily slipped in

contemporary American life? Education Digest, 74(4), 41-47.

138

Niskar, A. S., Kieszak, S. M., Holmes, A., Esteban, E., Rubin, C., & Brody, D. J. (1998).

Prevalence of hearing loss among children 6 to 19 years of age: The Third

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA, 279(14), 1071-1075.

Nonacademic services. 34 CFR 300.107(b) (1974).

Nonacademic settings. 34 CFR §§ 300.107, 117 (2006).

O’Brien, C., Kuntze, M., & Appanah, T. (2014, Summer). Culturally relevant leadership:

A deaf education cultural approach. American Annals of the Deaf, 296-301.

Olivia, G. A., & Lytle, L. R. (2014). Turning the tide: Making life better for deaf and

hard-of-hearing schoolchildren. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Olivia, P. (1993). Supervision for today’s schools. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Orsmond, G. I., Krauss, M. W., & Seltzer, M. M. (2004). Peer relationships and social

and recreational activities among adolescents and adults with autism. Journal of

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 245-256.

Padden, C., & Humphries, T. (1988). Deaf in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University.

PARC v. Commonwealth. 343 F. Supp. 279; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13874

Patterson, J., & Protheroe, N. (2001). School leader’s guide to special education:

Essentials for principals. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. A. (2012). The role of special education training in the

development of socially just leaders: Building an equity consciousness in

educational leadership programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2),

243-271.

139

Pence, A. R., & Dymond, S. K. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about the participation of

students with severe disabilities in school clubs. Research and Practice for

Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(1), 52-68.

Petcu, S. D., Ph.D., Yell, M. L., Ph.D., Cholewicki, J. M., M.R.C., B.C.B.A, & Plotner,

A. J., Ph.D. (2014). Issues of Policy and Law in Transition Services: Implications

for Special Education Leaders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 27(2),

66-75.

Phuntsog, N. (1999). The magic of culturally responsive pedagogy: In search of the

genie’s lamp in multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(3), 97-

111.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).

Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly,

1, 107-142.

Poole v. South Plainfield Bd. of Education, 490 F. Supp. 948, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

13213 (D.N.J. May 28, 1980).

Protz, B. M. (2005). Administrators' understanding of special education law. Journal of

Special Education Leadership, 18(2), 15-23.

Provost, J., Boscardin, M. L., & Wells, C. (2010). Perceptions of principal leadership

behaviors in Massachusetts in the era of school reform. Journal of School

Leadership, 20(5), 532-560.

Quantz, R.A., Rogers, J., & Dantley, M. (1991). Rethinking transformative leadership:

Toward democratic reform of schools. Journal of Education, 173(3), 96-118.

140

Ramirez, M., & Castañeda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and

education. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub L. 93112, 87 Stat.394 (1973).

Richardson, K. (2014). Deaf culture: Competencies and best practices. The Nurse

Practitioner, 39(5), 21-28.

Ries, P. W. (1994). Prevalence and characteristics of persons with hearing trouble: United

States, 1990-91. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat, 10(188).

Rimmer, J. (2005). Exercise and physical activity in persons aging with a physical

disability. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 16,

41-56.

Rimmer, J., & Rowland, J. L. (2008). Physical activity for youth with disabilities: A

critical need in an underserved population. Developmental Rehabilitation, 11(2),

141-148.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Sari H. (1993). Social and emotional development of deaf adolescents in Turkey

(Unpublished MA Thesis). University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K.

Sari H. (2003). The hearing impaired children (Unpublished Master Course Notes).

Selcuk University, The Institute of Social Sciences, Konya, Turkey.

Scanlan, M., & Lopez, F. (2012). ¡Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and

excellence for bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4),

583-625.

Scouten, E. L. (1984). Turning points in the education of deaf people. Danville, IL:

Interstate.

141

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership:

Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.

Seaver, L. (2014). Deaf is different: Educational impacts and cultural perspectives.

Boulder, CO: Hands & Voices. Retrieved from www.handsandvoices.org

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sergiovani, T.J. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance

in schools. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Janovich.

Shields, C. M. (2003). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of

silence. Educational Administrative Quarterly, XI(1), 111-134.

Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589.

Shields, C. M. (2013). Transformative leadership in education: Equitable change in an

uncertain and complex world. London, UK: Routledge.

Simeonsson, R. J., Carlson, D., Huntington, G. S., McMillen, J. S., & Brent, J. L. (2001).

Students with disabilities: A national survey of participation in school activities.

Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 49-63.

