THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL …ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/05/07/15/00001/WANG_J.pdfThe fun...
191
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES By JUN WANG A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016
Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL …ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/05/07/15/00001/WANG_J.pdfThe fun...
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
By
JUN WANG
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2016
© 2016 Jun Wang
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
More than five years ago, I came to Gainesville, FL with a desire to
advance my knowledge and skills and better serve those students with
disabilities. At that time, I had no idea of the sacrifices this endeavor would
require from my small and big family, my friends, and my colleagues. I don’t
know how to express sufficient thanks to everyone who has helped ensure the
completion of my long journey.
First and the most important, I would like to express my sincere gratitude
to the HOLY TRINITY. Without their guidance, strength, and wisdom, it has been
impossible for me to survive and finish my journey. May Honor, Praise, and Glory
be unto them forever and ever!
For flying almost 9,000 miles to take care of the whole family and support
my study, I want to thank my mom, Mrs. Xinxiu He. I hope that I can be as
supportive of my own children as my mom, and especially during this doctoral
program. She overcame the discomfort on the long journey back and forth and
came to our place three times. Meanwhile, I would like to thank my mother-in-
law, Mrs. Xixiu Wang. She also overcame the discomfort on the journey back and
forth and language barrier and came to our place thrice.
For being willing to drive back and forth for about 26 hours every month
for 4 years, I would like to thank my husband, Dr. Shiming Liu. He had to adjust
his own work and life so that I could work on my PhD degree. I really appreciate
his numerous support throughout this program.
4
For being supportive and considerate, I want to thank my father-in-law, Mr.
Guixiang Liu, my brother (Liang Wang) and his wife (Fang Li), my brother-in-law
(Zemin Liu) and his wife (Liang Zhong). I am so fortunate to have their support
and encouragement throughout the whole program.
For trusting me, investing in me, guiding me, and challenging me from the
very first day when I started my program at the University of Florida, I would like
to thank my adviser, Dr. James McLeskey. It has not been easy to be the chair of
an international student like me. However, Dr. McLeskey has always been
patient with me, holding high expectations for me, knowing how to help me reach
my maximum, carefully guiding me throughout the program, kindly and promptly
providing feedback on my work, and assisting me in my job search. His caring
mentorship has made completing my program an enriching, productive, and
enjoyable experience.
For their guidance and support, I want to thank my co-chair and other
committee members, Dr. Nicholas Gage, Dr. Cynthia Griffin, Dr. Erica McCray,
and Dr. Corrine Manley. I am grateful to Dr. Nicholas Gage for sharing me with
the dataset, helping me think about my thinking, and for guiding me through my
analysis and results interpretation. I am indebted to Dr. Cynthia Griffin for
cultivating my research interest in mathematics and mentoring me in online
teaching. I am thankful to Dr. Erica McCray for mentoring me in work and
scholarship and for helping me in my job search. I am grateful to Dr. Corrine
Manley for believing in my methodological skills and for providing guidance and
feedback on my data analysis.
5
For the wonderful love, care, and support, I would like to thank my whole
CEEDAR family. I am grateful to Dr. Mary Brownell for mentoring me in scholarly
writing, for loving and nurturing me, and for being willing to be a reference for me
even she is extremely busy. I am indebted to Dr. Meg Kamman for mentoring me
in the work, for supporting me in my study and daily life, and for offering me
suggestions on how to deal with many issues. She is such a wonderful and
amazing supervisor. I am thankful to Dr. Amber Benedict for her love, guidance,
support, and encouragement. Escaping the snow storm from Washington, D.C.
will always be a cherished memory in my heart throughout the rest of my life. She
drove all the way from Washington, D.C. to Jacksonville, FL with only one short
stop. I am grateful to my young brother, Jonte Myers for his love, support,
encouragement, funny bullies and jokes, and collaboration. It has been such a
great relief when he is always there for helping me with the teenager issue. I am
thankful to Dr. Paul Sindelar for his modeling and mentoring in work. Finally, I
would like to thank all my other CEEDAR family members, Vicki Tucker, Cece
Ribuffo, Matthew Seitz, Alexandria Harvey, Shari Ostovar, Ahhyun Lee, Dr.
Nancy Corbett, and Lindsay Larson. The fun and memorable night with Vicki
Tucker, Alexandria Harvey, Shari Ostovar, and Ahhyun Lee will always be
treasured in my heart.
For being co-thinkers, co-sufferers, and co-celebrators through every step
of this process, I would like to thank my dear friends and colleagues Dr. Elizabeth
Bettini, Emily Luo, Dr. Zinan Zhao and his wife Luyun Su, Dr. Vivian Gonzalvez,
Dr. Kristi Cheyney, Dr. Shaunte Duggins, Dr. Yujeong Park, Byungkeon Kim,
6
Nari Choi, Cinda Clark, Yuxi Qiu, and Wei Xu. I want to especially thank Dr.
Elizabeth Bettini, who is always there to provide me support, love,
encouragement, and kindness. Whenever something happens, I know I can
always count on Liz. I also want to especially thank Emily Luo, Dr. Zinan Zhao,
and Luyun Su. They always came and provided babysitting service so I could
take my statistical courses at night and go to conferences. Their help and support
have been so precious to me since I was there with my three children. Finally, I
would like to thank Byungkeon Kim, his wife, and his precious little boy, Ethan.
BK’s wife always helped me take care of my two little ones and gave them an
unforgettable memory with her son.
For being generous with their time and expertise, I also want to thank
many faculty who were not on my committee, but took time to support my
learning, including Dr. Kristen Apraiz, Dr. Jean Crockett, Dr. Maureen Conroy,
Dr. Morgan Chitiyo, Dr. Penney Cox, Dr. Jeanne Repetto, Dr. Nancy Waldron,
Dr. Joseph Gagnon, and Dr. Alyson Adams. I would like to especially thank Dr.
Kristen Apraiz for welcoming me into her classroom, for mentoring me how to
teach undergraduate students, for trusting and encouraging me, and for providing
me opportunities to grow in field supervision and teaching.
Finally, for constantly reminding me what our field is all about, I would like
to thank my children, Hengying, Rebecca, and James. Although sometimes they
give me a lot of gray hair, but for most of the time, all of them have brought me
joy, encouragement, and new perspectives.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... 3
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ 10
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................. 12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. 14
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION………................................................................................... 17
Statement of the Problem................................................................................ 17 Rationale for the Study.................................................................................... 19 Significance of the Study and Research Questions…...................................... 21
2 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................23
Search Procedures.......................................................................................... 23 Teacher Professional Learning and Student Academic Achievement……......25 Teacher Certificate .................................................................................... 28 Teacher’s Education Degree..................................................................... 35 Years of Teaching...................................................................................... 38 Professional Development......................................................................... 46 Conclusions about Teacher Professional Learning and the Academic Achievement of Students with and without Disabilities........................ 50 Principal Leadership Practices and Student Academic Achievement.............. 53 Creating a Safe School Environment.......................................................... 56 Pushing for Academic Press................................................................. 58 Promoting Instructional Improvement........................................................ 60 Conclusions about the Relationship between Principal Leadership Practices and Student Achievement..................................................... 62
3 METHODS....................................................................................................... 64
SEELS Database............................................................................................. 64 Instrumentation................................................................................................ 64 Dependent Variables……………………………………………………………65 Passage comprehension…................................................................. 66 Letter-word identification...................................................................... 66 Student Reading Achievement at Previous Waves.................................... 67
8
Disability Categories…............................................................................... 67 Student Demographic Characteristics ....................................................... 68 School-related Characteristics................................................................... 68 Peer-related Characteristics...................................................................... 69 Instructional Settings for Language Arts/Reading...................................... 69 Teacher Professional Learning................................................................... 70 Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices…………………….72 Analytic Samples for Research Questions........................................................ 73 Analytic Approaches for Research Questions.................................................. 75 Weighting................................................................................................... 79 Sample Size............................................................................................... 79 Missing Data............................................................................................... 80 Assumptions............................................................................................... 81 4 RESULTS………………………………………………..……………….…………83
Characteristics of Included and Excluded Samples…….................................. 83 Characteristics of General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices.................................. 84 Race, Certificate, and Education Degree.................................................. 84 Years of Teaching as well as Teaching SWDs, and Hours of PD.............. 84 General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices….………………………………………………......85 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and the Reading Achievement of SWDs…………........................ 85 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Letter-word Identification Performance of SWDs…..... 86 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Passage Comprehension Performance of SWDs ........... 88 Summary................................................................................................... 89 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices and the Reading Achievement of SWDs…………………………………………........................ 90 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices and Letter-word Performance of SWDs …..………………………………………………. 90 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices and Passage Comprehension Performance of SWDs………………………………………………….... 91 Summary................................................................................................. 92
5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS...............................................................122
Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and the Reading Achievement of SWDs......................................123 Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of
9
Principal Leadership Practices and the Reading Achievement of SWDs…………………………………………………….......125 Limitations………………………………………………………………………..…126 Implications for Future Research…………………………………………………129 Conclusion..………………..….………………..…………………………..…….132
APPENDIX….…………………………………………………………………...……134
A A LIST OF VARIABLES FROM SEELS DATASET……………................... 134
B R CODE FOR ORGANIZING THE INITIAL DATASET............................... 138
C VARIABLES SELECTED FROM DIFFERENT WAVES.............................. 141
D EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 1: WAVE 1 AND WAVE 2).…….. 142
E EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 2: WAVE 2 AND WAVE 3).…....154
F EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 3: WAVE 1 AND WAVE 3).……...166
LIST OF REFERENCES....................................................................................178
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH…….........................................................................191
10
LIST OF TABLES Table page
4-1 Descriptive Statistics for Students across Different Samples................ 93
4-2 Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 1................................. 94
4-3 Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 1 (Sample 1)................................................................................ 95
4-4 Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 2…….......................... 97
4-5 Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 2 (Sample 2)…………………........................................................ 98
4-6 Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 3................................... 99
4-7 Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 1 (Sample 3)............................................................................... 100
4-8 Missing Numbers from the Included Variables..................................... 101
4-9 Assumptions Testing and Strategies to Address Violations................. 102
4-10 Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School -related Characteristics, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 1 to Wave 2................ 105
4-11 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Performance at Wave 2......................................................................... 106
4-12 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 3 ………………………..……….109
4-13 Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School -related Characteristics, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices
11
on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 1 to Wave 3................. 112
4-14 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Performance at Wave 3......................................................................... 113
4-15 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 3............................................... 115
4-16 Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School -related Characteristics, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 1 to Wave 3...................... 117
4-17 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Performance at Wave 3………………………………………….…….….. 118
4-18 Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 3......................................................................... 120 A-1 A List of Variables from SEELS Dataset...................................134
C-1 Variables Selected from Different Waves……..……..……………………141
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
3-1 Variables Included in Different Models.................................................. 82
D-1 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1……………………………………………....142
D-2 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1…….…..…………..……………………..….143
D-3 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2……………..…….….………………….…..144
D-4 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2……………………………..………………...145
D-5 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3…………….………………………………....146
D-6 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3…………..……....………..…….…………...147
D-7 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1……………..………………………………....148
D-8 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1…..……………..…..……………………..….149
D-9 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2…..……………….…….…..…………….…..150
D-10 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2……………………………..………………...151
D-11 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3………..………...…………………………....152
D-12 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3…….…..……….……..………….…………...153 E-1 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1…………………….………………………....154
E-2 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1……………………..……………………..….155
E-3 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2…………….…..…...........……………….…..156
E-4 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2…………………….………..………………...157
E-5 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3……..………………………………………....158
E-6 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3……………………………..…….…………...159
E-7 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1……….…..…………………………………....160
E-8 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1……………….……..……………………..….161
13
E-9 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2…..………………..…….…..…………….…..162
E-10 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2……….……………………..………………...163
E-11 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3……..…………...…………………………....164
E-12 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3…………………....…..………….…………...165 F-1 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1……….……………………………………....166
F-2 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1…..………………....……………………..….167
F-3 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2……….…………….….………………….…..168
F-4 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2………..…………..………..………………...169
F-5 Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3……………..………………………………....170
F-6 Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3……………………………..…….…………...171
F-7 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1………………..……………………………....172
F-8 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1…………….....……..……………………..….173
F-9 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2…….………………………..…………….…..174
F-10 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2…………....……….………..………………...175
F-11 Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3…………………..…………………………....176
F-12 Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3………………….……….……….…………...177
14
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EBD
ECLS-K
Emotional/Behavioral Disorders
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort
ELLs
ESSA
English Language Learners
Every Student Succeeds Act
FLEDW
HLM
IDEA
LD
LW
NAEP
NCES
NCLB
PC
Florida Education Data Warehouse
Hierarchical Linear Model
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Learning Disability
Letter-Word
National Assessment of Educational Progress
National Center for Educational Statistics
No Child Left Behind
Passage Comprehension
PD Professional Development
SD Standard Deviation
SWDs Students with Disabilities
TAAS Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
VAM
WWC
Value-Added Model
What Works Clearinghouse
15
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
By
Jun Wang
December 2016
Chair: James McLeskey Cochair: Nicholas A. Gage Major: Special Education
The number of students with disabilities (SWDs) being served in general
education classrooms for the majority of the school day is increasing. However,
many of these students have not attained desirable academic outcomes.
Research has indicated that teachers and principals are two key school-related
factors in promoting successful inclusion and improving academic outcomes for
SWDs. Although many research studies have investigated the effects of teachers
and principals on the academic achievement of students without disabilities, few
studies have attempted to examine the effects of teachers and principals on the
academic achievement of SWDs who were provided content instruction only in
general education classrooms. Using the Special Elementary Education
Longitudinal Study (SEELS) national dataset, the purpose of this study was to
validate and extend research by Feng and Sass (2013) by examining the
relationship between general education teacher professional learning and their
perceptions of principal leadership practices and the reading achievement of
16
SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms. Results indicate while controlling student-, peer-, family-,
and school-related factors, general education teachers’ professional learning and
their perceptions of principal leadership practices only explained a small and
non-significant amount of variance in the reading achievement of SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms. However, these students’ reading achievement significantly differed
based on different categories within some individual general education teachers’
professional learning variables and their perceptions of principal leadership
practices variables. After one-, two-, or three-years, while holding other variables
constant, the reading achievement of SWDs significantly differed based on their
general education teachers’ years of teaching, professional certificates,
education degree, as well as their perceptions whether principals created a safe
school environment. Limitations of this investigation and implications for future
research were also discussed.
17
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
How to improve the low achievement of students with disabilities (SWDs)
has become a national concern (Telfer & Howley, 2014). In order to increase the
academic achievement of SWDs and ensure social equity and civil rights, many
parents, educators, and policymakers have advocated for increasing the time
SWDs spend in general education classrooms (Cameron & Cook, 2013; Rea,
McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Mcduffie, 2007).
Many SWDs themselves would also like to be educated in general education
classrooms with support (Murawski, 2006; Shogren et al., 2015); have the same
access to books and materials; and receive the same homework and grading
criteria as their peers without disabilities (Klingner & Vaughn, 1999; Shogren et
al., 2015). Consequently, the increasing numbers of SWDs in general education
classrooms for much of their school day has become one of the most important
changes related to the education of SWDs (Billingsley, McLeskey, & Crockett,
2014). During 2011-2012, among more than 5 million (i.e., 5,670,442) students
from 6 to 21-year-old who were receiving special education services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, the National Center for
Educational Statistics [NCES], 2014), 61.1% of these SWDs spent more than
80% of their school day in general education classrooms (NCES, 2015).
Research has shown that effective inclusion can provide academic, social,
and/or behavioral benefits to students with and without disabilities (Cole,
Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002; Ryndak,
18
Jackson, & White, 2013). Inclusion further has a lasting impact on the decisions
of SWDs toward their postsecondary education. Using data from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2), Rojewski, Lee, and Gregg (2015)
indicated that even two years after their graduation from high school, students
with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities [LD], emotional/behavior
disorders [EBD]) who earned 80% or more of their academic credits in general
education classrooms were twice as likely to participate in postsecondary
education programs than those students with high-incidence disabilities who
earned less academic credits in general education classrooms.
However, many SWDs have not achieved desirable outcomes from being
educated in inclusive classrooms (Feng & Sass, 2013; National Assessment of
Educational Progress [NAEP], 2015; National Council on Disability, 2011;
Vaughn & Wanzek, 2014). From 2002 to 2011, the percentage of SWDs included
in general education classrooms for 80% or more of the school day increased
from 48.2% to 61.1% (NCES, 2015), while the achievement gap between SWDs
and their peers without disabilities did not substantially improve during this time
period. According to NAEP (2015), the reading and mathematics achievement
gap between fourth grade students with and without disabilities even widened
from 2002 to 2015, with a 3-point increase in mathematics scores and a 5-point
increase in reading scores. The reading and mathematics gap between eighth
grade students with and without disabilities remained the same (40 points
difference). The trend toward increasing the placement of SWDs in general
education classrooms and their continuing low achievement suggests that
19
inclusion is insufficient to close the achievement gap between students with and
without disabilities (Smith & Tyler, 2012; Dev & Haynes, 2015).
