Special Issue on Leadership for Individuals with Special Needs – Study Notes
This document is a special issue of the Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (JELPS), Spring 2018, specifically focused on Leadership for Individuals with Special Needs. Its aim is to provide comprehensive insights into the challenges and opportunities for fostering inclusion and supporting individuals with disabilities across various educational contexts.
ISSN: 2473-2826. Guest Editor: Dr. Norris Haynes; Founding Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Olcay Yavuz.
The issue comprises a rich collection of scholarly work, including editorials, commentaries, case studies providing real-world examples, theory-to-practice pieces bridging academic research with practical application, legal/applicability discussions clarifying policy implications, and implications for school leadership and policy offering actionable recommendations.
Preface (Arthur C. Evans, American Psychological Association)
The special issue prominently highlights the social and emotional imperative for inclusion of all students with special needs in educational settings, emphasizing that inclusion extends beyond physical presence to true psychological and social belonging.
There remains a sizable population of students receiving IDEA-related services: from 2014–15, of total public school enrollment received IDEA services; among these, were identified as having intellectual disabilities (ID), signifying a substantial demographic requiring focused attention.
Despite significant policy and legislative gains over decades, many individuals with disabilities continue to experience social exclusion and disparagement, leading to poorer life outcomes. Therefore, leaders must move beyond mere compliance or superficial inclusion to actively assess and improve foundational attitudes, specialized training for staff, inclusive settings, and equitable workplaces.
Concepts from psychology (e.g., learning theories, social cognition), business (e.g., continuous improvement, systems thinking), and law (e.g., civil rights, compliance) are central to effectively addressing these multifaceted issues. Leaders are urged to model and reward positive attitudes toward inclusion, apply learning, motivation, and assessment principles to foster well-being, and support ongoing interventions to achieve effective, sustained outcomes.
Topics covered span crucial areas such as prevention strategies, fostering a positive social climate within schools, and addressing troubling behaviors through evidence-based scholarship and informed policy development.
Evans underscores the profound responsibility of leaders to actively engage with these persistent challenges in both educational and employment contexts, viewing it as a moral and practical necessity.
Editorial: Servicing Students with Special Needs: A Social and Emotional Imperative (Haynes & Yavuz)
True inclusion requires interdisciplinary attention to social justice (ensuring equity and fairness), contextual culture (the shared values and norms of an organization), sound policy (guiding principles and actions), and rigorous assessment (measuring impact and progress). Inclusion is presented as a systemic, ecological process that encompasses physical accessibility, social participation, and emotional well-being across all levels of the educational system.
Legal/legislative imperatives fundamentally underpin inclusion, driven by both civil rights advancements and federal funding considerations. Specifically, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and IDEA Part B collectively guide accessible education, mandate reasonable accommodations, and provide funding for special education and related services.
The four related inclusion mechanisms are crucial for effective implementation:
Policy: Must be value-driven, clearly articulating the commitment to full inclusion and guiding all subsequent actions and resource allocation.
Contextual Culture: Refers to the organizational culture that actively supports inclusion, where symbols, language, and messages consistently reinforce inclusive values and practices.
Operational Climate: Encompasses the daily practices, attitudes, and interpersonal relationships that shape the immediate learning environment and impact students' sense of belonging.
Assessment: Involves both formative (ongoing) and summative (periodic) data collection to demonstrate inclusion’s tangible social and emotional benefits and identify areas for improvement.
Social justice and humanistic appeals strongly advocate for inclusive practices across all four mechanisms (policy, culture, climate, and assessment) as a moral imperative to realize equitable education and maximize the potential of every student.
The piece emphatically stresses that inclusion is a systemic, ecological process rather than a singular event, and highlights the importance of reducing negative attitudes toward individuals with disabilities through deliberate, ongoing change efforts and professional development.
I. Commentary: Developmental Pathways: A School Leadership Framework for Addressing the Needs of All Students (James P. Comer)
Comer draws extensively on the success of the Yale School Development Program (SDP) to propose a developmentally centered framework for leadership. The SDP emphasizes fostering the holistic development of children and adolescents, rather than solely focusing on academic metrics.
Developmental Pathways are described as six integral domains critical for both academic learning and successful life functioning:
(e.g., health, nutrition, motor skills)
(e.g., peer relationships, communication, collaboration)
(e.g., self-regulation, empathy, mental well-being, resilience)
(e.g., understanding right/wrong, fairness, personal responsibility)
(e.g., language acquisition, literacy, effective expression)
(e.g., problem-solving, critical thinking, planning, attention)
The SDP framework contains nine essential elements (or structures) that, when effectively implemented, create processes leading to a school culture genuinely supporting student development:
Three Guidelines that shape interaction and decision-making:
No fault problem solving: Focus on solutions rather than blame.
Consensus decision making: Decisions are made through broad agreement, fostering buy-in.
Collaboration: Encouraging shared responsibility and teamwork among all stakeholders.
Three Mechanisms/Teams that drive implementation:
School Planning and Management Team (SPMT): Comprising administrators, teachers, parents, and community members, this team coordinates all school activities and integrates services.