Sleeter, C., Torres, M, & Laughlin, P. (2004). Scaffolding conscientization through

inquiry in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1): 81-92.

Smith, W.J., & Andrews, R.L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a

difference. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

142

Soini, H., Kronqvist, E., & Huber, G. L. (2011). Epistemologies for qualitative research.

Tübingen, Germany: Center for Qualitative Psychology.

Spencer, P. E., & Koester, L. S. (2015). Nurturing language and learning development of

deaf and hard-of-hearing infants and toddlers. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Stanish, H. (2010, July 15). Physical activity—Intellectual and developmental

disabilities. Presentation at Obesity in Children with Developmental and/or

Physical Disabilities meeting sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Bethesda, MD.

Stinson, M. (2008). Inclusion and the development of deaf identity. In D. DeLuca, I. W.

Leigh, K. A. Lindgren, & D. J. Napoli (Eds.), Access: Multiple avenues for deaf

people (pp. 99-121). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Stinson, M. S., & Whitmire, K. A. (2000). Adolescents who are deaf or hard of hearing:

A communication perspective on educational placement. Topics in Language

Disorders, 20(2), 58-73.

Sumbera, M. J., Pazey, B. L., & Lashley, C. (2014). How building principals made sense

of free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13, 297-333.

Theoharis, G., & Causton, J. (2014). Leading inclusive reform for students with

disabilities: A school- and system-wide approach. Theory into Practice, 53(2), 82-

97.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007a) The condition of education 2007. Washington,

DC: Author.

143

U.S. Department of Education (2007b). Twenty-seventh annual report to Congress on the

implementation of IDEA. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (1996). 1995 annual report. OCR

Resolves Complaints of Illegal Discrimination. Washington, DC: Department of

Education Office for Civil Rights.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. (1992). Deaf

students education services policy guidance. Washington, DC: Department of

Education Office for Civil Rights.

U.S. Department of Justice (2014) Frequently asked questions on effective

communication for students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities in public

elementary and secondary schools. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education

Office for Civil Rights.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010, June). Students with disabilities: More

information and guidance could improve opportunities in physical education and

athletics. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO-10- 519). Washington, DC:

Author.

Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1992). Survey of the states: Special education knowledge

requirements for school administrators. Exceptional Children, 58, 399-406.

Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing special education administrators for

inclusion in diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the Council for

Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium.

Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education

Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33(1), 70-82.

144

Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principal's

overview. Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 381-385.

Walton, E., & Neal, N. (2012). What counts as inclusion? Africa Education Review, 9(1),

1-23.

Wehmeyer, M.L., Palmer, S.B., Lee, Y., Williams-Dihm, K., & Shogren, K.A. (2011). A

randomized trial evaluation of the effect of Whose Future Is It Anyway? On self-

determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 45-56.

Weiner, E. J. (2003). Secretary Paulo Freire and the democratization of power: Toward a

theory of transformative leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(1),

89-106.

Wheatley, M. (1997). Goodbye command and control. Leader to Leader, 5, 21-28.

Wigle, S. B., & Wilcox, D. J. (2002). Special education directors and their competencies

on CEC-identified skills. Education, 123, 276-288.

Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility.

Exceptional Children, 52, 411-415.

Woodward, J. C. (1972). Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf. Sign

Language Studies, 1, 1-7.

Wright, L. J. (1987, April). A study of deaf cultural identity through a comparison of

young deaf adults of hearing parents and young deaf adults of deaf parents. Paper

presented at the Student Research Colloquium, University of Pittsburgh School of

Education, Pittsburgh, PA.

Yell, M. L. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson.

145

Yell, M. L., Losinski, M. L., & Katsiyannis, A. (2014). Students with disabilities

participation in extracurricular athletics: School district obligations. Journal of

Special Education Leadership, 27(2), 86-96.

Zill, N. (1995). Adolescent time use, risky behaviors and outcome (Study commissioned

by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Washington DC: Public

Health Service.

146

Appendix A

Nine Guiding Principles of Leadership

These are the nine guiding principles of cultural proficiency for leaders as defined by

O’Brien (2014).

Table A1

The Nine Guiding Principles of Leadership for Cultural Proficiency

Guiding principle Significance for school leaders

Culture is always present. Leaders must find a way to merge the

culture of their deaf and hard-of-hearing

students with that of the general school

culture in an inclusive way.

People are served by the dominant culture. The dominant culture uses spoken

English, and deaf and hard-of-hearing

learners often do not have access to it.

People have both group and personal School leaders must recognize both

identities. identities.