At school, teachers and principals are the two most important factors
influencing students’ academic achievement (Day, Gu, & Sammons, 2016; Dev &
Haynes, 2015; Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, &
Wahlstrom, 2004; Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005;
Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Similarly, teachers and principals are also
two of the important factors in promoting the success of SWDs in inclusive
classrooms (Billingsley et al., 2014; Dev & Haynes, 2015). However, few studies
have been conducted to examine the relationship between general education
teacher professional learning and principal leadership practices and the
academic achievement of SWDs served in general education classrooms
(Billingsley et al., 2014; Feng & Sass, 2013). This study investigated to what
degree general education teachers’ professional learning and their perceptions of
principal leadership practices were related to the academic achievement of
SWDs who received academic content instruction only in general education
classrooms.
Rationale for the Study
Providing high-quality school experiences that facilitate academic growth
for all students is a fundamental objective of education across the whole nation
(Konstantopoulos, 2011). Both the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and
the IDEA (2004) have emphasized increasing the academic achievement and
school success for all students, including those with disabilities (Judge & Watson,
20
2011; Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Hardman, 2004). As a result, teachers and
principals are being held accountable for the performance of all students within
their schools and classrooms (Mitchell, Kensler, & Tschannen-Moran, 2015).
Researchers have shown that effective teachers have a substantial impact
on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2006; West & Whitby, 2008; Wright,
Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Effective teachers can increase their students’
educational and health outcomes (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2011) as well as
their economic outcomes (Hanushek, 2011). Similarly, teachers are also crucial
in producing successful outcomes for SWDs (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Dev &
Haynes, 2015). The importance of general education teachers in this regarding
has become especially important, given the increasing numbers of SWDs that
are being served in general education classrooms (Cameron & Cook, 2013). It is
promising that the improvement of general education teachers’ effectiveness may
enhance the achievement outcome of SWDs served in general education
classrooms (Feng & Sass, 2013; Goldrick, Sindelar, Zabala, & Hirsch, 2014).
Principals are directly responsible for the facilitation of teaching and
learning in the classrooms (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000; Valentine &
Prater, 2013). Strong principal leadership is critically important in developing
effective schools (Smith & Hoy, 2007), and ensuring that schools are
accountable for students’ achievement (Jacobson, Brooks, Giles, Johnson, &
Ylimaki, 2007). Many researchers have indicated that effective principals can
improve students’ academic achievement (Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Smith & Hoy,
2007; Waters et al., 2003). Furthermore, principals also play a critical role in
21
ensuring schools are effective and inclusive for SWDs (McLeskey, Waldron, &
Redd, 2014).
As described above, teachers and principals play important roles in
increasing the academic achievement of all students (Chetty et al., 2011;
Murphy, 2005; Waters et al., 2003). Furthermore, principals and teachers are
being held accountable for the performance of all students, including those with
disabilities as high-stakes testing, standards-based education, and accountability
have become the focuses of school improvement (Mitchell et al., 2015).
However, general education teachers and principals are often not well prepared
to work with SWDs (Billingsley & McLeskey, in press; Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009;
Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007; Levine, 2006; Pazey & Cole, 2013).
Few studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between
teacher professional learning (i.e., general/special education certificate, years of
teaching) and the academic achievement of SWDs (Feng & Sass, 2013).
Furthermore, little research has addressed the relationship between principal
leadership practices and the academic outcome of SWDs served in general
education classrooms. Therefore, this study investigated the relationships
between general education teachers’ professional learning as well as principal
leadership practices and the academic achievement of SWDs who received their
content area instruction only in general education classrooms.
Significance of the Study and Research Questions
Using the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) data
set, the purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the relationship between
22
general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions of
principal leadership practices and the reading achievement of SWDs who were
provided reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms.
The current study validated the results of previous research by Feng and Sass
(2013), and extended that study in several ways: (1) using a national sample of
SWDs from the SEELS data set; (2) including not only general education
teachers’ overall years of teaching but also their years of teaching SWDs; and (3)
investigating the relationship between principal leadership practices and the
reading achievement of SWDs who were provided reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms. More specifically, this study
addressed the following two questions:
1. To what degree is general education teachers’ professional learning (i.e.,
general and/or special education certificate, years of teaching, years of
teaching SWDs, and education degree) related to the reading
achievement of SWDs who received reading/language arts instruction
only in general education classrooms?
2. To what degree are general education teachers’ perceptions of principal
leadership practices (i.e., holding high expectations for all students,
creating a safe school environment, and promoting instructional
improvement among staff) related to the reading achievement of SWDs
who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms?
23
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate the relationships
between general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their
perceptions of principal leadership practices and the academic achievement of
those SWDs who received their content instruction only in general education
classrooms. A comprehensive literature review is necessary to understand what
prior researches reveal about these relationships between teacher professional
learning as well as teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices and the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities. This literature
review will focus on the empirical studies in order to address each set of
relationships between: (1) teacher professional learning and the academic
achievement of students with and without disabilities; and (2) principal leadership
practices and the academic achievement of students with and without disabilities.
Search Procedures
To identify the relevant articles, the search process followed several steps.
First, an electronic database search was conducted (i.e., Academic Search
Premier, PsycINFO, Education Full Text). Combinations of key words were used
such as: teacher quality, teacher certificate, years of teaching, teacher education
degree, teacher preparation, professional development, leadership, leadership
practices, principals, principal practices, school safety, instructional improvement,
academic press, inclusive classrooms, inclusion, students with disabilities,
students with special needs, struggling students, student achievement, reading,
reading achievement, mathematics, and mathematics achievement. Since the
24
passage of NCLB (2002), schools and teachers have been held accountable for
all students including SWDs (Mitchell et al., 2015); therefore, the dates of
published articles were primarily limited to 2001-2015. However, the timeline was
extended to 1997 if there were no enough published articles for a certain topic
area. Second, a manual search of relevant journals was conducted. These
journals included: Exceptional Children, Teacher Education and Special
Education, The Teacher Educator, Educational Researcher, American
Educational Research Journal, The Leadership Quarterly, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Educational Leadership, and Economics of Education
Review. Third, an ancestral search was conducted using literature reviews and
related articles.
At first, the search only focused on the relationship between teacher
professional learning and the academic achievement of SWDs, and the
relationship between principal leadership practices and the academic
achievement of SWDs. However, the results yielded by the initial search were not
satisfactory. Only one study (Feng & Sass, 2013) was conducted to examine the
relationship between teacher professional learning and the academic
achievement of SWDs. Little research has been conducted to directly examine
the relationship between teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices
and the academic achievement of SWDs. Therefore, the search was extended to
the studies that examined the relationships between teacher professional
learning as well as teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices and the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities. Studies
25
conducted outside of the USA (i.e., Wiseman & Al-bakr, 2013; Leithwood, Patten,
& Jantzi, 2010) were excluded from this review. Articles or reviews were selected
if (a) the study examined the relationship between at least one of the factors
included in teacher professional learning (i.e., teacher certificate, years of
teaching, teacher education degree, and professional development) and the
academic achievement of students with or without disabilities; (b) the study
examined the relationship between at least one of the leadership/principal
practices (i.e., holding high expectations for students, promoting instructional
improvement, and creating a safe and orderly environment) and the academic
achievement of students with or without disabilities; (c) the study was conducted
within USA; (d) the study was published in peer-reviewed journals; and (e) the
reviews included experimental studies.
Teacher Professional Learning and Student Academic Achievement
In this section, research is reviewed relative to the first research question
addressed by this investigation. This research questions is: To what degree is
general education teachers’ professional learning (i.e., general and/or special
education certificate, years of teaching, and education degree) related to the
reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms?
Teaching has been described by Darling-Hammond and Sykes (1999) as
the “learning profession.” As practicing professionals, teachers acquire their
learning through undergraduate professional education programs, continuing
professional development (PD), and practice experience (Webster-Wright, 2009).
26
Other researchers also share this view (i.e., Feng & Sass, 2013; Harris & Sass,
2011), and describe teacher professional learning as pre-service undergraduate
preparation, in-service PD, and experience acquired from actual teaching. These
forms of teacher professional learning will be addressed in the review of research
that follows.
Teacher quality is one of the paramount school-related factors that have
substantial impact on student achievement (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007,
2010; Heck, 2007; Konstantopoulos, 2011; Rivkin et al., 2005). Teachers should
be ready to provide high-quality education to every student in the classroom from
the first day they walk into their classrooms (Miller, 2009). As the number of
SWDs provided content instruction in general education classrooms increases,
general education teachers have subsequently taken greater responsibility in
educating these students (Cameron & Cook, 2013). In order to support SWDs in
general education classrooms in attaining desirable outcomes, general education
teachers need to possess positive attitudes toward the inclusion of SWDs as well
as the knowledge and skills on how to provide SWDs with effective instruction
(Burton & Pace, 2009; Cook, 2002; King-Sears, Carran, Dammann, & Arter,
2011). In reality, many general education teachers do not feel prepared to serve
SWDs included in their classrooms (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Cook et al., 2007;
Levine, 2006; Pazey & Cole, 2013).
Although there is a consensus that teacher quality is associated with
student achievement, no consensus has been reached regarding which factors
are important to improve teacher quality (Harris & Sass, 2011). Many educational
27
researchers have examined the impact of teacher professional learning on their
ability to improve student achievement (Clotfelter et al., 2007, 2010; Feng &
Sass, 2013; Harris & Sass, 2011; Heck, 2007; Konstantopoulos, 2011; Phillips,
2010). However, the majority of the research literature has focused on the
relationship between teacher professional learning and the academic
achievement of students without disabilities. Few studies have examined the
relationship between teacher professional learning and the academic
achievement of SWDs. The following section summarizes the relationship
between teacher professional learning and the academic achievement of
students with and without disabilities.
Generally, factors such as teacher certificate, years of teaching, education
degree, and PD are used as indicators of teacher professional learning (Webster-
Wright, 2009). Some studies that were reviewed include multiple indicators of
teacher professional learning (e.g., Desimone & Long, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013;
Phillips, 2010), so detailed information about participants, dataset, and data
analysis will be provided when the investigations are initially described in relation
to the relationship between one teacher professional learning indicator and the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities. Subsequently,
this information will not be provided as the relationship between other teacher
professional learning indicators and the academic achievement of students with
and without disabilities is presented.
28
Teacher Certificate
Using either national or state datasets, many researchers have examined
the relationship between teacher certificates (e.g., regular certificate, special
education certificate, provisional/temporary/emergency certificate, no certificate)
and the reading and mathematics achievement of students with and without
disabilities (Boyd, Grassman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006; Boyd, Lankford,
Loeb, Rockoff, & Wyckoff, 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond,
Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig, 2005; Desimone & Long, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013;
Heck, 2007; Phillips, 2010). Most of these studies investigated the relationship
between general education professional certificate and the academic
achievement of students without disabilities. One study by Feng and Sass (2013)
specifically investigated the relationship between general as well as special
education certificate and the academic achievement of SWDs. Almost all of these
reviewed studies found that to a certain degree, there was a positive relationship
between teachers’ standard certificate and the academic achievement of
students with and without disabilities. One exception was the study by Phillips
(2010), which did not find a positive relationship between teachers’ standard
certificate and the academic achievement of at-risk students.
Using the first four waves of data from the National Center for Education
Statistics’ (2000) Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort
(ECLS-K), Desimone and Long (2010) conducted multilevel growth models (i.e.,
multiple student assessment scores, nested within students, nested within
schools) to analyze to which degree teachers’ certification affected students’
29
mathematics achievement growth from kindergarten to first grade. About 10,980
kindergartners and first graders from 2,164 schools were included in the sample.
Results indicated that first grade students significantly increased their
mathematics achievement over a shorter time period when their teachers had a
standard certificate or an alternative certificate. The researchers further indicated
that students of teachers with an alternative certificate had greater increase on
their mathematics achievement than those students of teachers with a standard
certificate.
Similarly, Phillips (2010) used the 3rd and 4th waves of ECLS-K to
investigate the relationship between teacher certificate and the reading and
mathematics achievement of first grade students including those who were and
were not at-risk. From the dataset, 3,897 students assigned to 1,078 teachers
within 431 schools were eligible for the data analysis. Students’ gain scores were
calculated from the achievement tests of mathematics and reading between the
fall and spring of first grade and used as student outcome measures. Fixed-
effects models were conducted to examine the relationship between teacher
certificate and student reading and mathematics achievement. Surprisingly,
results indicated that teacher’s standard certificate significantly lowered student
mathematics gains. More specifically, at-risk students whose teachers with a
standard certificate gained almost two fewer points (30% of a standard deviation
[SD]) than their at-risk peers whose teachers without a standard certificate.
Using a large dataset between 1995 and 2002 from Houston, Texas,
Darling-Hammond and colleagues (2005) conducted a series of regression
30
analyses to examine the relationship between teacher’s certificate and the
reading and mathematics achievement of 4th and 5th grade students, including
Spanish-speaking students. The outcome measures in the study included the
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), the Stanford Achievement Test,
9th Edition (SAT-9), and the Aprenda (i.e., a test for Spanish-speaking students).
Results indicated that teachers who had a standard certificate were significantly
more effective in raising student reading and mathematics achievement in 22 out
of 36 estimates when compared to those teachers who did not have a standard
certificate or had other certificates (i.e., alternative certificates,
emergent/temporary certificates, out-of-preparation field certificates). On most
reading and mathematics achievement tests, teachers who did not have a
standard certificate slowed their students’ progress by about half to one month in
grade equivalent terms within one year when compared to those who had a
standard certificate. For Spanish-speaking students, teachers who did not pass
the state certification test or had no record of teaching certificates slowed their
progress on Aprenda by two to three months annually when compared to those
teachers who had a standard certificate.
Clotfelter and colleagues (2010) analyzed the data of four cohorts of 10th
graders (1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03) from a North Carolina
state dataset to examine the relationship between teacher certificate and student
reading (i.e., English) and mathematics (i.e., algebra) achievement. The
researchers used a regression model to investigate that relationship. Results
indicated that students taught by the teachers who had a lateral entry license,
31
which was issued for those who had at least a bachelor’s degree with a minimum
2.5 grade point average (GPA) and the equivalent of a college major in the
assigned teaching subject, had an average of 0.06 standard deviation (SD) lower
achievement than those taught by the teachers who had a standard certificate.
There was no achievement difference between students of teachers who held a
standard certificate and those of teachers who held a lateral entry license but
with a certain amount of teaching experience (i.e., one year). The researchers
further disaggregated the data through certificates by subject area. Results
indicated that teachers certified in mathematics and English significantly
improved students’ mathematics (i.e., 0.11 SD) and English achievement (i.e.,
0.103 SD) when compared to those who were not certified in mathematics and
English.
Boyd, Grassman, et al. (2006) used the data files between 1998-99 and
2003-4 from both the New York City Department of Education and New York
State Department of Education to examine the relationship between the types of
teacher certificates (i.e., college-recommended certificate, individual evaluation
certificate, Teach for America, Teaching Fellows, temporary certificate, and other
certificates) and the mathematics and English language arts achievement of
students from 5th to 8th grade. Results indicated that although the relationships
between teachers with a standard certificate and teachers with other certificates
via alternative pathways and students’ mathematics achievement were different,
the differences were very small. For example, students of teachers with an
individual evaluation certificate had 1.8% of a SD less gain in their mathematics
32
test scores than those of teachers with a standard certificate. Students of
teachers who were Teaching Fellows, temporarily licensed, and held other
certificates had the smallest gains. Their students’ gains were about 3.3% of a
SD less than those of students taught by the teachers who had a standard
certificate. However, students taught by temporarily licensed teachers had
significantly lower performance on English language arts than those taught by
teachers who had a standard certificate.
A few years later, Boyd, Lankford et al. (2008) further constructed a
student database from the administrative data from the New York City
Department of Education, the New York State Department of Education,
alternatively certified teacher programs, and the College Board and used a value-
added model (VAM) to examine the relationship between teacher certificate and
student academic achievement. Results indicated that teachers without
certificate significantly lowered the mathematics achievement of 4th and 5th grade
students by 0.042 SD.