Parents' Group: Actively engages parents in school governance, planning, and supporting their children's development.
Staff Support Teams: Provide professional development and support for teachers to address student academic and social needs.
The SPMT plays a pivotal role, coordinating a comprehensive social and academic program, facilitating ongoing staff development, and utilizing data-driven assessment for continuous program modification and improvement.
The SDP approach significantly emphasizes co-construction, meaning school plans and programs are developed collaboratively with school leaders, parents, and staff, ensuring ownership and sustainability of developmentally informed, comprehensive school plans.
Evidence of success includes the transformation of two New Haven elementary schools, which moved from being among the lowest-performing to among the top four in academic achievement and social functioning within a decade. The MOSAIC (MOSAIC stands for Mastering Our Skills and Inspiring Character, though detailed later, Comer’s work is foundational to such programs) dissemination across 1000+ schools has shown approximately achieving good-to-remarkable success, demonstrating replicability.
Implications for leadership are profound: leadership preparation programs should be explicitly developmentally centered, equipping leaders with the knowledge of child development. Leaders must actively create whole-school cultures with a shared vision committed to serving every student holistically. They need both developmentally informed transformational (inspiring vision, fostering change) and transactional (managing daily operations, setting clear expectations) skills. Moreover, current leadership standards now explicitly require developmentally informed competencies within leadership curricula, bridging theory and practice.
Key takeaway: Development-centered leadership is identified as a crucial, often missing element in achieving truly sustainable school reform. Leaders must prioritize the robust implementation of developmental pathways within a collaboratively developed, shared vision for the entire school community.
II. Leading a Multi-Tiered Approach to Bringing Social-Emotional and Character Development to Regular and Special Education Students (Maurice J. Elias; Sarah L. DeMarchena; Francine Luce; Ezra Nolan Middle School case)
This section details a multi-tiered Social-Emotional and Character Development (SECD) approach utilizing the MOSAIC (Mastering Our Skills and Inspiring Character) program. This framework includes:
Tier 1 (Universal): Interventions for all students, focusing on foundational SECD skills.
Tier 2 (Targeted): More intensive supports for students with emerging needs.
Tier 3 (Intensive): Highly individualized interventions for students with significant challenges.
MOSAIC aims to promote student voice, engagement, and SECD skills. It incorporates monthly themes tied to specific virtues (e.g., respect, responsibility) and practical social-emotional skills. Activities are diverse, including debates, community service projects, problem-based learning scenarios, and teacher-led discussions. A key feature is the Student Ambassadors System (STAT), which empowers students to facilitate classroom leadership and peer mentoring.
MOSAIC focus areas are key elements for Tier 1, especially critical in high-poverty urban contexts where students may face additional stressors:
(a) Positive relationships: Fostering healthy interactions among students and with staff.
(b) Emotion awareness and regulation: Teaching students to identify and manage their feelings constructively.
(c) Problem solving and conflict resolution: Equipping students with strategies to address challenges peacefully.
(d) Communication: Enhancing verbal and non-verbal expression for effective interaction.
(e) Positive purpose: Helping students identify their strengths and contribute meaningfully.
(f) Leadership opportunities within school/community: Providing avenues for students to take initiative and lead.
(g) Youth voice and empowerment: Encouraging students to express their perspectives and participate in decision-making.
Resulting case study: Ezra L. Nolan Middle School #40 in Northern New Jersey adopted MOSAIC. The school's demographics included 262 students (48% male, 52% female); 54% African American, 29% Hispanic/Latino, 7% Asian, 6% White. Academically, 70% were in general education and 30% in special education, with 48% of special education students in self-contained classes and 52% in inclusion settings. A significant 83% were economically disadvantaged, highlighting the need for comprehensive support.
Leadership and implementation: The program was spearheaded by the MOSAIC leader (the Principal), supported by a MOSAIC point person (a dedicated teacher) and an Ambassador point person. The Rutgers SECD Lab provided crucial ongoing consultation, training, and liaison support, helping the school sustain momentum despite inevitable changes in personnel.
Tiered implementation details:
Tier 1: MOSAIC was implemented universally for all students in the building.
Tier 2: Involved counseling groups led by guidance counselors and crisis intervention teachers, comprising both general and special education students to foster peer support and address common challenges.
Tier 3: Explicitly included four self-contained classes participating in MOSAIC. Initial integration challenges were proactively addressed by surveying students and adjusting placement strategies to ensure meaningful participation and belonging.
Data and feedback mechanisms were robust:
A curriculum feedback process involved monthly input from teachers and students, compiled by the Rutgers SECD Lab, with reports detailing responses and subsequent actions.
Assessments of SECD skills were conducted using tools like the DESSA-mini (Devereux Student Strengths Assessment-mini), alongside school climate surveys gauging student perceptions.
Fall 2015 vs. Fall 2016 data demonstrated measurable improvements in both teacher- and student-reported SECD measures, confirming the program's positive impact on social-emotional competence and school environment.