There is diversity within cultures. Leaders will need to familiarize

themselves with the variances within Deaf

culture.

Each group has unique cultural needs. Leaders must adapt the way educational

services are provided so that all groups

have access to the same benefits that are

available to the dominant group.

147

Family is the primary source of support in Ninety-seven percent of all children born

the education of children. with hearing loss are born to hearing

parents, which makes home support

challenging.

Individuals who are not members of the Leaders need to recognize the challenge

dominant culture must be bicultural. deaf and hard-of-hearing students face

when charged with this task.

During cross-cultural interactions, leaders Leaders must be aware of the culturally

need to be cognizant of different social appropriate interactions in a given

and communication dynamics and situation.

respond to them appropriately.

Culture is pervasive, nuanced, and part of Because there is often not a shared

the life of a school and the individuals. language between the cultures, it can be

difficult for deaf and hard-of-hearing

students to truly become a part of their

school culture.

148

Appendix B

Introduction Letter

This is the introduction letter that was provided to potential participants to introduce the study. This was provided prior to their decision to participate in the study to provide them with general background information about myself and the purpose of the study. It also provided my contact information should the potential participants have any questions prior to deciding if they wanted to participate in the study.

Dear ______,

My name is Erica Jones and I am an EdD candidate at The George Washington

University. I am conducting a qualitative study for my dissertation to understand the strategies and practices school leaders implement and employ to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities.

I am seeking participants for my study. Eligible participants are school leaders at schools with school-based programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students and/or are school employees who work with deaf and hard-of-hearing students during nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Below is my contact information. Please feel free to share this contact information with anyone you believe meets the participation requirements. The study will consist of a review of documents provided by the participants as well as interviews. At any time before, during, or after the study begins, participants may withdraw their participation; any data collected will be destroyed and will not be included in the study.

149

Erica Jones

[email protected]

Phone: (703) 499-6233

Sincerely,

Erica Jones

150

Appendix C

Document Review Sheet

The document review sheet was utilized to take notes while reviewing documents during the data collection process. A separate document review sheet was used for each site.

Table A2

Document Review Sheet

Were DHOH students Context/setting of

discussed? discussions

Location

Facilities

Programs

Staffing

151

Appendix D

School Leaders Interview Protocol

This protocol was utilized for participants who met the definition of a school leader. The questions were grouped by category. Any additional probes were noted on this protocol during the interview and were transcribed.

Research Question: What are the practices, if any, that school leaders in schools serving deaf and hard-of-hearing students implement and employ to support their staff in developing transformative leadership skills to ensure a culture of inclusion that ensures deaf and hard-of-hearing students have access to nonacademic and extracurricular services commensurate with their hearing peers?

Basic Demographics:

● What is your current title and position?

● How long have you held this position?

● Tell me about your leadership style.

● How long has the deaf and hard-of-hearing program existed?

● Can you talk a little about your experience with special education?

● How have your experiences with special education in general prepared you for

working with deaf and hard-of-hearing students in your building?

● You have a large population of deaf and hard-of-hearing students here at your school.

Can you talk a little about the different settings they participate in?

How do school leaders interpret federal, state, district, and school-based policies to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the same access to opportunities as their hearing peers?

152

● Schools are becoming more and more inclusive. Can you talk a little about what

inclusion means to you and what that looks like here at this school?

● What are your thoughts on the level of participation students with disabilities have in

nonacademic and extracurricular services here at your school? Has this topic come

up in conversation at all? If so, how?

● How do you feel about the way current policies impact the way you serve the deaf

and hard-of-hearing population in your school?

● Can you talk about your role in these policies?

● Are you able to interpret district/state policies independently for your school?

What resources do school leaders provide for deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

● Can you speak about any essential resources that you specifically needed to support

deaf and hard-of-hearing students and the process of identifying and acquiring these

resources?

● I would like to hear a little bit more about what is currently being offered to deaf and

hard-of-hearing students here. Could you elaborate on that?

● Can you talk about the role, if any, student IEPs play with regard to services and

supports during nonacademic and extracurricular services?

● What is your planning process like for this population?

● Can you speak about what resources have already been provided to you and your

school to support this population?

● Have you had to seek out additional resources?

● What was the process you followed to acquire them?

● Is there anything you feel you need that you do not currently have?

153

How do school leaders collaborate to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

● Can you tell me a little bit about any collaboration that happens with regard to this

population?

● Who would you consider to be a part of the leadership team here?

● Tell me more about the leadership team.

● How was the team identified and/or assembled?

● How often does the team meet?