A study by Heck (2007) used the public schools’ dataset in Hawaii to
examine the relationship between teacher certificate and the mathematics
achievement of 5th grade students. Results indicated that teachers with a
standard certificate significantly increased students’ mathematics achievement
when compared to teachers without a standard certificate. Specifically, one SD
increase in the percentage of teachers with a standard certificate yielded about a
3-point increase in students’ mathematics scores.
33
Using the Florida Education Data Warehouse (FLEDW), which was
collected within the state of Florida over a five-year span (2000-2005), Feng and
Sass (2013) employed a VAM to estimate the effects of general education
professional certificate as well as special education certificate on the academic
achievement of students without disabilities and SWDs who received their
instruction in general education classrooms, special education classrooms, and
both general and special education classrooms. FLEDW linked students and
teachers to specific classrooms at all K-12 grade levels. Results indicated that
teachers with general education professional certificate significantly improved the
reading achievement of K-12 students without disabilities and the reading and
mathematics achievement of K-12 SWDs.
The relationships between special education certificate and the academic
achievement of students with and without disabilities were different. Results
showed that special education certificate significantly lowered the reading and
mathematics achievement of students without disabilities. But for SWDs, special
education certificate significantly improved the reading and mathematics
achievement of SWDs who received reading and mathematics instruction only in
special education classrooms and the reading achievement of SWDs who
received reading instruction in both general and special education classrooms.
Conclusions about the relationship between teacher certification and
student academic achievement. With one exception (Desimone & Long, 2010),
all the other reviewed studies support that there is a positive relationship
between teacher standard certificate and the reading and mathematics
34
achievement of students without disabilities (Boyd, Grassman et al., 2006; Boyd,
Lanklord et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2010; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Heck,
2007; Phillips, 2010). Furthermore, teachers with a standard certificate also
positively increased the academic achievement of students who were English
language learners (ELLs, Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). However, two studies
had contrary findings. In one investigation, there was a negative relationship
between teachers’ standard certificate and the mathematics achievement of at-
risk students (Phillips, 2010); while in a second study, students of those teachers
who held a standard certificate had lower levels of achievement on mathematics
(Desimone & Long, 2010).
Only the Feng and Sass’ investigation (2013) supports the significant and
positive effects of both general and special education certificates on the reading
and mathematics achievement of SWDs. However, this study has several
limitations. First, the authors did not disaggregate the impact of general
education certificate on the academic achievement of SWDs who received their
content instruction only in general education classrooms. Second, when they
discussed the relationship between special education certificate and the
academic achievement of SWDs who received their content instruction only in
general education classrooms, the authors did not specify whether those
teachers who taught general education classrooms only held the special
education certificate or held both general and special education certificates.
Third, the dataset examined by the researchers only represented a single state
(i.e., Florida).
35
Teacher’s Education Degree
According to Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), all students
should be taught by highly qualified teachers. In order to be highly qualified,
teachers need to hold at least the bachelor’s degree. However, some teachers
may not have a bachelor’s degree as they begin teaching (Desimone & Long,
2010). The studies of teacher’s education degree investigated the effects of no
bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, advanced degree, or
Ph.D. degree on the academic achievement of students with and without
disabilities (Clotfelter et al., 2007, 2010; Desimone & Long, 2010; Feng & Sass,
2013; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004; Phillips, 2010). The majority of the
reviewed studies used the available non-randomized national or state data sets,
with one exception (Nye et al. 2004), which used the data collected from a
randomized study project. The reviewed studies indicated that there was a mixed
relationship between teacher’s education degree and the academic achievement
of students with and without disabilities.
For first graders, Desimone and Long (2010) found that there was a
significant relationship between teacher’s education degree and student
mathematics growth rate. If students were taught by the teachers who had less
than a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, their mathematics growth rate was
slower. Results from a study by Phillips (2010) indicated that a graduate degree
in elementary education could positively increase student reading achievement.
Students of teachers with graduate degrees in elementary education tended to
gain about 11% of a SD more in reading achievement scores than those of
36
teachers without graduate degrees in elementary education. Furthermore, at-risk
students of teachers with graduate degrees in elementary education gained 25%
of a SD more than their peers of teachers without graduate degrees in
elementary education that year.
Using a North Carolina state dataset, Clotfelter and colleagues (2007)
employed a VAM to estimate the effects of teacher’s advanced degree types
(i.e., master’s, advanced, or Ph.D. degree) on the reading and mathematics
achievement of 4th and 5th grade students. Results suggested that both master’s
degrees and advanced degrees had a negative effect on 4th and 5th grade
students’ mathematics and reading achievement, but the negative effect of
master’s degree was smaller than that of advanced degree. On average,
teachers who earned their master’s degree seemed to be less effective in
increasing student achievement than those who did not have a graduate degree.
Surprisingly, teachers with a Ph. D. degree had a larger negative effect on
students’ mathematics achievement than those with master’s or advanced
degrees. The same researchers disaggregated the North Carolina dataset again
in 2010 to examine the relationship between teachers’ graduate degrees (i.e.,
master’s and Ph. D.) and 10th grade students’ academic achievement. Results
indicated that acquiring a master’s degree before teaching did not increase
student academic achievement. However, students taught by the teachers who
received their master’s degree after teaching had significantly higher
achievement than those students taught by the teachers who did not receive their
master’s degree after teaching. Similar to their previous study, the researchers
37
also found that teachers with a Ph.D. degree did not increase their students’
academic achievement. Specifically, students taught by the teachers who held a
Ph.D. degree had significantly lower achievement than those taught by the
teachers who did not hold a Ph.D. degree.
Nye and colleagues (2004) used the data collected from a longitudinal
randomized experiment (Project STAR [Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio]) to
investigate the relationship between teacher education degree and the reading
and mathematics achievement of students without disabilities. In that experiment,
all kindergarten students and teachers from 79 elementary schools within 42
schools in Tennessee were randomly assigned to classrooms of different sizes
(i.e., small classes, larger classes, or larger classes with a full-time aide). The
researchers used two values to categorize teacher education degree (1 =
teachers with graduate or advanced degrees; 0 = otherwise). Hierarchical linear
models (HLMs) were used to estimate the effect of teacher education degree on
student academic achievement. Results indicated that there was a significant
and positive relationship between teachers’ advanced degrees and the
mathematics achievement of third grade students.
Feng and Sass (2013) indicated that there was a significant and positive
relationship between the advanced degree held by general education teachers
and the reading and mathematics achievement of students without disabilities.
Similarly, there was also a significant and positive relationship between the
advanced degree held by either general education teachers or special education
teachers and the mathematics achievement of SWDs. However, it is unclear
38
what type of graduate degree indicated by the advanced degree in that
investigation.
Conclusions about the relationship between teacher education
degree and student academic achievement. In the reviewed studies, teacher
education degree had a mixed effect on the academic achievement of students
without disabilities. Without a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, teachers
lowered their students’ mathematics growth (Desimone & Long, 2010). Teachers’
master’s degrees produced either an increase in student academic achievement
(Clotfelter et al., 2010; Nye et al., 2004; Phillips, 2010) or a decrease in student
academic achievement (Clotfelter et al., 2007). Surprisingly, teachers who held a
Ph. D. degree largely decreased the academic achievement of their elementary
and high school students without disabilities (Clotfelter et al., 2007, 2010). As for
SWDs, there was a significant and positive relationship between advanced
degrees held either by general education teachers or special education teachers
and their mathematics achievement (Feng & Sass, 2013).
Years of Teaching
Studies that were reviewed examined the relationship between teacher’s
years of teaching and the reading and mathematics achievement of students with
and without disabilities (Boyd, Grassman et al. 2006; Boyd, Landlord et al., 2008;
Clotfelter et al., 2007, 2010; Desimone & Long, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013; Huang
& Moon, 2008; Nye et al., 2004; Rockoff, 2004). Two studies further investigated
the relationship between teaching experience at grade level and students’
reading and/or mathematics achievement (Blazar, 2015; Huang & Moon, 2008).
39
The majority of the reviewed studies used the available non-randomized national
or state data sets, with one exception (Nye et al. 2004), which used the data
collected from a randomized study project.
According to Kini and Podolsky (2016), a standard solution to reduce bias
in accurately estimate to what degree teachers can improve their effectiveness
as they increase their years of teaching is to include teacher fixed effects
(teachers’ basic ability or motivation) in the model. Through the inclusion of
teacher fixed effects, the effect of a teacher with more years of teaching can be
compared to that of the same teacher with less years of teaching. Among the
reviewed studies, some studies included teacher-fixed effects to estimate the
returns to experience among the same teachers (Blazar, 2015; Boyd, Landlord et
al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2010; Rockoff, 2004) while some other studies did not
include teacher-fixed effects to estimate the returns to experience among the
cohorts of teachers with the same range of teaching experience (Boyd, Landlord
et al., 2006; Clotfelter et al., 2007; Desimone & Long, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013;
Huang & Moon, 2008; Nye et al., 2004). The literature review related to the
relationship between years of teaching and student academic outcome will be
summarized based on the two categories: (1) inclusion of teacher fixed effects;
and (2) non-inclusion of teacher fixed effects.
Inclusion of teacher fixed effects. In order to “control the fact that
different teachers have different underlying effectiveness, regardless of
experience” (Blazar, 2015, p. 216), some researchers included teacher fixed
effects in their analysis. For example, Blazar (2015) used 10-year administrative
40
records from a large urban school district in California to examine the relationship
between teachers’ teaching experience and student achievement. There were
6,872 teachers and 159,808 students eligible for the analysis of the relationship
between teachers’ teaching experience and students’ mathematics achievement,
and 6,875 teachers and 159,305 students for the analysis of the relationship
between teachers’ teaching experience and students’ English language arts
achievement. A VAM was employed to investigate that relationship. Results
indicated that students continued to positively and significantly improve their
mathematics and English language arts achievement when their teachers
increased teaching experience from first through ninth year. Students had larger
gain over their teachers’ first five years of teaching experience. Meanwhile,
students also had larger improvement in mathematics than in English language
arts with the increase of their teachers’ teaching experience. For example,
students had an average of 0.099 SD increase in their mathematics achievement
and 0.047 SD increase in their English language arts achievement when their
teachers had two years of teaching experience.
Boyd and other colleagues (2008) found that for those teachers that
remained in their teaching career, their teaching experience over the first four
years significantly increased their fourth and fifth grade students’ mathematics
achievement. For example, 4th and 5th grade students taught by teachers with
one year’s experience gained 0.06 of a SD compared to students taught by first
year un-experienced teachers.
41
Clotfelter and colleagues (2010) again confirmed that teacher’s
experience during the first five years resulted in significant increases in student
academic achievement. The achievement of students whose teachers taught 3-5
years was significantly higher than that of those students whose teachers taught
1-2 years. After 5 years, students still make positive and significant increase in
their academic achievement, but there was no significant achievement difference
between students of teachers with 3-5 years of teaching experience and students
of teachers with more than five years of teaching experience.
Using elementary-school students (N = about 10,000) and teachers (N =
about 300) data from two contiguous districts located in a single New Jersey
county, Rockoff (2004) investigated the effects of teaching experience on
students’ reading and mathematics achievement. Results indicated that teachers’
first two years of teaching significantly improved students’ mathematics
computation test scores by about 0.1 SD. But during subsequent years of
teaching, students’ mathematics computation test scores were lower. There was
no significant relationship between teachers’ teaching experience and their
students’ mathematics concepts test scores. Although the researcher found that
when compared to teachers without experience, teachers with 10 years of
teaching experience enhanced students’ vocabulary and reading comprehension
test scores by about 0.15 SD and 0.18 SD, respectively, yet the researcher
concluded that the impact of teaching experience on students’ reading
comprehension achievement might be a conservative estimate due to the
possible linear gain path of reading comprehension.
42
Non-inclusion of teacher fixed effects. Some researchers did not
include teacher fixed effects to estimate the relationship between teachers’
teaching experience and the academic achievement of students with and without
disabilities. In those studies, teachers were categorized into different cohorts
based on their various years of teaching experience (i.e., 1-2 years of teaching;
3-5 years of teaching; 6-9 years of teaching).
Boyd, Grassman et al. (2006) compared mathematics and English
language arts achievement outcomes of students in Grades 5 through 8 taught
by teachers who had different years of teaching experience. The results indicated
that during their first three years of teaching, teachers’ additional years of
teaching added significant and positive returns to their students’ mathematics
achievement. After three years, students had fewer gains from their teachers’
additional years of teaching. For example, students taught by second-year
teachers gained 7.6% of one SD more on a mathematics measure than those
who were taught by first-year teachers. Furthermore, the students taught by third-
year teachers gained about 3% of one SD larger on the mathematics measure
than those taught by second-year teachers. As for English language arts, results
indicated that during their first five years of teaching, teachers’ additional years of
teaching added positive and increasing returns to their students’ achievement.
After five years, students had fewer gains from their teachers’ additional years of
teaching.
Clotfelter et al. (2007) indicated that years of teaching resulted in a
significant increase in students’ reading and mathematics achievement scores
43
during their first five years. Although students had the highest gains in
mathematics (0.118 of one SD) and reading (0.096 of one SD) when their
teachers had 21-27 years of teaching experience, yet students had already had
more than 77% of their highest mathematics gain and 66% of their highest
reading gain when their teachers had three to five years of teaching experience.
Huang and Moon (2008) used the data from State Reading First (RF)
schools, the results of a teacher survey administered to all teachers in RF
schools, and school-level information from the Department of Education website
in a mid-Atlantic state to examine the effects of total teaching experience and
teaching experience at the grade level on second grade students’ reading
achievement. The researchers used three-level HLM to analyze the data. Results
indicated that teachers’ total teaching experience had no significant impact on
students’ reading achievement scores. But teachers who taught at the second
grade level for more than 5 years significantly improved the reading achievement
of second grade students (ES = .27).
Nye and colleagues (2004) also used HLMs to investigate the relationship
between teacher experience and the reading and mathematics achievement of
first through third grade students. The researchers categorized teacher
experience as 0 = three years of experience or less and 1 = more than three
years of teaching and teacher education. Results indicated that there was a
significant and positive relationship between teacher experience and the reading
achievement of second grade students as well as the mathematics achievement
of third grade students.
44
Feng and Sass (2013) specifically investigated the relationship between
general as well as special education teachers’ years of teaching experience and
the reading and mathematics achievement of students with and without
disabilities. The results indicated that the reading and mathematics achievement
of students with and without disabilities increased positively as the teaching
experience of their general education teachers increased. Both students with and
without disabilities had their largest gains in reading and mathematics during
their general education teachers’ early teaching career. The reading achievement
of SWDs had a significant drop off when their general education teachers had 25
or more years of experience. Differently, the mathematics achievement of SWDs
had a slight drop off when their general education teachers had 15-24 years of
experience and then increased when their general education teachers reached
25 or more years of experience.
In contrast, during their teaching career (i.e., from 1-2 years of teaching to
25 or more years of teaching), special education teachers were significantly less
effective than general education teachers in improving the mathematics
achievement of SWDs. Furthermore, the mathematics achievement of SWDs
was unstable (i.e., repeated patterns of increasing and dropping off) as their
special education teachers increased their years of teaching. SWDs made the
largest gains in reading when their special education teachers had only one to
two years of experience. When compared to general education teachers with 10-
24 years of experience, special education teachers with 10-24 years of
45
experience were twice less effective in increasing the reading and mathematics
outcomes of SWDs.
Conclusions about the relationship between years of teaching and
student academic achievement. Almost all the reviewed studies indicate that
teaching experience had significant and positive effects on the reading and
mathematics achievement of students with and without disabilities (Boyd,
Grassman et al., 2006; Boyd, Landford et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2007; Feng &
Sass, 2013; Huang & Moon, 2008; Nye et al., 2004). However, this was not the
case in one investigation (Desimone & Long, 2010). Desimone and Long (2010)
indicated that the growth of mathematics achievement of kindergarteners and
first graders could not be significantly predicted by teachers’ years of teaching
(i.e., one and two years or more than two years). In general, most of the
reviewed studies indicated that general education teachers significantly improved
the reading and mathematics of students without disabilities when they
accumulated their teaching experience during their first few years (i.e., until five
years) of teaching. Beyond the first few years, however, the increasing effect of
teaching experience on their students’ academic achievement was not as
significant as that during the first few years (Boyd, Grassman et al., 2006; Boyd,
Landford et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2007; Feng & Sass, 2013). Other
researchers further found that general education teachers who were teaching at
grade level for more than five years significantly improved the reading
achievement of students without disabilities (Huang & Sass, 2008).
