Free A Comparison Of Special Education Attitudes Of Trained And Untrained School Leaders Dissertation Results Sample

Discussion of the Results

The primary purpose of the study was to compare the attitudes of the trained and the untrained administrators regarding the inclusion of education initiatives. The study involved a thorough examination of the school’s administrators’ experiences, professional and formal training. The study was conducted via electronic distribution of the “Principal’s Inclusion Survey” developed by Cindy Prisoner and G.H. Stainback, to 4,250 school administrators in the Southwestern Region of the United States. In this paper, we shall compare and analyze the attitudes of the trained teachers as obtained from the results of the study.
The first observation in the comparisons is that the absence of a significant difference in attitudes of the trained and untrained administrators concerning the inclusive educational activities. The lack of significant differences is shocking especially with the present views that it existed. The data obtained however proved otherwise to the popular opinion. It, therefore, seems that the administrators share a similar view of the inclusive educational activities. Nonetheless, a significant difference emerged in the specified training; administrators with specified training and those without had a significant difference in their attitudes regarding the inclusive education initiatives. The difference suggests that the administrators with specialized training have a greater knowledge base and ability to deal with the academic needs of the special education students and families.

Discussion of the Results in Relation to the Literature

It is paramount to realize that the data obtained from the study highlighted the lack of a substantial difference in the school administrators who are trained in special education as compared to the administrators who are untrained in special education. McLaughlin (2009) argues that the school administrators must understand that special education is in the lines of a set of services that are tailored to the needs of students than a program or practice in response to the aforementioned needs. The above realization will facilitate the administrator's position in better understanding and expanding on the key ideas behind effective education. The key ideas include progress, accountability, standards, assessment, and the outcomes.
The research also indicated that there is no significant impact of the training regarding the attitudinal decisions made within the special educational programs. The finding is in contradiction with the current literature that suggesting that trained administrators are more efficient than their untrained counterparts are. In addition, there is no significant impact made by the alternative leadership models that are currently used by school administrators lacking formal special knowledge.
When the study examined the current literature and updated research, it was determined that it is paramount that principals at all levels to possess a working knowledge of special education. The knowledge of special education is to facilitate the students to meet the expectations outlined and mandated by the legal reforms including the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004).
With the results obtained in mind, there is a need to provide the current untrained administrators with additional training. The additional training must be preceded by an assessment of the skills of administrators hired by districts if they meet the standards set by federal and state mandates. Furthermore, due regard must be accorded to the experience and training of the present administrators if they are to achieve the standards set. Consequently, recommended that further research be conducted into effect of training on first-year administrators before they assume their duties. Research is also essential to the knowledge level of other special education personnel such as special education directors and the weakness in the knowledge.