Educational Leadership Portfolio
		ISLLC Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. Title: Moving towards a collaborative model of special education Key Questions:    1) How does moving toward a collaborative model for the delivery of special education services demonstrate the school's commitment to student learning as the fundamental purpose of the school, the belief that all students can learn, and preparing students to be contributing members of society?    2) How does the administration demonstrate knowledge of the principles of effective instruction and the change process for the school, students, and staff as it undergoes this major paradigm shift for the delivery of special education services?    The change is coming     Introduction   Close to the completion of the 2005-2006 school year, my principal called me into her office to discuss my annual review. At the end of that conversation, she shared with me that she was considering changing the way special education students were served. She explained to me her desire to once again lead the way in our system by instituting a collaborative model for our special needs population. This change would not include those students served in the self-contained intellectual disability class, or those served in the self-contained emotional-behavior disorder class. I voiced my opinion, which included a request that she meet with all special education teachers.   At the department meeting, P made her position clear about this change. The state's movement in special education is towards inclusion. She spoke to the research that supports inclusion. Students perform better on the CRCT because they are exposed to all of the curriculum, rather than limited scope and sequence. In addition, behavior improves because special education students don't want to be identified. Although these outcomes were appealing, I will say that I was not supportive of this idea. There were many students who would struggle in collaborative classes because they had been served in small resource classes for years. I was concerned about the performance of these students and questioned whether this was the right move. Other teachers were also concerned. Along with their concern for the students, they were concerned about co-teaching and the relationship with the regular education teacher, the logistics in terms of space and time, and the perceived loss of autonomy due to no longer having "their own students" in their own classroom. We left the meeting with a feeling of uneasiness about what this new approach would hold for us.  The Process   Before the end of the year, P developed an implementation plan that explained our roles and her expectations. Specifically, special education teachers:   would attend content area planning for the appropriate grade level   were part of the team and would attend team meetings, grade level meetings, and parent conferences.   would provide instructional support during homeroom time   would develop modified lesson plans that documented classroom modifications to the administration   would attend monthly department meetings for their content area, as well as monthly special education department meetings   would continue to provide morning supervision in the bus room from 7:45 to 8:00 one designated day of the week.   The department chair (DC) requested that each special education teacher send her a list of concerns about the move to a collaborative model, along with any suggestions.   It was clear that our role was expanding. We no longer had the 30 minute home room period to prepare for class. We still had to provide morning supervision, as well as provide morning instructional support. We were concerned about the additional requirements that were being added to our work load that already included writing IEPs and conducting IEP meetings. I addressed these concerns to the department chair, as did the other teachers. Much to my dismay, DC simply forwarded these concerns to the principal.   In the end, our concerns were addressed by the principal. She was willing to modify some requirements and we were no longer required to provide morning instructional support. This was a major point of contention for us because we have little time to spend in our rooms once the day began. Even though we had planning time, most of that time was scheduled in advance with various meetings. Unlike the regular education teacher who could enter grades while students were writing a paper or taking a test, we did not have access to a computer in that classroom. The logistical issues surrounding this change seemed very negative to us. But we were forging ahead. Outcome 1) I believe that the administrator did demonstrate the school's commitment to student learning as the fundamental purpose of the school, the belief that all students can learn, and preparing students to be contributing members of society. This is evidenced by the fact that P proceeded on a course of action based upon what was best for the special education students. She addressed the teacher's concerns, but did not allow that to deter her mission. Her belief in this model of instruction and its impact on students is what motivated her to pursue its implementation. She was aware that no other school in the county had attempted this mission, and that all eyes would be on us. We found that behavior referrals for this group decreased by more than 20%. Furthermore, these students were excited about being in the "regular class" and attendance increased for this group. They worked harder because they did not want to be pulled for remediation. In its first year of implementation the 8th grade students had a very difficult time adjusting to the more rigorous demands of the curriculum. This was handled by modifying tests and grades. The current 8th graders are better prepared because they were in collaborative classes last year. They have a stronger work ethic and are more independent than the previous year's 8th graders. The upcoming 8th grade class for 2008-2009 will have participated in the collaborative classroom for its entire middle school years. 2) In implementing her plan, P demonstrated the importance of including the special education teachers as a part of the academic team. By so doing, it was her intention to change the perception of the special education teachers (SET) by the regular education teachers (RET). Rather than seeing SET as an imposition, it was her goal for the RET to view them as a resource. The SET were not to be referred to by that name when introduced to the students at the beginning of the year. They were simply called co-teachers. The expectation was for the group's collaboration to benefit all students. Unfortunately, it is not that easy to change attitudes. The one area where there was positive change was in the attitudes of the regular education students (RES) towards the special education students (SES). In previous years, SES had been teased when they had to go to resource classes. With the move to the new model, SES was not as easily identified. They were included in group activities and treated in a more equitable fashion by the RES. Evaluation of standard   Knowledge : Achieved 8/11 (a,b,c,d,e,f,g,i) Proficient   Dispositions : Achieved 7/8 (a,b,c,d,f,g,h) Proficient   Performance: Achieved 16/20 ( a,b,f,g,h,i,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,u) Developing   Overall, the administrator performed at the Proficient level for question #1. The process was initiated with the use of evidence from best practices. A clear plan for implementation was presented to the SET, and expectations were articulated. The area that was not adequately addressed is question #2. The administrator performed at the Developing level. Although she made her intentions clear, the only group involved in the development of the process was the SET. My recommendations would be the following:   meet with the collaborative teams to discuss implementation and expectations   provide co-teaching training to the teams   hold monthly meetings with the collaborative teams to discuss any issues   members may have regarding sharing of resources, responsibilities, etc   meet during post-planning to discuss outcomes related to the change