46
As for SWDs, Feng and Sass (2013) indicated that experienced general
education teachers were more effective in increasing their mathematics
achievement than experienced special education teachers. The reading and
mathematics achievement of SWDs increased with the teaching experience of
their general education teachers. They had their largest gains in reading and
mathematics during their general education teachers’ early teaching career (i.e.,
1-5 years).
Professional Development
As defined by Guskey (2000), PD is “those processes and activities
designed to enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of
educators so that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students” (p.16).
Ongoing PD is a key element in improving teacher quality, including teacher
knowledge and instructional practices, and this improved teacher quality
ultimately improves student outcomes (Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Connor,
Alberto, Compton, & O’Connor, 2014; Hough et al., 2013; Opfer & Pedder, 2011;
Piasta, Connor, Fishman, & Morrison, 2009; Wei, Darling-Hammond, &
Adamson, 2010). According to Desimone (2009), effective PD that can potentially
improve teacher knowledge, instructional practices, and student achievement
shares the following characteristics: (1) content focus; (2) opportunities for
teachers to learn actively; (3) alignment to teachers’ knowledge and beliefs as
well as reforms and policies within school, district, and state; (4) sufficient time;
and (5) opportunities for teachers to participate collectively.
47
In order to examine the relationship between PD and the academic
achievement of students with and without disabilities, several literature reviews,
one of which was conducted for the Institute of Education Sciences (Yoon,
Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007), and two of which were conducted for
Council of Chief State School Officers (Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2008; Blank
& de las Alas, 2009), as well as a recent study (Feng & Sass, 2013) that
examined the relationship between special education PD and the academic
achievement of students with and without disabilities were reviewed.
Yoon and colleagues (2007) conducted a literature review to estimate the
effects of PD programs on student achievement. Based on What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards, only nine studies from 1986 to 2003
met the criteria and were included in the review. As a whole, PD had a moderate
effect on student achievement in mathematics, science, and reading or
English/language arts (effect size = .54). All the nine studies shared some
common characteristics such as content-focused, teacher active learning, and
various combinations of summer institute, workshop, and follow-up conferences.
But PD programs in the nine studies varied in their duration and intensity. Results
indicated that teachers who received 14 or more hours of PD could have a
positive and significant effect on their students’ achievement. Furthermore,
teachers who received an average of 49 hours of PD significantly and positively
enhanced their student achievement by 21 percentile points.
Blank and colleagues (2008) reviewed 41 studies of 25 mathematics and
science PD programs nominated by 14 states from 2004 to 2007. The
48
researchers summarized the common characteristics of 25 PD programs that
had significantly and positively improved teacher instruction and/or student
outcomes. Those characteristics were content focus, teacher active learning and
collective participation, alignment to state content standards and consistent with
curriculum used by school or teachers, and sufficient time. The researchers
indicated that PD programs with duration of 50 hours or more could significantly
improve teacher instruction and/or student outcomes.
One year later, Blank and de las Alas (2009) conducted a meta-analysis to
investigate the relationship between mathematics and science PD programs and
students’ mathematics and science achievement. Sixteen studies conducted
since 1990 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.
Most of the included studies indicated that PD programs had a moderate effect
on students’ mathematics and science achievement. Those effective PD
programs featured content focus, teacher active learning, sufficient time, and
various combinations of summer institute, in-service activity, internship, study
group, coaching, or mentoring. But the included studies varied in their duration.
As a whole, PD programs lasting more than 100 hours could yield consistently
positive effects on students’ mathematics and science achievement.
Different from the previous literature reviews, Feng and Sass (2013) used
the Florida state dataset to estimate the relationship between the PD received
either by general or special education teachers and the academic achievement of
students with and without disabilities. Results indicated that PD did not help
special education teachers increase the academic achievement of SWDs who
49
received their content instruction only in special education classrooms. However,
current and prior (i.e., over the past two or three years) PD received by general
teachers had a small positive but not significant impact on the reading and
mathematics achievement of students without disabilities and the reading
achievement of SWDs. For example, participation in a 10-hour special education
course had a positive but not significant impact on the reading achievement of
students with and without disabilities. Those students increased their reading
achievement by 0.002 SD.
Conclusions about the relationship between PD and student
academic achievement. The literature reviewed reveals that PD programs have
a moderate and positive impact on the academic achievement of students
without disabilities. Across the reviews, effective PD programs shared features
such as content focus and teacher active learning (Blank & de las Alas, 2009;
Blank et al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2007). But there is no agreement upon the
duration of effective PD (Blank et al., 2008; Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Yoon et
al., 2007). Only one study (Feng & Sass, 2013) has investigated the relationship
between PD received either by general or special education teachers and the
academic achievement of SWDs. Results from that study indicate that a 10-hour
special education PD received by general reading teachers had a small positive
but not significant impact on the reading achievement of SWDs.
50
Conclusions about Teacher Professional Learning and the Academic
Achievement of Students with and without Disabilities
In sum, the majority of the reviewed studies and literature reviews
indicate that teacher professional learning has a significant positive impact on the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities. Seven out of
eight studies indicated that there was a positive relationship between general
education teacher’s professional certificate and the academic achievement of
students with and without disabilities (Boyd, Grassman et al., 2006; Boyd,
Lanklord et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Desimone & Long, 2010;
Clotfelter et al., 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013; Heck, 2007).
Only one study (Feng & Sass, 2013) was located that investigated the
relationship between teacher professional certificate and the reading and
mathematics achievement of SWDs who were provided content instruction in
general education and/or special education classrooms. The results related to
teacher professional certificate are encouraging, given that general education
professional certificate significantly improved the mathematics of achievement of
SWDs who received their mathematics instruction both in general and special
education classrooms and that special education certificate significantly improved
the reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading instruction either
only in special education classrooms or both in general and special education
classrooms. However, there was no significant relationship between special
education certificate and the reading and mathematics achievement of SWDs
who received their content instruction only in general education classrooms.
51
Future research should validate the relationship between general and/or special
education certificates and the academic achievement of SWDs who receive their
content instruction only in general education classroom by using other datasets.
The five studies that were reviewed related to the effect of teacher’s
education degree indicate a mixed effect on the academic achievement of
students without disabilities (Clotfelter et al., 2007, 2010; Desimone & Long,
2010; Nye et al., 2004; Phillips, 2010). However, in general, advanced degrees
held by general and special education teachers were found to have a significant
and positive effect on the mathematics achievement of SWDs. Future research
should use other datasets to validate the relationship between the advanced
degree held by general education teachers and the academic achievement of
SWDs who receive their content instruction only in general education
classrooms.
Some researchers indicated there was a cut-point (i.e., until 5 years) for
the significantly increasing effect of teachers’ teaching experience on the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities (Boyd, Grassman
et al., 2006; Boyd, Landford et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2007; Feng & Sass,
2013). However, other researchers did not suggest such a cut-point (Huang &
Moon, 2008). Only one study (Feng & Sass, 2013) has shown that there is a
significant and positive relationship between general education teacher’s years of
teaching and the academic achievement of SWDs. With other national or state
datasets, future research should continue to validate the relationship between
general education teachers’ teaching experience and the academic achievement
52
of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in general education
classrooms. Furthermore, future studies also need to investigate the relationship
between general education teachers’ teaching experience of SWDs and the
academic achievement of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in
general education classrooms.
It has been suggested by some researchers that effective PD should last
at least 14 or more hours in order to significantly increase the academic
achievement of students without disabilities (Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Blank et
al., 2008; Yoon et al., 2007). As for SWDs, ten-hour special education PD
received by general education teachers had a small positive but not significant
impact on the reading achievement of those students (Feng & Sass, 2013).
Future research studies need to examine whether longer PD received by general
education teachers will significantly improve the academic achievement of SWDs
who received their content instruction only in general education classrooms.
One study that examined the relationship between general education
teachers’ professional learning and the reading and mathematics achievement of
SWDs revealed significantly positive results (Feng & Sass, 2013). As general
education teachers are being held accountable for the learning of SWDs included
in their classrooms, more studies need to be conducted to examine the
relationship between general education teachers’ professional learning and the
academic achievement of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in
general education classrooms.
53
Principal Leadership Practices and Student Academic Achievement
In this section, research is reviewed relative to the second research
question addressed by this investigation. This research question is: To what
degree are general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices related to the reading achievement of SWDs who received their
reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms?
Principal leadership is one of the most important school-related factors
that contributes to student achievement (Nettles & Herrington, 2007; Goldrick et
al., 2014). Some researchers have investigated the impact of principal leadership
on student outcomes (Nettles & Harrington, 2007; Waters et al., 2003). As an
example, Waters et al. (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of 70 studies from
1970 to examine the impact of principals on student achievement. Overall, the
average effect size related to the impact of principal leadership on student
achievement was .25.
Since principals play a critical role in ensuring schools are effective and
inclusive for all students including SWDs, it is clear that principals are important
to improve the academic achievement of SWDs (McLeskey et al., 2014).
However, special education has often not been addressed in leadership
preparation programs (Angelle & Bilton, 2009; Pazey & Cole, 2013). As a result,
“many principals lack the course work and field experience needed to lead local
efforts to create learning environments that emphasize academic success for
students with disabilities” (Dipaola & Walther-Thomas, 2003, p. 11). In addition,
principals feel that it is not their responsibility to educate SWDs (Lashley, 2007).
54
However, in an era of high-stakes testing and accountability, principals are being
held accountable for the academic achievement of all students including SWDs
(Mitchell et al., 2015; Thurlow, Quenemoen, & Lazarus, 2012).
As indicated by Elmore (2004), the core responsibility of principals is to
improve teacher instruction and eventually student performance. By focusing on
student achievement, principals can make a difference in the success of all
students (Valentine & Prater, 2013). In order to make a difference, they are
expected to have the knowledge and skills to promote instructional improvement
and enhance the academic achievement of all students including SWDs. Some
researchers have examined how principals commit themselves to include SWDs
within their schools and to improve student outcomes (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen,
Cabello, & Spagna, 2004; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013).
Based on the key research syntheses on the impact of school leadership
on student achievement, effective inclusive leadership, and special education
leadership, Billingsley and colleagues (2014) identified six core principal
leadership practices that could improve the achievement of SWDs. These core
principal leadership practices include: 1) pushing for academic success; 2)
creating a positive disciplinary climate; 3) promoting high-quality instruction; 4)
monitoring progress; 5) arranging working conditions for effective instruction; and
6) providing professional learning opportunities. Although many researchers have
focused on special education leadership (Boscardin, Weir, & Kusek, 2010; Cook
& Smith, 2012; Crockett, 2002, 2011; Crockett, Billingsley, & Boscardin, 2012;
Deshler & Cornett, 2012; McLaughlin, 2009), currently no studies seem to have
55
been conducted to specifically examine the relationship between principal
leadership practices and the academic achievement of SWDs.
Since 1970, researchers have examined the relationship between
principal leadership practices and the academic achievement of students without
disabilities (Water et al., 2003; Hitt & Tucker, 2015). Water and colleagues (2003)
identified 70 research studies conducted since 1970 that supported McREL’s
balanced leadership framework. The framework contained 21 specific leadership
characteristics that had significant correlations with student achievement.
Leaders who increased their abilities in these 21 specific leadership
responsibilities by one SD were shown to yield a statistically significant 10%
increase in student achievement.
More recently, Hitt and Tucker (2015) identified three existing significant
leadership frameworks, the Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF, Leithwood,
2012), the Learning-Centered Leadership Framework (LCL, Murphy, 2006), and
the Essential Supports Framework (ESF, Sebring, Allensworth, Bryk, Easton, &
Luppescu, 2006) that were based on the research studies from 1971 to 2012. Hitt
and Tucker then created a unified model of effective leader practices across
those three significant leadership frameworks. “Maintaining safety and
orderliness; developing and monitoring instructional program; and maintaining
ambitious and high expectations and standards” were identified as effective
leadership practices that were related to student achievement (Hitt & Tucker,
2015, pp.13-14).
56
The three effective practices identified by Hitt and Tucker (2015) align with
three out of the six core effective leadership practices recommended by
Billingsley et al. (2014) that can effectively improve the instruction for and the
learning of SWDs. The aligned principal leadership practices between Hitt and
Tucker (2015) and Billingsley and colleagues (2014) are pushing for academic
success, creating a positive disciplinary climate, and promoting high quality
instruction. Researchers have already shown that pushing for academic press,
creating a safe school environment, and promoting instructional improvement are
important in enhancing student achievement (Murphy, 2005; Goddard,
Sweetland et al., 2000; Valentine & Prater, 2013). For the purpose of this study,
the following section will focus primarily on the relationship between these three
aligned principal leadership practices (i.e., creating a safe school environment,
pushing for academic press, and promoting instructional improvement) and
students’ academic achievement.
Creating a Safe School Environment
Creating and maintaining safe schools is pressing and necessary to
support student achievement (Stanley, Juhnke, & Purkey, 2004). Students tend
to have better performance when they perceive school as a safe place (Hopson,
Schiller, & Lawson, 2014). Two studies examined the relationship between
creating a safe school environment and student achievement. Both of these
studies indicated that school safety was positively related to student academic
achievement.
57
Hopson and colleagues (2014) used a multi-level analysis to conduct an
exploratory study in order to examine how the perceptions students had of their
school climate, school safety, social supports, behavioral norms in their homes,
schools, and neighborhoods influenced their own behavior and grades. The
researchers used data for 13,608 low-income middle school students from a
Student Success Profile (SSP) data set collected in seven states. Results
indicated that students who were in safer schools were 30% more likely to have
better behavior than those who were in less safe schools. Students perceived
that school safety was positively related to their grades. For one SD increase in
students’ perceived school safety, there would be an increase of .12 SD in their
grades.
Jacobson et al. (2007) used a case study approach to examine the
relationship between safe schools and student achievement. The researchers
first analyzed the New York State Education Department (NYSED) school report
card to identify three high-need elementary schools whose student achievement
scores had been improved and sustained after the principals assumed leadership
at those schools. Then, interviews with the principals, teachers, support staff,
parents, and students were conducted. Results across the three principals’ cases
indicated that creating a safe school environment was a common practice among
those three principals.
Conclusions about the relationship between creating a safe school
environment and student academic achievement. Although research is
limited, creating a safe school environment has been shown to be associated
58
with student achievement (Jacobson et al., 2007; Hopson et al., 2014). As
schools are being held accountable for the learning of all students (Jacobson et
al., 2007), they are also responsible for the learning of SWDs. SWDs are more
likely to become victims of school violence if they are being educated in less safe
schools (Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2008). As more SWDs have
become part of the general classroom structure, future research should
investigate the relationship between school safety and the academic
achievement of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in general
education classrooms.
Pushing for Academic Press
Academic press can be defined as “the school’s press for superior student
performance” (Smith & Hoy, 2007). It can also be referred to as academic
emphasis (Mitchell et al., 2015). According to Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000), the
majority of published empirical studies since 1989 have indicated that there is a
moderate to significant positive relationship between a push for academic
success and student achievement.
Goddard, Sweetland et al. (2000) conducted a HLM analysis to examine
the impact of academic press on student achievement within schools. Surveys
were administered to 442 teachers who were randomly selected from 45
elementary schools within one school district. The district used the seventh
edition of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT7) to measure student
achievement in mathematics and reading. The researchers obtained students’
achievement scores from the district in mathematics and reading when they were
59
in third and fourth grades and then used these scores as dependent variables for
data analysis. Student scores at third grade were used as a control variable.
Results indicated that academic press was a significant and positive predictor of
students’ mathematics and reading achievement. More specifically, one SD
increase in school academic press yielded about 40% of one SD increase in
student mathematics achievement and more than one third of one SD increase in
student reading achievement.
Several researchers have demonstrated that after controlling for students’
socioeconomic status (SES), academic press was significantly related to the
academic achievement of students across middle and high schools (Alig-
Mielcarek & Hoy, 2005; Hoy & Hannum, 1997). As an example, Hoy and
Hannum (1997) used multiple regression analysis to investigate the effects of
SES, academic press, and other variables (i.e., resource support, collegial
leadership, etc.) on student academic achievement. An instrument measuring
aspects of school climate named the Organizational Health Inventory for middle
schools (OHI-RM) was administered to the teachers from low-, middle-, and high-
SES levels. Student achievement test scores (i.e., New Jersey’s Eighth Grade
Early Warning Test [EWT]) in reading, mathematics, and writing were obtained
directly from the New Jersey State Department of Education. Results revealed
that both SES and academic press were the two strongest and most significant
factors related to student achievement in mathematics, reading, and writing.
Conclusions about the relationship between principal’s academic
press and student academic achievement. The results from the research have
60
indicated that pushing for academic press can be positively linked to student
achievement (Goddard, Sweetland et al., 2000; Hoy & Hannum, 1997).