● How do you decide on your agenda?

● I would like to know about any support networks you have here. How supported do

you currently feel? Do you feel the staff here shares your feelings?

● Can you speak about how this network developed here? Was it rather organic and

natural or more conscious and direct?

● Can you speak about what kind of staff development you’ve already had or plan to

have to continue to grow your staff

Other

● What percentage of students with disabilities are participating in nonacademic and

extracurricular activities?

● In your opinion, how does this compare to the rate of participation by deaf and hard-

of-hearing students?

● To what do you attribute these differences?

● Can you talk about the deaf culture that exists in your building?

● Are there criteria you use to define deaf culture in your building?

154

● What advice would you give a new school leader at a school serving students who are

deaf or hard of hearing?

155

Appendix E

Non-school Leaders Interview Protocol

This interview protocol was utilized with participants who met the definition of a non- school leader. The questions were grouped into categories. Any additional probes were noted on this sheet during the interview and transcribed.

Basic Demographics:

● What is your current title and position?

● How long have you held this position?

● Can you talk about any professional development your school provided to help

prepare you to support deaf students?

● Where are you interacting with the deaf and hard-of-hearing students at this school?

How do school leaders interpret federal, state, district, and school-based policies to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have the same access to opportunities as their hearing peers?

● Schools are becoming more and more inclusive. Can you talk a little about what

inclusion means to you and what that looks like here at this school?

● Can you talk a little bit about how you’ve had to change the way you do things to

meet the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students in your activity?

156

o How so?

o Have you had support from other members of your school community?

● I’d like to know more about how different members of your school community

collaborate. Have you had conversations with other staff members, including

leadership, about how deaf and hard-of-hearing students should be supported or

included in your activity?

o If so, who?

o What was discussed?

o Were resources given to help you support?

What resources do school leaders provide for deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

● Tell me a little bit about the activity you’re involved in. What kinds of things did

you need to support deaf students?

● Can you talk about the process of getting these resources?

● What supports are currently provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

● Can you talk about the process you went through to identify these supports?

● Can you talk about how your planning has (or hasn’t) changed now that you work

with this population?

● Are there any specific resources that have been made available to you to implement

this program?

● Is there anything you still feel you need? Can you talk about the process you would

go through to get those resources?

How do school leaders collaborate to support deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

157

● I would like to know more about collaboration here. Who do you collaborate with

here about deaf and hard-of-hearing students?

● Do you feel supported by staff here with regard to including deaf and hard-of-hearing

students in your activity?

o How so?

o Why not?

Other

● How many deaf and hard-of-hearing students participate in your activity?

● Do students with other disabilities participate in your activity?

● What advice would you give a new colleague about supporting these students in their

activity?

158

Appendix F

Data Collection Summary Sheet

This summary sheet was utilized to categorize any supporting evidence found in the data.

Table A3

Data Collection Summary Sheet

Interviews Document Comments

Interpreting

Policies

Federal

State

District

School

Resources

Services

Collaboration

Participation Rates

Culture

159

Appendix G

Information Sheet for Potential Participants

This information sheet was provided to potential participants to garner interest in my study. It provided potential participants with participation requirements, information about the study, and my contact information

Dissertation study opportunity:

Conducted by: Erica Jones, EdD candidate at The George Washington University.

Purpose of the study: to examine the practices school leaders utilize for deaf and hard-of- hearing students to understand the access that deaf and hard-of-hearing students have to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities as compared with and to their hearing peers.

• Eligibility Requirements:

o School leader at a school with a program for deaf and hard-of-hearing

students and/or

o School employee who works with deaf and hard-of-hearing students during

nonacademic and extracurricular activities and services

• Interviews will be conducted with all participants.

• Documents provided by the participants will be reviewed.

• At any time before, during, or after the study begins, participants may withdraw

their participation, and any data collected will be destroyed and will not be

included in the study.

For further information please contact:

160

Erica Jones

[email protected]

Phone: (703) 499-6233

161

Appendix H

Informed Consent Form

This sheet was given to participants in order to provide informed consent.

The purpose of this research study is to examine the practices that school leaders utilize for deaf and hard-of-hearing students to understand the access deaf and hard-of-hearing students have to nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities as compared with and to their hearing peers.

All identifying information will be kept strictly confidential, and your name will be changed to maintain anonymity.

I, ______, understand that at any time before, during, or after the study begins, I can withdraw my participation and any data collected will be destroyed and will not be included in the study. I understand that my anonymity will be protected as a research participant.

______

Signature Date

162