Tier alignment critique: The study emphasized that universal Tier 1 interventions should be explicitly aligned with Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions to ensure consistency in language, skills taught, and overall goals across all support levels. Outcomes were significantly improved when alignment was strong and all staff consistently prompted the same skills across tiers.
Practical outcomes observed at MS #40 were compelling:
Suspension rates significantly declined: from (2014–15) to (2015–16) to a notable (2016–17), indicating a more positive and disciplined school environment.
Language Arts and Math PARCC scores improved for 6th/7th graders. For instance, in Language Arts, of 6th graders scored Level 3 in Spring 2016, which increased to scoring Level 3 by Spring 2017 in some cohorts of general education students. Critically, 4/5 levels increased by from 2016 to 2017 in some cohorts, showcasing incremental but important academic gains. For 7th graders with disabilities, Math scores showed improvement from scoring Level 3 in Spring 2016, rising to in Spring 2017, indicating particular success for this vulnerable group.
The school gained recognition through an 8th-grade Ambassadors mentoring program and received a Promising Practices Award from Character.org, highlighting the program's visibility and positive impact on school culture.
Broader significance: The MOSAIC program at Ezra L. Nolan Middle School #40 convincingly demonstrates how SECD can be successfully embedded across multiple tiers to improve overall school climate, actively promote social inclusion for all students including those with special needs, and yield measurable academic improvements, providing a scalable model for other urban schools.
III. Access versus Success: Services for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education (Kari Sassu)
The post-secondary landscape for students with disabilities differs significantly from K–12. The comprehensive protections of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), including the right to Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and extensive procedural safeguards, do not apply to postsecondary institutions. Instead, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) govern postsecondary access and accommodations, focusing on nondiscrimination rather than guaranteed educational benefit.
Key federal laws and their distinct applications:
IDEA (for grades 3–21 in K–12): Provides FAPE (individually designed education reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit), mandates identification and evaluation, requires Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), ensures comprehensive related services (e.g., therapy, counseling), establishes specific eligibility criteria for services, outlines procedural safeguards for parents and students, and mandates regular reevaluation cycles.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (and ADA): These civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on disability in programs receiving federal funds (Section 504) and broadly in public accommodations (ADA). They require nondiscriminatory access to educational programs and services and the provision of reasonable accommodations to ensure equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal results or guaranteed educational success.
Definitions relevant to postsecondary settings:
An individual with a disability is defined as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; or has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment.
Postsecondary implications are critical for students and leaders:
There is no automatic right to FAPE in postsecondary education; students must proactively self-identify their disability and advocate for necessary supports through the institution's disability services office.
Postsecondary institutions are obligated to provide reasonable accommodations or academic adjustments to ensure nondiscrimination. However, these are not guaranteed to guarantee educational benefit or success, only equal access to a program's opportunities.
Reasonable accommodations (Definition under Section 504/ADA):
Examples include extended time on tests or assignments, reduced course load, substitution of specific courses (if not fundamental to the degree), alternative formats for materials (e.g., Braille, audio), auxiliary aids (e.g., sign language interpreters, captioning), or assistive technology. The emphasis is on equal access, not fundamentally altering the curriculum or lowering academic standards.
Accommodations must ensure nondiscrimination but cannot impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the institution or fundamentally alter the essential nature of a program. If an accommodation would cause undue burden, the institution must explore and provide feasible alternative accommodations that are equally effective.
Documentation and access requirements:
While institutions are not required to provide medical diagnoses, most postsecondary institutions require current and comprehensive documentation of the disability and the functional limitations that necessitate accommodations. This documentation must come from a qualified professional.
Documentation standards vary significantly by institution, but they must always align with the principles and requirements of Section 504 and the ADA, focusing on the current impact of the disability.
Complicating factors that can impede access to services for students with disabilities:
Recency of disability documentation: Outdated documentation may not be accepted, requiring new, often costly, evaluations.
Higher cost of evaluations for graduate students: These can be specialty-specific and financially prohibitive.
Self-identification and stigma barriers: Students may be reluctant to disclose their disability due to past negative experiences or fear of stigma.
Not all students are easily identified in public secondary settings: Some disabilities may go undiagnosed until postsecondary education, or students may not have received formal IDEA services.
Transition challenges from high school to postsecondary environments: The shift from a system that identifies and provides services (K-12 IDEA) to one that requires self-advocacy (postsecondary Section 504/ADA) can be overwhelming for students.
Conclusion: Merely providing access alone is not sufficient; leaders in postsecondary education must proactively ensure that students with disabilities can actualize their full intellectual and professional potential through adequately resourced supports, robust advocacy efforts within the institution, and policies that genuinely foster inclusion and success in postsecondary settings, extending beyond basic compliance.
IV. Learning Dysfunction, Disability and Diversity as the New Normal in Education Reform (Camella Rhone)
This paper strongly advocates for applying continuous improvement and sustainability models (e.g., from business, engineering) to education reform. This is crucial to effectively address the rising diversity and increasing prevalence of disability in contemporary learning environments, which are becoming the