Teachers’ behaviors that can increase student achievement may be positively
affected by a school-wide academic press (Goddard, Sweetland et al., 2000; Hoy
& Hannum, 1997).
Establishing high expectations for students can be one of the leadership
practices increasing academic press within a school (Leithwood et al., 2010;
McGuigan & Hoy, 2006). Research has shown that principals in effective,
inclusive schools have high expectations for all students including SWDs (Farrell,
Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Hallannaugh, 2007; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd,
2011). Valentine and Prater (2013) found that students whose principals held
higher expectations had significantly greater achievement than those students
whose principals held lower expectations. Given these findings and the extent to
which SWDs are educated in inclusive classrooms, future research studies
should be conducted to examine the relationship between principals’ high
expectations for SWDs who receive their content instruction only in general
education classrooms and their academic achievement.
Promoting Instructional Improvement
The role of principals has been evolving toward more emphasis on
instructional leadership in recent years, given that principals are responsible for
the learning of all students (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010;
Lynch, 2012). Principals who focus more on instructional leadership tend to have
a greater impact on student achievement (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008;
61
Shatzer, Caldarella, Hallam, & Brown, 2014). Managing instructional programs
has been shown to be one of the instructional leaders’ critical practices (Hitt &
Tucker, 2015; Rigby, 2014). Furthermore, principals’ impact on instructional
improvement indicates “the degree to which the principal positively influences the
instructional skills present in the school” (Valentine & Prater, 2013, p.10).
Valentine and Prater (2013) investigated the linear relationship between
principal leadership practices and student achievement. Nine factors related to
principal instructional leadership, managerial leadership, and transformational
leadership were incorporated into the Audit of Principal Effectiveness (APE)
leadership surveys. The surveys were administered to teachers from 155 high
schools in Missouri. A total of 443 teachers from 131 schools provided usable
responses for data analysis. Student individual achievement scores on four
subtests (i.e., language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science) of the
Missouri State-wide high-stakes Assessment (MAP) test, and a single average
composite score from the most recent years for each subject produced by the
MAP Performance Index (MPI), were used as student achievement in the study.
Results from the regression analysis indicated that principals’ impact on
instructional improvement could significantly explain the variances in students’
language arts and social studies scores.
Conclusions about the relationship between promoting instructional
improvement and student academic achievement. Only one study
investigated the impact of principals’ promotion of instruction on the academic
achievement of students without disabilities. Valentine and Prater (2013)
62
concluded that principal promotion of instruction significantly increased students’
language arts and social studies achievement. Future research also needs to
investigate whether there is a relationship between principal instructional
promotion and the academic achievement of SWDs who are provided content
instruction only in general education classrooms.
Conclusions about the Relationship between Principal Leadership
Practices and Student Achievement
Principals’ roles have been shifting greatly to include responsibility for
instructional leadership and the learning of all students, including those with
disabilities (Lynch, 2012). It is important to investigate the relationship between
principal leadership practices and the academic achievement of SWDs, since
principals are being held accountable for all students. Research has indicated
that principal leadership practices, such as creating a safe school environment,
pushing for academic press, and promoting instructional improvement, have
been directly or indirectly related to student academic achievement (Jacobson et
al., 2007; Hopson et al., 2014; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Goddard, Sweetland et al.,
2000; Leithwood et al., 2010; Valentine & Prater, 2013).
However, this line of research has not disaggregated the data to
specifically examine the relationship between those leadership practices and the
academic achievement of SWDs. That leaves questions unanswered regarding
whether there is a relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions
of principal leadership practices and the academic achievement of SWDs who
receive content instruction only in general education classrooms and how strong
63
that relationship is. Future research should be conducted to investigate the
overall relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions of principal
leadership practices and the academic achievement of SWDs who receive their
content instruction only in general education classrooms. In addition, further
studies should also be conducted to examine to what degree general education
teachers’ perceptions of specific principal leadership practices have been related
the academic achievement of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in
general education classrooms.
64
CHAPTER 3 METHODS
This study was conducted by performing a secondary analysis of the
SEELS dataset to examine to what degree general education teachers’
professional learning and their perceptions of principal leadership practices are
related to the reading achievement of SWDs who received reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms. The present chapter will
describe how the methodology and analytic procedures were used to address the
previously presented research questions:
(1) To what degree is general education teachers’ professional learning
(i.e., general/special education certificate, years of teaching, years of teaching
SWDs, and education degree) related to the reading achievement of SWDs who
received reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms?
(2) To what degree are general education teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership practices (i.e., holding high expectations, creating a safe
environment, and promoting instructional improvement) related to the reading
achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only
in general education classrooms?
Information related to SEELS database, instrumentation, analytic sample,
and analytic approaches will be described in the following section.
SEELS Database
To provide an overall picture of the characteristics, experiences, learning
environments, social and academic outcomes of SWDs, the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education funded the
65
SEELS in 1999. A two-stage sampling procedure was used by SEELS staff to
recruit participants for the study. First, local education agencies (LEAs) were
stratified based on region (i.e., Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and West), LEA
size (i.e., student enrollment) and LEA/community wealth. Then students in each
disability category were randomly selected from the participating LEAs and state-
supported special schools. As a result, a total of 11,512 students from 297 LEAs
were selected to participate in SEELS in 1999 (Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, &
Epstein, 2005).
Assessment measures such as a teacher survey, school program and
characteristics survey, parent interview, and direct assessment of reading and
mathematics achievement were administered in three waves across four
academic years (i.e., Wave 1: 2000-2001; Wave 2: 2001-2002; Wave 3: 2004-
2005). Telephone interviews were conducted with parents, while teacher surveys
and school program and characteristics surveys were mailed to language arts
teachers and school administrators. Direct assessment measures (i.e., reading,
mathematics) were administered face-to-face with the same students across
three waves. The age ranges of participating SWDs were 7 to 15 in Wave 1, 8 to
16 in Wave 2, and 10 to 18 in Wave 3.
Instrumentation
To examine the relationships between general education teachers’
professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal leadership practices
and the academic achievement of SWDs who received language arts/reading
instruction only in general education classrooms, relevant variables including
66
students’ age, gender, reading achievement (i.e., letter-word, passage
comprehension), and instructional settings for reading/language arts were
selected for the data analysis. All the variables used in the study were described
in APPENDIX A.
Dependent variables. Students’ reading scores were the dependent
variables in this study. The research editions of two subtests of the Woodcock-
Johnson Test of Achievement III (WJ III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001)
were used to assess students’ reading achievement. The two subtests include
passage comprehension and letter-word identification.
Passage comprehension. Students’ language comprehension and
reading skills are measured in this subtest when they complete cloze problems.
Students are first required to read a short passage and then identify a missing
key word that is appropriate to the passage context. The test-retest reliability for
this subtest is .92. The validity of this subtest is supported by the moderate
correlations with two other reading comprehension subtests, the Kaufmann Test
of Education Achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) and the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test (Wechsler, 2001). The correlations are .62 and .79
respectively.
Letter-word identification. Students’ skills to identify letters and words
are measured in this subtest. Students are required to identify letters in large
type as well as pronounce words correctly. The test-retest reliability for this
subtest is .95. This subtest has moderate correlations with two other reading
comprehension subtests, the Kaufmann Test of Education Achievement
67
(Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
(Wechsler, 2001). The correlations are .66 and .82 respectively.
Student reading achievement at previous waves. Students’ direct
assessment measures in reading were administered from winter to spring. To
examine the long-term (i.e., one year, two-year, and three-year) effects of
general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions of
principal leadership practices on the academic achievement of SWDs who
received their language arts/reading instruction only in general education
classrooms, students’ reading achievement at previous waves was included in
the data analysis.
Disability categories. Students’ disability categories were included in all
the data sets and were defined as the school reported disability category for
which the student received special education services during the data collection.
SEELS included students from 12 disability categories as defined in IDEA (2004):
learning disabilities, speech impairments, intellectual disability, emotional
disturbances, hearing impairments, visual impairments, other health impairments,
orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain injury, autism, multiple disabilities, and
deaf/blindness.
Students who were in the deaf/blindness category were excluded from this
analysis because of the limited sample size. In the samples constructed across
Waves 1 and 2 and Waves 2 and 3, no student who was deaf/blind received their
language arts/reading instruction in general education classrooms. There was
only one student who was deaf/blind in the sample constructed across Waves 1
68
and 3. In the actual data analysis, students with hearing impairments, visual
impairments, other health impairments, orthopedic impairments, traumatic brain
injury, and multiple disabilities were first coded as students with other disabilities.
Then within the disability category, students with learning disabilities, students
with speech impairments, students with intellectual disability, students with
emotional disturbance, students with autism, and students with other disabilities
were dummy coded and included in the analysis.
Student demographic characteristics. Student background data such
as gender, race/ethnicity (e.g., White, African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific
Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Multi/other) and SES were also
included in this analysis. Since the percentages of students whose ethnicities
were classified as Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or
Multi/other were very low, these three categories were combined and classified
as other. Consequently, students’ ethnic status was represented as White,
African American, Hispanic, and other. Meanwhile, students’ SES status was
classified as low if their household income was $25,000 and under; moderate if
their household income was between $25,001 and $50,000; and high if their
household income was over $50,000.
School-related characteristics. In the School Characteristics survey,
administrators were asked to provide information related to the percentage of
students who received free or reduced lunch. The percentage was divided into
four categories: (1) Less than 25%; (2) 26% to 50%; (3) 51% to 75%; and (4)
More than 75%. The percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch
69
at the same wave as general education teachers’ professional learning and their
perceptions of principal leadership practices was included in the actual data
analysis.
Peer-related characteristics. In the Teacher Questionnaire, teachers
were asked to provide information related to the number of SWDs present in their
general language arts class. Previous research (Bettini, Park, Benedict,
Kimerling, & Leite, in press) found that there was a negative relationship between
the number of SWDs who received their reading instruction in the same special
education classroom and the reading achievement of SWDs. That is to say,
SWDs had lower reading achievement if they received their reading/language
arts instruction together with more SWDs in the same special education
classroom. For this study, the number of SWDs in the general language
arts/reading classrooms was selected and included in the data analysis.
Instructional settings for language arts/reading. In the Teacher
Questionnaire, teachers were asked to provide information about whether or not
SWDs received their language arts instruction in general education classrooms.
For this study, only SWDs who received their language arts/reading instruction in
general education classrooms were selected and included in the data analysis.
However, information related to those SWDs who received their language arts
instruction in special education classrooms was also provided in order to present
an overall picture on who had scores of reading measures but were excluded
from the analysis. See Tables 4-2, 4-4 and 4-6 for detailed information about
those students who were included or excluded from the data analysis.
70
Teacher professional learning. In the Teacher Questionnaire, teachers
were asked to provide information related to their certificate status (i.e., general
education certificate, disability-specific certificate/endorsement, special education
certificate/endorsement, speech/language certificate or no certificate), years of
teaching, years of teaching SWDs, hours of PD received during the previous 12
months, and their education degree. Since there is a two-year gap between
Waves 2 and 3 and three-year gap between Waves 1 and 3, the variable (i.e.,
hours of PD during the previous 12 months) was excluded from those two latter
samples (i.e., Waves 2 and 3; Waves 1 and 3). See Tables 4-3, 4-5, and 4-7 for
the descriptive statistics of variables related to general education teachers’
professional learning across the three constructed samples.
In the Teacher Questionnaire, general education certificate, disability-
specific certificate/endorsement, special education certificate/endorsement,
speech/language certificate, physical therapy license, occupational therapy
license, other, and none were all straightforward yes/no variables. Teachers
holding different certificates were organized into a new variable with the following
categories.
General education certificate includes general education certificate.
Dual certificate includes both general education certificate as well as
disability-specific certificate/endorsement and/or special education
certificate/endorsement.
71
Special education certificate includes disability-specific
certificate/endorsement and/or special education certificate/endorsement as well
as speech/language certificate.
Teachers who held other certificates not listed in the SEELS categories or
no certificate were excluded from the data analysis based on the purpose of this
study and the small number of these respondents. In the actual data analysis,
this newly constructed teacher certificate variable was dummy coded in order to
investigate whether there were different effects among various certificates on the
reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms.
Teachers were asked to provide the number of their continuing PD hours
received during the past 12 months, information related to their overall years of
teaching, and years teaching SWDs. The PD hours were recorded in numbers
with a range of 0 to 700 hours across the waves. Teachers’ years of teaching
and years of teaching SWDs were recorded in numbers with a range of 0 to 40
hours across the waves. Previous research has indicated there is a positive and
significant relationship between teachers’ years of teaching experience and the
academic achievement of students with and without disabilities (Boyd, Grassman
et al., 2006; Boyd, Landford et al., 2008; Clotfelter et al., 2007; Feng & Sass,
2013; Huang & Moon, 2008; Nye et al., 2004). Although the teachers in Edmunds
(2000) indicated that years of teaching SWDs could be one of the very important
factors contributing to successful inclusion, no study has been conducted to
investigate the relationship between teachers’ experience of teaching SWDs and
72
the academic achievement of SWDs who received their content instruction only
in general education classrooms.
Finally, teachers provided detailed education degree status. The
descriptive statistics results across the three constructed samples indicated that
the number of teachers who held a high school diploma or associate’s degree
was only one. Therefore, these two categories were excluded from the data
analysis. Further, SWDs were also excluded from the analysis if their general
education teachers indicated other for their education degree. The categories
within teacher education degree were reorganized as bachelor’s degree; at least
one year of course work beyond a bachelor’s but not a graduate degree;
master’s degree; and beyond master’s degree that included education specialist
or professional diploma with at least one year of course work past a master’s
degree or doctoral degree.
Teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices. In the Teacher
Questionnaire, teachers were asked to provide to what degree (1. Strongly
disagree; 2. Disagree; 3. Agree; 4. Strongly agree) they perceived the principal
had high expectations and standards for students and teachers; the principal
promoted instructional improvement among school staff; and the school was a
safe place for students. See Tables 4-3, 4-5, and 4-7 for the descriptive statistics
of variables related to teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices at
Waves 1 and 2.
Likert scales (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree)
were used to assess the respondents’ level of agreement with a given statement
73
(Likert, 1932). In this study, principals were categorized as having low
expectations if their teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed that they had high
expectations and standards for students and teachers; moderate expectations if
their teachers agreed that they had high expectations and standards for students
and teachers; and high expectations if their teachers strongly agreed that they
had high expectations and standards for students and teachers.
Similarly, principals were categorized as having a low level of instructional
promotion if their teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed that they promoted
instructional improvement among school staff; a moderate level of instructional
promotion if their teachers agreed that they promoted instructional improvement
among school staff; and a high level of instructional promotion if their teachers
strongly agreed that they promoted instructional improvement among school
staff. Finally, principals were categorized as creating a less safe school
environment for students if their teachers strongly disagreed or disagreed that
the school was a safe place for students; a safe school environment for students
if their teachers agreed that the school was a safe place for students; and a
highly safe school environment for students if their teachers strongly agreed that
the school was a safe place for students.
Analytic Samples for Research Questions
To examine the one-year, two-year, and three-year effects of general
education teacher professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal
leadership practices on the academic achievement of SWDs who received their
language arts/reading instruction only in general education classrooms, three
74
samples were constructed across the three waves. For this study, variables
related to general education teachers’ professional learning were selected from
the Teacher Questionnaire that included information related to students’
language arts classroom experiences, instructional goals, assessment,
accommodations, and etc. Variables related to general education teachers’
perceptions of principal leadership practices were also selected form the Teacher
Questionnaire. Variables related to letter-word identification and passage
comprehension achievement were selected from Direct Assessment that
included measurements of students’ reading and math performance, self-
concept, and attitudes toward school. The variable related to school lunch status
(i.e., percentage of free or reduced lunch) was selected from the School
Characteristics Survey that included school characteristics and policies.
The same procedure was followed to construct those three samples. First,
the three data files (i.e., the Teacher Questionnaire, Direct Assessment, and the
School Characteristics Survey) were merged across three waves. Then,
variables related to general education teachers’ professional learning and their
perceptions of principal leadership practices were selected from the Teacher
Questionnaire, variables related to students’ reading performance were selected
from Direct Assessment, and the variable related to school free/reduced lunch
status was selected from the School Characteristics Survey. Finally, the selected
variables were organized based on the waves and exported as the text files. The
file merging and variable selection and organization were all conducted in R
software (R Core Team, 2013). See APPENDIX B for the R codes.
75
The analysis samples were first constructed based on the information
provided by the teachers in the Teacher Questionnaire that indicated whether
SWDs received language arts instruction in their general or special education
classrooms. SEELS created a variable to indicate the language arts instruction
settings of the SWDs (0 = general education classroom; 1 = special education
classroom or individual instruction). Based on that variable, only those students
who received their language arts/reading instruction in general education
classrooms were selected for this study. The total valid observations were initially
5,886 across Waves 1 and 2; 6,555 across Waves 2 and 3; and 6,107 across
Waves 1 and 3. Since students’ previous achievement would be used as a
control variable in the analysis, only students who had reading performance
scores across two waves were further selected. As a result, among the total valid
observations across different waves, there were 1,322 students across Waves 1
and 2; 1,544 across Waves 2 and 3; and 1,274 across Waves 1 and 3 that were
included in the final analysis. See Table 4-1 for the total number of eligible
participants across different waves.
Analytic Approaches for Research Questions
To empirically examine the long-term relationship (i.e., one-year, two-year,
and three-year) between general education teachers’ professional learning as
well as their perceptions of principal leadership practices and the reading
achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only
in general education classrooms, student-, peer-, family-, and school-related
factors were controlled. This was done because the academic achievement of
76
students with and without disabilities can be affected by individual, peer, teacher,
school, and family factors (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Feng & Sass, 2013;
Rivkin et al., 2005). Therefore, in this investigation, many individual, family, peer,
and school factors were controlled in order to investigate the unique contribution
of general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions
of principal leadership practices to the reading achievement of those SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms. Those controlled factors included student previous achievement,
disability categories, race/ethnicity, SES (i.e., family income), the number of
SWDs presented in the general language arts/reading instruction classrooms,
and the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch.
Based on the previous literature, general education teachers’ professional
certificate, years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, education degree, and
hours of PD were selected and categorized as general education teachers’
professional learning variables. Meanwhile, general education teachers’
perceptions on whether principals had high expectations and standards for all
students, promoted instructional improvement among school staff, or created a
safe school environment were selected and categorized as general education
teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practice variables. Because the
study aimed to explore the long-term relationship between general education
teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal leadership
practices and the reading achievement of SWDs who received their
reading/language arts content instruction only in general education classrooms,
77
all the control variables (i.e., individual, peer, family, and school factors), general
education teachers’ professional learning variables, and their perceptions of
principal leadership practices variables were selected from Waves 1 and 2, while
the reading outcome scores were selected from Waves 2 and 3. See APPENDIX
C for the selection of dependent, independent, and control variables from
different waves.
All the general education teachers’ professional learning variables except
for hours of PD and their perceptions of principal leadership practices variables
were dummy coded to examine whether there was substantial difference related
to specific general education teachers’ professional learning variables or their
perceptions of principal leadership practice variables. For example, general
education teachers held either general education certificate, dual certificate, or
special education certificate. Dummy coding can detect the relationships
between different certificates and the reading achievement of SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms.
Hierarchical regressions with fixed effects were employed in the data
analyses. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., 2013) was used to perform all the
analyses since survey procedures (PROC SURVEYREG) in SAS could handle
the complex sampling design and allow for the exact estimate of
variances/standard errors. For Model 1, all the controlled variables were entered
to examine how much variance in the reading achievement of SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
78
classrooms can be explained by the controlled variables. For Model 2, all the
controlled variables and general education teachers’ professional learning
variables were entered together to examine the additional contribution of general
education teachers’ professional learning to the reading achievement of SWDs
who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms. For Model 3, all the controlled variables, general education teachers’
professional learning variables, and their perceptions of principal leadership
practices variables were entered together to examine the additional contribution
of general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices to the
reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms. See Figure 3-1 for the variables
included in different models.
Three samples (Sample 1: Waves 1 and 2; Sample 2: Waves 2 and 3; and
Sample 3: Waves 1 and 3) were constructed in the study to address the two
research questions. The same procedure was followed while conducting the data
analyses for the three samples. The full models of the three samples are
presented as follows:
Sample 1: 𝑌𝑖𝑤2 = β0 + β1s𝑤1Xs𝑤1 + β2t𝑤1Xt𝑤1 + β3l𝑤1Xl𝑤1 + ε𝑖𝑤2
Sample 2: 𝑌𝑖𝑤3 = β0 + β1s𝑤2Xs𝑤2 + β2t𝑤2Xt𝑤2 + β3l𝑤2Xl𝑤2 + ε𝑖𝑤3
Sample 3: 𝑌𝑖𝑤3 = β0 + β1s𝑤1Xs𝑤1 + β2t𝑤1Xt𝑤1 + β3l𝑤1Xl𝑤1 + ε𝑖𝑤3
In Sample 1, 𝑌𝑖𝑤2 is student achievement at Wave 2; Xs𝑤1is a vector of
student, family, peer, and school characteristics variables at Wave 1; Xt𝑤1is a
vector of general education teachers’ professional learning variables at Wave 1;
79
Xl𝑤1 is a vector of general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices variables at Wave 1; and ε𝑖𝑤2 is a residual.
In Sample 2, 𝑌𝑖𝑤3 is student achievement at Wave 3; Xs𝑤2is a vector of
student, family, peer, and school characteristics variables at Wave 2; Xt𝑤2is a
vector of general education teachers’ professional learning variables at Wave 2;
Xl𝑤2 is a vector of general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices variables at Wave 2; and ε𝑖𝑤3 is a residual.
In Sample 3, 𝑌𝑖𝑤3 is student achievement at Wave 3; Xs𝑤1is a vector of
student, family, peer, and school characteristics variables at Wave 1; Xt𝑤1is a
vector of general education teachers’ professional learning variables at Wave 1;
Xl𝑤1 is a vector of general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices variables at Wave 1; and ε𝑖𝑤3 is a residual.
Weighting. SEELS data used stratification for its sample. Weights were
used to account for unequal probability sample selection. Weights should be
included in the data analysis to produce unbiased parameter estimates
(Asparouhov, 2005; Ciol et al., 2006). There is a weight for every SEELS data
collection instrument. As suggested by SEELS, the weight in the instrument that
had the least number of respondents should be used for the analysis. According
to SRI (1999), “student sampling weights are the product of the LEA sampling
weights and the inverse of the student sampling fraction” (SRI, 1999, p. 4-19).
Consequently, the weight from the direct assessment at Wave 2 or Wave 3 was
used for the different constructed samples. Using SAS 9.4, all of the models were
analyzed by using the weights from the direct assessment.
80
Sample size. In order to get good estimates, an absolute minimum of 10
observations per predictor variable is required for a multiple regression linear
model (Babyak, 2004; Van Voorhis & Morgan, 2007). Across the three
constructed samples, the included participants were 628, 748, and 626
separately. There were 37 or 38 predictor variables when the model included all
the variables such as student/peer/family/school characteristics variables,
general education teachers’ professional learning variables, and general
education teachers’ perceptions of principal leader practices variables. The three
sample sizes were well above the criterion suggested by those researchers.
Missing data. According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2001), the missing
data is not problematic if only a small number of data are missing from a large
data set and are missing in a random pattern. However, in this study, each model
included an individual set of variables, the missing number of variables from
those different sets was large, ranging from 15.9% to 38.2% (See Table 4-8 for
the variables with and without missing data). Data should not be analyzed by
deleting the observations with missing data since available case analysis has
yielded problematic estimates in almost all situations and often leads to a loss of
statistical power (Pigott, 2001; Rubin, 1987).
Multiple imputation can be used to generate a set of multiple completed
datasets for the researchers to analyze their data. Through multiple imputation,
bias is minimized; available information is maximized; and good estimates of
uncertainty are produced (Allison, 2001; He, 2010). The Markov Chain Monte
Carlo (MCMC) method can be used to handle any pattern of missing data
81
(Allison, 2001) and was used to impute the missing data through SAS 9.4. All the
independent and dependent variables used in the subsequent analyses should
be included in multiple imputations (Rubin, 1996). See Table 4-8 for all the
variables included in multiple imputations across different models. Some
researchers (i.e., Bodner, 2008; White, Royston, & Wood, 2011) further indicated
that an appropriate way to handle the missing data was to impute the data based
on the percentage of the missing data. For this study, the missing data were
imputed according to the different percentage of the missing data across the
models. See Table 4-8 for the number of imputations across various models.
Assumptions. The hierarchical regressions with fixed effects used in this
study is essentially multiple regressions through sequentially adding different
sets of predictors. The estimates originated from research studies that used
regression analysis without testing the regression assumptions may be less valid
(Antonakis & Deitz, 2011; Sevier, 1957). Therefore, it is important to check the
assumptions underlying the statistical model before running the analysis and
interpreting the results. According to some researchers (Keith, 2006; Osborne &
Waters, 2002), the following assumptions should be tested before the formal
analysis: (1) linearity; (2) independence of errors; (3) homoscdasticity; (4)
collinearity; and (5) normality. All of these assumptions were tested in SAS 9.4 by
adding weight to account for the complex survey designs (Sharon, 2012). Since
the majority of the independent variables are categorical variables, it is difficult to
test the assumption of linearity. Therefore, only four assumptions were examined
for this study. Those four assumptions were checked across the imputed
82
datasets. See Table 4-9 for the assumption-testing results and strategies to
address the assumption violations for all the models. Across the models, two
strategies were used to address the assumption violations: (1) changing the
reference group of teacher education’s degree; and (2) changing the variable
“years of teaching SWDs” from six categories to five categories.
Figure 3-1. Variables Included in Different Models.
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
• Students’ gender, race, disability category,
SES
• Number of SWDs presented in the same
general education classroom
Teacher professional learning:
• Professional certificate
• Years of teaching
• Years of teaching SWDs
• Education degree
• PD hours
Teacher perceptions of principal leadership
practices:
• Higher expectations
• Instructional improvement
• School safety
Model
Included Variables
83
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
In this chapter, the descriptive statistics for SWDs who received their
reading/language arts instruction in general education classrooms (i.e., included
samples) and SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction in
special education classrooms (i.e., excluded samples) will be first presented.
Then, the descriptive statistics related to general education teachers’
professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal leadership practices
will be presented. Finally, the results related to the relationship between general
education teachers' professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal
leadership practices and the reading achievement of SWDs who received their
reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms will be
presented separately.
Characteristics of Included and Excluded Samples
Across the three samples, there are some differences between the
included and excluded participants on their race/ethnicity, disability categories,
and SES. There are also some common differences between the included and
excluded participants across the three samples (see Tables 4-2, 4-4, and 4-6).
When comparing their peers instructed in special language arts classrooms, (1)
less than half of African American SWDs were instructed in general language
arts classrooms; (2) fewer Hispanic SWDs were instructed in general language
arts classrooms; (3) substantially fewer students with intellectual disability were
instructed in general language arts classrooms; (4) substantially more students
with speech impairment were instructed in general language arts classrooms; (5)
84
fewer students with emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, autism, traumatic
brain injury, and multiple disabilities were instructed in general language arts
classrooms; (6) more students with visual impairment, orthopedic impairment,
and other health impairment were instructed in general language arts
classrooms; and (7) fewer SWDs from lower SES backgrounds were instructed in
general language arts classrooms.
Characteristics of General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and
Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices
Race, certificate, and education degree. Across the three samples, a
substantial majority of teachers (over 90%) who taught language arts in general
education classrooms were White. Similarly, across three samples, 80.6% of
teachers who taught language arts in general education classrooms held a
general education certificate; 11.2% of teachers who taught language arts in
general education classrooms held both general and special education
certificates; and 3.5% of teachers taught language arts in general education
classrooms only held special education certificate. All the teachers who taught
language arts in general education classrooms held at least a bachelor’s degree.
Teachers who held master’s degree was the largest group.
Years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, and hours of PD. Across
the three samples, the majority of general education teachers had more than five
years of general teaching experience, with a range of 72.2% to 74.6%. Similarly,
the majority of general education teachers also had more than five years of
experience teaching SWDs, with a range of 66.4% to 69.1%. Since teachers who
85
completed the survey were asked to provide their PD hours received during the
past 12 months, teachers’ reported PD hours were only included in Sample 1 for
the data analysis. The average PD hours received by general education teachers
during the previous 12 months was 59.1 hours.
General education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices. The vast majority of general education teachers across three samples
“agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their principals had high expectations and
standards for students and teachers, promoted instructional improvement among
school staff, and strived to create a safe school environment for students. More
specifically, 96.1%, 94.2%, and 96.0% of general education teachers “agreed” or
strongly “agreed” that their principals had high expectations and standards for
students and teachers in Samples 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Ninety-four point one
percent (94.1%), 93.1%, and 95.0% of general education teachers “agreed” or
strongly “agreed” that their principals promoted instructional improvement among
school staff in Samples 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Ninety-five point five percent
(95.5%), 94.0%, and 95.9% of teachers “agreed” or strongly “agreed” that their
principals created a safe school environment for students across Samples 1, 2,
and 3 respectively.
Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning
and the Reading Achievement of SWDs
In this investigation, students’ reading achievement included their letter-
word identification as well as passage comprehension performance. In order to
better estimate the relationship between general education teachers’ professional
86
learning and the reading achievement of SWDs who received their
reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms, some
student-, peer-, family-, and school-related factors (i.e., achievement at a
previous wave, gender, race, disability category, the number of SWDs in the
same general language arts classroom, SES, and school lunch status) were
controlled. For the three samples, adjusted r-square change across the models
and individual parameter estimates are organized and presented in Tables 4-10,
4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18.
Relationship between general education teachers’ professional
learning and letter-word identification performance of SWDs. For SWDs who
received reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms
across all waves (i.e., Wave 1 and Wave 2, Wave 2 and Wave 3, Wave 1 and
Wave 3), those students’ peer-, family-, and school-related characteristics
significantly predicted their letter-word achievement across three samples
(Sample1: F(17,627) = 46.13, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .664; Sample 2: F(17,747)
= 33.35, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .594; Sample 3: F(17,625) = 47.38, p < .0001,
adjusted R2 = .471). As years progressed, the variance explained by the
controlled variables decreased. Across the three samples, students’ letter-word
identification achievement at the previous wave was a consistent significant
predictor of their letter-word identification achievement at a later wave. See
Tables 4-11, 4-14, and 4-17 for more information.
When general education teachers’ professional learning variables were
added, the entire group of control and teacher professional learning variables
87
significantly predicted the letter-word achievement of SWDs across the three
samples (Sample 1: F(32,627) = 27.59, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .679; Sample 2:
F(31,747) = 22.36, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .597; Sample 3: F(31,625) = 27.70, p
< .0001, adjusted R2 = .491). However, there was only a small increase in the
adjusted R2 after general education teachers’ professional learning variables
were entered into the models, with an increasing range from .003 to .02. As a
whole, there was no significant relationship between general education teachers’
professional learning and the letter-word identification achievement of SWDs. But
students’ letter-word identification achievement differed based on the various
categories within certain general education teachers’ professional learning
variables.
For example, after one year, as presented in Table 4-11, while holding
other variables constant, SWDs had higher letter-word identification achievement
at Wave 2 if their general education teachers had taught more than 25 years
compared to those whose general education teachers had taught less than 25
years. Moreover, SWDs had significantly higher letter-word identification
achievement at Wave 2 if their general education teachers taught more than 25
years compared to those whose general education teachers had taught 3-5 years
(β = 10.2, p = 0.02).
After two years, as presented in Table 4-14, while holding other variables
constant, SWDs whose teachers held a special education certificate had
significantly higher letter-word identification achievement than those SWDs
88
whose teachers held a general education certificate (β = 6.63, p = 0.026) or dual
certificates (β = 7.92, p = 0.025).
Relationship between general education teachers’ professional
learning and passage comprehension performance of SWDs. For SWDs who
received reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms
at both waves (i.e., Wave 1 and Wave 2, Wave 2 and Wave 3, Wave 1 and Wave
3), those students-, peer-, family-, and school-related characteristics significantly
predicted their passage comprehension achievement across the three samples
(Sample 1: F(17,627) = 9.40, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .436; Sample 2: F(17,747)
= 10.04, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .322; Sample 3: F(17,625) = 9.86, p < .0001,
adjusted R2 = .265). As years progressed, the variance explained by the
controlled variables decreased. Across the three samples, students’ passage
comprehension achievement at the previous wave was a consistent significant
predictor of their passage comprehension achievement at a later wave. See
Tables 4-11, 4-15 and 4-18 for more information.
When general education teachers’ professional learning variables were
added, the entire group of control and general education teachers’ professional
learning variables significantly predicted the passage comprehension
achievement of SWDs across the three samples (Sample 1: F(32,627) = 6.01, p
< .0001, adjusted R2 = .466; Sample 2: F(31,747) = 7.00, p < .0001, adjusted R2
= .338; Sample 3: F(27,543) = 51.68, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .30). However,
there was only a small increase in the adjusted R2 after general education
teachers’ professional learning variables were entered into the models, with an
89
increasing range from .016 to .035. As a whole, there was no significant
relationship between general education teachers’ professional learning and the
passage comprehension achievement of SWDs. But students’ passage
comprehension achievement differed based on the various categories within
certain general education teachers’ professional learning variables.
For example, after two years, as presented in Table 4-16, while holding
other variables constant, SWDs whose teachers held a special education
certificate had significantly higher passage comprehension achievement at Wave
3 than those SWDs whose teachers held dual certificates (β = 5.25, p = 0.04).
In addition, after three years, as presented in Table 4-18, while holding other
variables constant, SWDs had significantly higher passage comprehension
scores if their teachers held a bachelor’s degree (β = 8.48, p = 0.0043), had one
year course of work after bachelor’s degree (β = 7.03, p = 0.015), or held a
master’s degree (β = 6.28, p = 0.014) than those whose teachers held a degree
beyond the master’s degree.
Summary. As a whole, there was no significant relationship between
general education teachers’ professional learning and the letter-word
identification or passage comprehension achievement of SWDs who received
their reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms.
However, while holding other variables constant, SWDs’ letter-word identification
or passage comprehension achievement significantly differed based on their
general education teachers’ various years of teaching experience, different types
of professional certificates, and different types of education degrees.
90
Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of
Principal Leadership Practices and the Reading Achievement of SWDs
In this investigation, students’ reading achievement included their letter-
word identification as well as passage comprehension performance. In order to
better estimate the relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions
of principal leadership practices and the reading achievement of SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms, the same controlling variables were entered first; then, general
education teachers’ professional learning variables were added; finally, general
education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices variables were
added. For the three samples, adjusted r-square change across the models and
individual parameter estimates are organized and presented in Tables 4-10, 4-
11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17 and 4-18.
Relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership practices and letter-word performance of SWDs. When
general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices
variables were added after the controlling variables and general education
teacher professional learning variables, the entire group of variables significantly
predicted the letter-word achievement of SWDs across the three samples
(Sample 1: F(38,627) = 25.50, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .681; Sample 2:
F(37,747) = 21.86, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .621; Sample 3: F(37,625) = 22.18, p
< .0001, adjusted R2 = .496). However, there was only a small increase in the
adjusted R2 after general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
91
practices variables were entered into the models, with an increasing range from
.002 to .024. As a whole, there was no significant relationship between general
education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices and the letter-
word identification achievement of SWDs. But students’ letter-word identification
achievement differed based on the various categories within certain general
education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices variables. For
example, after two years, as presented in Table 4-15, while holding other
variables constant, SWDs had significantly higher letter-word identification
achievement if their general education teachers “strongly agreed” that the
principals created a safe school, compared to those whose general education
teachers “agreed” that the principals created a safe school (β = 3.25, p = 0.04).
Relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership practices and passage comprehension performance of
SWDs. When general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practice variables were added after the controlling variables and general
education teachers’ professional learning variables, the entire group of variables
significantly predicted the passage comprehension achievement of SWDs across
the three samples (Sample 1: F(38,627) = 6.18, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .476;
Sample 2: F(37,747) = 7.03, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .358; Sample 3: F(37,625)
= 53.39, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .322). However, there was only a small
increase in the adjusted R2 after general education teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership practices were entered into the models, with an increasing
range from .01 to .022. As a whole, there was no significant relationship between
92
general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices and the
passage comprehension achievement of SWDs. However, students’ passage
comprehension achievement differed based on general education teachers’
perceptions of certain principal leadership practices variables.
More specifically, after three years, as presented in Table 4-18, while
holding other variables constant, if SWDs’ general education teachers “strongly
agreed” that their principals created a safe school for all the students, then those
SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms had significantly higher passage comprehension
achievement than their peers whose general education teachers “disagreed” (β =
7.11, p = 0.044) or “agreed” (β = 4.13, p = 0.02) that their principals created a
safe school for all the students.
Summary. As a whole, there was no significant relationship between
general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices and the
letter-word identification or passage comprehension achievement of SWDs who
received their reading/language arts instruction only in general education
classrooms. However, while holding other variables constant, SWDs had
significantly higher letter-word and passage comprehension achievement if their
general education teachers strongly “agreed” that their principals created a safe
school for all the students.
93
Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics for Students across Different Samples.
Samples Total Participants
Participants across all the Samples
Participants Unique to Different Samples
Waves 1 and 2 628 299 329 Waves 2 and 3 748 299 449 Waves 1 and 3 626 299 327
94
Table 4-2. Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 1.
Included Sample Excluded Sample
Characteristics Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Demographic characteristics
Age - 9.96 - 11.74 Gender
Male 395 62.9% 453 65.2% Female 233 37.1% 242 34.8%
Race/ethnicity White 522 83.1% 488 70.2%
African American 54 8.6% 137 19.7% Hispanic 38 6.1% 57 8.2%
Other 14 2.2% 13 1.9% Disability categories Learning disability 64 10.2% 71 10.2%
Speech impairment 112 17.8% 15 2.2% Intellectual disability 19 3.0% 123 17.7%
Emotional disturbance
42 6.7% 59 8.5%
Hearing impairment 75 11.9% 119 17.1% Visual impairment 53 8.4% 17 2.4%
Orthopedic impairment
75 11.9% 52 7.5%
Other health impairment
83 13.2% 66 9.5%
Autism 74 11.8% 82 11.8% Traumatic brain
injury 18 2.9% 25 3.6%
Multiple disabilities 13 2.1% 63 9.1% Deaf/Blindness -- -- 3 0.4%
SES Low 133 23.2% 259 38.5%
Moderate 199 32.9% 222 33.0% High 269 44.9% 191 28.4%
95
Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 1 (Sample 1).
Area Characteristics Wave 1
Un-weighted N Percentage/ Mean
Race/ethnicity White 557 90.9% African American 22 3.6% Hispanic 15 2.4% Other 19 3.1%
Teacher Professional
Learning
Years of teaching 0-2 years 52 8.4% 3-5 years 118 19.0% 6-9 years 80 12.9%
10-14 years 110 17.7% 15-24 years 148 23.8%
Over 25 years 114 18.3% Years of teaching SWDs
0-5 years 197 31.9% 6-10 years 125 20.2% 11-15 years 107 17.3% 16-24 years 102 16.5%
Over 25 years 87 14.1% Teacher’s professional certificate
General education certificate
500 80.8%
Dual certificates 90 14.5% Special education
certificate 29 4.7%
PD hours Mean 59.1 ---
Teacher’s education degree Bachelor’s 187 30.0%
Beyond bachelor’s 174 27.9% Master’s 222 35.6%
Beyond Master’s 41 6.6%
Leadership Practices
High expectations for all students
Low 24 3.9%
Moderate 255 41.2%
High 340 54.9%
Instructional improvement within the school
Low 36 5.8%
Moderate 241 39.1%
High 340 55.1%
96
Table 4-3. Continued
Area Characteristics Wave 1
Un-weighted N Percentage/ Mean
Safety within the school Less safe
Safe Highly safe
25 4.1% 197 32.0%
394 64.0%
97
Table 4-4. Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 2.
Included Sample Excluded Sample
Characteristics Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Demographic characteristics
Age - 13.27 - 13.48 Gender
Male 513 66.5% 606 68.5% Female 258 33.5% 279 31.5%
Race/ethnicity White 644 83.4% 578 65.2%
African American 75 9.7% 196 22.1% Hispanic 35 4.5% 89 10.0%
Other 18 2.3% 23 2.7% Disability categories
Learning disability 97 12.6% 94 10.6% Speech impairment 146 18.9% 19 2.1% Intellectual disability 17 2.2% 138 15.6%
Emotional disturbance
39 5.1% 66 7.4%
Hearing impairment 97 12.6% 143 16.1% Visual impairment 67 8.7% 34 3.8%
Orthopedic impairment
127 16.5% 66 7.4%
Other health impairment
93 12.0% 82 9.2%
Autism 69 8.9% 132 14.9% Traumatic brain
injury 11 1.4% 33 3.7%
Multiple disabilities 9 1.2% 77 8.7% Deaf/Blindness - - 3 0.3%
SES Low 142 18.9% 327 37.9%
Moderate 209 27.8% 257 29.8% High 400 53.3% 279 32.3%
98
Table 4-5. Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 2 (Sample 2).
Area Characteristics Wave 2
Un-weighted N Percentage/ Mean
Race/ethnicity White 679 92.3% African American 29 3.8% Hispanic 12 1.6% Other 17 2.2%
Teacher Professional
Learning
Years of teaching 0-2 years 80 10.8% 3-5 years 126 17.0% 6-9 years 100 13.5%
10-14 years 124 16.7% 15-24 years 166 22.3%
Over 25 years 147 19.8% Years of teaching SWDs
0-5 years 249 33.6% 6-10 years 155 20.9%
11-15 years 119 16.1% 16-24 years 122 16.5%
Over 25 years 96 13.0% Teacher’s professional certificate
General education certificate
635 82.8%
Dual certificates 97 12.6% Special education
certificate 25 3.3%
Teacher’s education degree Bachelor’s 181 24.2%
Beyond bachelor’s 246 32.8% Master’s 279 37.2%
Beyond Master’s 43 5.7%
Leadership Practices
High expectations for all students Low 45 6.0%
Moderate 293 38.8% High 418 55.3%
Instructional improvement within the school Low 53 7.0%
Moderate 320 42.2% High 386 50.9%
Safety within the school Less safe 38 5.0%
Safe 267 35.3% Highly safe 452 59.7%
99
Table 4-6. Descriptive Statistics for Students from Sample 3.
Included Sample Excluded Sample
Characteristics Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Un-weighted N
Percentage or Mean
Demographic characteristics
Age - 13.29 - 13.62 Gender
Male 400 62.8% 421 65.1% Female 237 37.2% 226 34.9%
Race/ethnicity White 528 82.9% 450 69.6%
African American 62 9.7% 122 18.9% Hispanic 30 4.7% 60 9.3%
Other 17 2.7% 15 2.3% Disability categories
Learning disability 69 10.8% 64 9.9% Speech impairment 119 18.7% 10 1.5% Intellectual disability 17 2.7% 123 19.0%
Emotional disturbance
38 6.0% 50 7.7%
Hearing impairment 81 12.7% 109 16.8% Visual impairment 61 9.6% 17 2.6%
Orthopedic impairment
92 14.4% 47 7.3%
Other health impairment
81 12.7% 58 9.0%
Autism 58 9.1% 82 12.7% Traumatic brain
injury 11 1.7% 24 3.7%
Multiple disabilities 9 1.4% 61 9.4% Deaf/Blindness 1 0.2% 2 0.3%
SES Low 115 18.3% 222 35.1%
Moderate 167 26.6% 200 31.6% High 346 55.1% 211 33.3%
100
Table 4-7. Descriptive Statistics for General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices at Wave 1 (Sample 3).
Area Characteristics Wave 1
Un-weighted N Percentage/ Mean
Race/ethnicity White 562 91.5% African American 23 3.7% Hispanic 11 1.8% Other 18 2.9%
Teacher Professional
Learning
Years of teaching 0-2 years 55 8.9% 3-5 years 102 16.5% 6-9 years 80 13.0%
10-14 years 110 17.8%
15-24 years 143 23.2% Over 25 years 127 20.6%
Years of teaching SWDs 0-5 years 190 30.9%
6-10 years 125 20.3% 11-15 years 100 16.3% 16-24 years 106 17.2%
Over 25 years 94 15.3% Teacher’s professional certificate
General education certificate
500 81.0%
Dual certificates 96 15.6% Special education
certificate 21 3.4%
Teacher’s education degree Bachelor’s 171 27.5%
Beyond bachelor’s 170 27.4% Master’s 226 36.4%
Beyond Master’s 54 8.7%
Leadership Practices
High expectations for all students Low 28 4.5%
Moderate 249 40.2% High 343 55.3% Instructional improvement within the school
Low 38 6.21% Moderate 236 38.1%
High 345 55.9% Safety within the school
Less safe 25 4.0% Safe 199 32.1%
Highly safe 395 63.8%
101
Table 4-8. Missing Numbers from the Included Variables.
Variables Number of Missing/Percentage
Sample 1 (N= 628)
Sample 2 (N= 748)
Sample 3 (N= 626)
Letter Word at a previous wave
18/2.9% 24/3.2% 20/3.2%
Letter Word at a current wave
16/2.5% 25/3.3% 17/2.7%
Passage Comprehension at a previous wave
17/2.7% 22/2.9% 16/2.6%
Passage Comprehension at
a current wave
23/3.7% 18/2.4% 13/2.1%
Disability 0/0 0/0 0/0 Gender 0/0 1/0.001% 1/0.2%
Free lunch status 31/4.9% 38/5.1% 40/6.4% Number of SWDs 47/7.5% 19/2.5% 59/9.4%
SES 29/4.6% 21/2.8% 32/5.1% Years of teaching 6/1.0% 5/0.7% 9/1.4% Years of teaching
SWDs 10/1.6% 7/0.9% 11/1.8%
Teacher professional
certificate
9/1.4% 4/0.5% 9/1.4%
Education degree 4/0.6% 7/0.9% 5/0.8% Professional development
34/5.4% --- ---
High expectations 9/1.4% 16/2.4% 6/1.0% Instructional improvement
11/1.8% 13/1.7% 7/1.1%
School safety 12/1.9% 15/2.0% 7/1.1% Models for Letter Word
Model 1 141/22.5% 128/17.1% 169/27.0% Model 2 204/32.5% 151/20.2% 203/32.4% Model 3 236/37.6% 195/26.1% 223/35.6%
Models for Passage Comprehension Model 1 147/23.4% 119/15.9% 161/25.7% Model 2 210/33.4% 142/19.0% 195/31.2% Model 3 242/38.2% 186/24.9% 215/34.3%
102
Table 4-9. Assumptions Testing and Strategies to Address Violations.
Models Assumptions
Independence of Errors
(DW) Value is
1.5<DW<2.5
Homoscedasticity
(Plot)
Collinearity (VIF<10/
Tolerance> .1)
Normality (fit –diagnostics)
S1
Model 1 /C
LW_2
✓ across the
23 imputations
✓ across the
23 imputations
✓ across the
23 imputations
✓ across the
23 imputations (see Figures D-1 and D-2)
Model 2 / C+T LW_2
✓ across the
33 imputations
✓ across the
33 imputations
✓ across the
33 imputations
✓ across the
33 imputations (see Figures D-3 and D-4)
Model 3/C+T+
P LW_2
✓ across the
38 imputations
✓ across the
38 imputations
✓ across the
38 imputations
✓ across the
38 imputations (see Figures D-5 and D-6)
Model 1 /C
PC_2
✓ across the
24 imputations
✓ across the
24 imputations
✓ across the
24 imputations
✓ across the
24 imputations (see Figures D7 and D-8)
Model 2 / C+T PC_2
✓ across the
34 imputations
✓ across the
34 imputations
✓ across the
34 imputations
✓ across the
34 imputations (see Figures
D-9 and D-10) Model
3/C+T+P
PC_2
✓ across the
39 imputations
✓ across the
39 imputations
✓ across the
39 imputations
✓ across the
39 imputations (see Figures D-11 and D-
12)
S2
Model 1/ C
LW_3
✓ across the
18 imputations
✓ across the
18 imputations
✓ across the
18 imputations
✓ across the
18 imputations (see Figures E-1 and E-2)
Model 2 / C+T LW_3
✓ across the
21 imputations
✓ across the
21 imputations
✓ across the
21 imputations after changing the reference
group¹
✓ across the
21 imputations (see Figures E-3 and E-4)
103
Table 4-9. Continued
Models Assumptions
Independence of Errors
(DW) Value is
1.5<DW<2.5
Homoscedasticity
(Plot)
Collinearity (VIF<10/
Tolerance> .1)
Normality (fit –diagnostics)
Model 3/C+T+
P LW_3
✓ across the
27 imputations
✓ across the
27 imputations
✓ across the
27 imputations after changing the reference
group¹
✓ across the
27 imputations (see Figures E-5 and E-6)
Model 1 /C
PC_3
✓ across the
16 imputations
✓ across the
16 imputations
✓ across the
16 imputations
✓ across the
16 imputations (see Figures E-7 and E-8)
Model 2 / C+T PC_3
✓ across the
19 imputations
✓ across the
19 imputations
✓ across the
19 imputations after changing the reference
group¹
✓ across the
19 imputations (see Figures
E-9 and E-10)
Model 3/C+T+
P PC_3
✓ across the
25 imputations
✓ across the
25 imputations
✓ across the
25 imputations after changing the reference
group¹
✓ across the
25 imputations (see Figures E-11 and E-
12)
S3
Model 1/ C
LW_3
✓ across the
27 imputations
✓ across the
27 imputations
✓ across the
27 imputations
✓ across the
27 imputations (see Figures F-1 and F-2)
Model 2/C +T LW_3
✓ across the
33 imputations
✓ across the
33 imputations
✓ across the
33 imputations after recoding one variable²
✓ across the
33 imputations (see Figures F-3 and F-4)
Model 3/C+T+
P LW_3
✓ across the
36 imputations
✓ across the
36 imputations
✓ across the
36 imputations after recoding one variable²
✓ across the
36 imputations (see Figures F-5 and F-6)
Model 1/ C
PC_3
✓ across the
26 imputations
✓ across the
26 imputations
✓ across the
26 imputations
✓ across the
26 imputations (see Figures F-7 and F-8)
104
Table 4-9. Continued
Models Assumptions
Independence of Errors
(DW) Value is
1.5<DW<2.5
Homoscedasticity
(Plot)
Collinearity (VIF<10/
Tolerance> .1)
Normality (fit –diagnostics)
Model 2/C +T PC_3
✓ across the
32 imputations
✓ across the
32 imputations
✓ across the
32 imputations after recoding one variable²
✓ across the
32 imputations (see Figures
F-9 and F-10) Model
3/C+T+P
PC_3
✓ across the
35 imputations
✓ across the
35 imputations
✓ across the
35 imputations after recoding one variable²
✓ across the
35 imputations (see Figures F-11 and F-
12)
Note: S = Sample; C = Control variables (i.e., students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at a previous wave, their gender, race, disability category, and SES); T = Teacher professional learning variables (i.e., general language arts teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, hours of PD, and education degree); P = Teacher perceptions of principal leadership practices (i.e., higher expectations; instructional improvement; and safety); ¹ = Within the teacher education degree, the reference group was changed from teachers with master’s degree instead of teachers who were educational specialist or holding PhD degree. Within the years of teaching SWDs, the reference group was changed from “Over 25 years” to “0-5 years”. ² = changing the “years of teaching SWDs” variable into 5 categories instead of 6
✓ = Assumption met.
105
Table 4-10. Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School-related Characteristics, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 1 to Wave 2.
Outcome Measure Model Adjusted R-Square
Adjusted R-Square Change
NOP NOB
Letter word
standardized score at
Wave 2
1 0.664 --- 17 628
2 0.679 .015 32 628
3 0.681 .002 38 628
Passage
comprehension
standardized score at
Wave 2
1 0.436 --- 17 628
2 0.466 .030 32 628
3 0.476 .010 38 628
Note: NOP = Number of Parameters; NOB = Number of Observations; Model 1 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES. Model 2 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general language arts teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree. Model 3 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general education teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree and their general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices.
106
Table 4-11. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Performance at Wave 2.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
intercept 15.79 4.99 .0016*
LW at Wave 1 0.85 0.05 <.0001***
Numbers of SWDs -0.04 0.25 0.87
Female -1.22 1.19 0.31
African American -0.45 1.58 0.77
Hispanic -0.03 2.79 0.99
Other 4.74 4.10 0.25
Learning disability 0.03 1.70 0.99
Speech impairment 0.67 2.17 0.76
Intellectual disability -3.97 2.34 0.09
Emotional disturbance 2.79 3.12 0.34
Autism -0.19 1.90 0.92
Low SES -2.56 2.17 0.23
Moderate SES 1.29 1.31 0.32
26-50% ¹ 1.09 1.52 0.50
51-75% 0.05 1.67 0.97
>75% -2.23 2.46 0.44
Hours of PD -0.006 0.007 0.39
General education certificate -0.99 2.46 0.69
Dual certificate -1.15 2.88 0.69
107
Table 4-11. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
0-2 years of teaching -8.35 4.76 0.08
3-5 years of teaching -10.20 4.40 0.02*
6-9 years of teaching -3.71 4.43 0.40
10-14 years of teaching -7.38 3.99 0.065
15-24 years of teaching -5.64 4.22 0.18
6-10 years of teaching SWDs -1.96 4.88 0.69
11-15 years of teaching SWDs -0.40 4.65 0.93
16-24 years of teaching SWDs -3.65 5.19 0.48
Over 25 years of teaching
SWDs -7.36 4.36 0.09
Bachelor’s degree 3.03 2.35 0.20
One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree 3.42 2.41 0.16
Master’s degree 2.50 2.07 0.23
Low expectations 4.03 3.87 0.30
Moderate expectations 0.57 1.83 0.75
Low instructional improvement 0.17 2.40 0.94
Moderate instructional
improvement -0.97 2.03 0.63
Less safe 0.42 2.35 0.86
Moderate safe -0.66 1.46 0.65
108
Table 4-11. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch Reference group for years of teaching is “over 25 years”
109
Table 4-12. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 2.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
intercept 48.52 7.77 <.0001***
PC at Wave 1 0.52 0.08 <.0001***
Numbers of SWDs -0.48 0.33 0.047*
Female 1.10 1.55 0.36
African American -4.60 2.88 0.14
Hispanic -5.12 2.92 0.03
Other -5.64 3.65 0.09
Learning disability -1.00 2.27 0.70
Speech impairment -2.02 2.14 0.47
Intellectual disability -11.39 4.24 0.02*
Emotional Disturbance -5.81 2.23 0.03*
Autism -7.40 2.68 0.01*
Low SES -3.74 2.22 0.12
Moderate SES 1.13 1.90 0.59
26-50% ¹ 1.15 1.88 0.46
51-75% 1.54 2.38 0.60
>75% 4.43 3.62 0.11
General education certificate -2.66 2.87 0.35
Dual certificate -0.72 3.21 0.82
Hours of PD 0.005 0.007 0.48
110
Table 4-12. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
0-2 years of teaching -1.64 5.86 0.78
3-5 years of teaching -2.74 4.91 0.58
6-9 years of teaching 3.66 4.17 0.38
10-14 years of teaching 1.12 3.68 0.76
15-24 years of teaching -1.24 3.87 0.75
6-10 years of teaching SWDs -2.88 5.06 0.57
11-15 years of teaching SWDs 3.34 5.10 0.51
16-24 years of teaching SWDs 1.72 5.48 0.75
Over 25 years of teaching
SWDs 1.26 4.98 0.80
Bachelor’s degree -1.62 2.71 0.55
One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree -0.74 2.57 0.77
Master’s degree -0.13 2.38 0.95
Low expectations -5.33 4.01 0.18
Moderate expectations -1.81 2.12 0.40
Low instructional improvement 0.60 3.07 0.85
Moderate instructional
improvement 2.95 2.16 0.17
Less safe 1.75 2.69 0.51
Moderate safe -2.73 1.72 0.11
111
Table 4-12. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch
112
Table 4-13. Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School-related Characteristics, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 2 to Wave 3.
Outcome Measure Model Adjusted R-Square
Adjusted R-Square Change
NOP NOB
Letter word
standardized score at
Wave 3
1 0.594 --- 17 748
2 0.597 .003 31 748
3 0.621 .024 37 748
Passage
comprehension
standardized score at
Wave 3
1 0.322 --- 17 748
2 0.338 .016 31 748
3 0.358 .020 37 748
Note: NOP = Number of Parameters; NOB = Number of Observations; Model 1 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES. Model 2 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general language arts teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree. Model 3 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general education teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree and their general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices.
113
Table 4-14. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Performance at Wave 3.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Intercept 27.28 4.96 <.0001***
LW at Wave 2 0.76 0.05 <.0001***
Numbers of SWDs -0.21 0.21 0.33
Female -1.83 1.42 0.20
African American 1.59 2.08 0.45
Hispanic 0.23 2.80 0.93
Other -3.74 3.64 0.30
Learning disability -3.31 1.35 0.01*
Speech impairment -0.79 1.26 0.53
Intellectual disability -1.42 2.36 0.55
Emotional Disturbance -1.70 2.84 0.55
Autism -1.31 1.84 0.48
Low SES 0.20 1.71 0.91
Moderate SES 1.69 1.56 0.28
26-50% ¹ -3.07 1.42 0.03*
51-75% -3.60 1.97 0.07*
>75% -8.37 2.76 0.002**
General education certificate -6.63 2.97 0.026*
Dual certificate -7.92 3.52 0.025*
0-2 years of teaching -1.79 4.77 0.71
114
Table 4-14. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
3-5 years of teaching -4.38 4.10 0.29
6-9 years of teaching -2.84 3.24 0.38
10-14 years of teaching -1.34 2.44 0.58
15-24 years of teaching -0.55 2.18 0.80
6-10 years of teaching SWDs -0.76 4.25 0.86
11-15 years of teaching SWDs -0.35 4.24 0.93
16-24 years of teaching SWDs -0.18 4.20 0.97
Over 25 years of teaching SWDs -3.72 4.05 0.36
Bachelor’s degree 0.63 1.74 0.72
One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree
-0.21 1.44 0.88
Educational specialist or PhD 0.27 2.67 0.92
Low expectations -6.02 3.18 0.06
Moderate expectations 1.30 1.64 0.43
Low instructional improvement -2.12 3.47 0.54
Moderate instructional improvement -0.02 1.78 0.99
Less safe -1.41 3.73 0.71
Moderate safe -3.25 1.58 0.04*
Note: Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch 1. Reference group for general education teachers’ professional certificate is special education certificate only; 2. Reference group for creating a safe school is highly safe.
115
Table 4-15. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 3.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Intercept 59.81 6.63 <.0001***
PC at Wave 1 0.38 0.07 <.0001***
Numbers of SWDs -0.34 0.21 0.11
Female -1.70 1.37 0.22
African American 4.98 2.48 0.045*
Hispanic -2.73 2.61 0.30
Other -10.29 4.20 0.014*
Learning disability -0.38 1.63 0.82
Speech impairment 1.01 1.47 0.49
Intellectual disability -14.76 3.71 <.0001***
Emotional Disturbance -0.85 1.82 0.64
Autism -2.35 1.87 0.21
Low SES -3.05 2.01 0.13
Moderate SES -2.01 1.64 0.22
26-50% ¹ 0.79 1.59 0.62
51-75% -0.35 2.15 0.87
>75% -2.09 3.10 0.50
General education certificate -4.10 2.14 0.055
Dual certificate -5.25 2.60 0.043*
0-2 years of teaching 3.07 4.07 0.45
116
Table 4-15. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
3-5 years of teaching 5.33 3.72 0.15
6-9 years of teaching 5.80 3.59 0.11
10-14 years of teaching 1.51 3.30 0.65
15-24 years of teaching 3.02 3.27 0.36
6-10 years of teaching SWDs 2.50 2.71 0.36
11-15 years of teaching SWDs 2.60 3.07 0.40
16-24 years of teaching SWDs 1.86 3.51 0.60
Over 25 years of teaching
SWDs
4.85 3.87 0.211
Bachelor’s degree 3.55 1.87 0.057
One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree
-0.25 1.50 0.87
Educational specialist or PhD -1.96 2.65 0.46
Low expectations -3.95 4.37 0.37
Moderate expectations -3.19 1.73 0.07
Low instructional improvement -2.60 3.05 0.39
Moderate instructional
improvement
2.90 1.76 0.10
Less safe -0.60 3.97 0.88
Moderate safe -0.95 1.83 0.60
Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch Reference group for certificate is “special education certificate”
117
Table 4-16. Total Long-term Effects of Student-, Peer-, Family-, and School-related Characteristics, General Education Teacher Professional Learning and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Academic Achievement from Wave 1 to Wave 3.
Outcome Measure Model Adjusted R-Square
Adjusted R-Square Change
NOP NOB
Letter word
standardized score at
Wave 3
1 0.471 --- 17 626
2 0.491 .020 31 626
3 0.496 .005 37 626
Passage
comprehension
standardized score at
Wave 3
1 0.265 --- 17 626
2 0.300 .035 31 626
3 0.322 .022 37 626
Note: NOP = Number of Parameters; NOB = Number of Observations; Model 1 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES; Model 2 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general language arts teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree; Model 3 includes students’ letter-word or passage comprehension achievement, the number of SWDs in the same general language arts classrooms, and the school lunch status (i.e., percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch) at Wave 1, their gender, race, disability category, and SES as well as their general education teachers’ years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs, professional certificate, and education degree and their general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices.
118
Table 4-17. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Letter Word Identification Performance at Wave 3.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Intercept 39.11 6.45 .0001***
LW at Wave 1 0.64 0.065 .0001***
Numbers of SWDs -0.74 0.30 0.01*
Female -1.46 1.31 0.26
African American 0.30 2.38 0.90
Hispanic 0.86 3.39 0.80
Other -10.62 4.66 0.02*
Learning disability -2.18 1.70 0.20
Speech impairment -0.04 1.44 0.98
Intellectual disability -5.74 2.27 0.01*
Emotional Disturbance -0.76 2.00 0.71
Autism -3.93 2.18 0.07
Low SES -3.51 2.07 0.09
Moderate SES -0.96 1.68 0.57
26-50% ¹ 0.27 1.66 0.87
51-75% 1.38 2.14 0.52
>75% -0.80 2.97 0.80
General education certificate 7.90 5.10 0.12
Dual certificate 6.62 5.25 0.21
0-2 years of teaching -0.27 3.95 0.95
119
Table 4-17. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
3-5 years of teaching 1.28 3.16 0.69
6-9 years of teaching -1.88 3.91 0.63
10-14 years of teaching -2.97 3.29 0.37
15-24 years of teaching -1.02 2.63 0.70
0-5 years of teaching SWDs -1.13 3.12 0.72
6-10 years of teaching SWDs 4.88 3.60 0.18
11-15 years of teaching SWDs 3.15 3.10 0.31
16-24 years of teaching SWDs 3.72 2.77 0.18
Bachelor’s degree -1.59 2.86 0.58
One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree -3.64 2.49 0.14
Master’s degree -0.87 2.37 0.71
Low expectations 2.85 3.30 0.39
Moderate expectations -0.63 1.86 0.73
Low instructional improvement 3.46 3.23 0.28
Moderate instructional
improvement 1.98 1.94 0.31
Less safe -4.34 3.03 0.15
Moderate safe -2.20 1.53 0.15
Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch
120
Table 4-18. Parameter Regression Estimates of Control Variables, General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning, and Their Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices on SWDs’ Passage Comprehension Performance at Wave 3.
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Intercept 64.11 8.82 <.0001***
PC at Wave 1 0.33 0.09 0.0002**
Numbers of SWDs -0.60 0.29 0.04*
Female 0.06 1.61 0.97
African American 1.08 2.00 0.59
Hispanic -4.85 3.00 0.11
Other -3.91 2.91 0.18
Learning disability -0.33 1.76 0.85
Speech impairment 1.69 1.61 0.29
Intellectual disability -11.00 3.45 0.0014*
Emotional Disturbance -1.10 2.01 0.59
Autism -2.90 2.05 0.16
Low SES -1.41 2.19 0.52
Moderate SES -1.25 1.91 0.51
26-50% ¹ 0.26 1.66 0.88
51-75% -1.83 2.22 0.41
>75% -2.87 3.25 0.38
General education certificate -3.25 4.77 0.50
Dual certificate -1.20 5.10 0.81
0-2 years of teaching -4.57 4.88 0.35
3-5 years of teaching -7.95 4.11 0.053
6-9 years of teaching 2.02 4.63 0.66
10-14 years of teaching -0.03 4.33 0.10
15-24 years of teaching -2.44 3.44 0.48
0-5 years of teaching SWDs 1.06 4.19 0.80
6-10 years of teaching SWDs -6.43 4.56 0.16
11-15 years of teaching SWDs -3.54 4.24 0.40
16-24 years of teaching SWDs -2.52 3.55 0.48
Bachelor’s degree 8.48 2.97 0.0043* One year of course work after
bachelor’s degree 7.03 2.88 0.015*
Master’s degree 6.82 2.87 0.018*
Low expectations 3.23 4.49 0.47
Moderate expectations 1.22 1.88 0.52
Low instructional improvement 2.41 3.38 0.47 Moderate instructional
improvement -0.55 1.97 0.78
Less safe -7.11 3.53 0.044*
121
Table 4-18. Continued
Parameter Estimate SE P Value
Moderate safe -4.13 1.81 0.02*
Note: Note: *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ¹ = the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch Reference group for years of teaching is “over 25 years” 1. Reference group for education degree is beyond master’s degree; 2. Reference group for creating a safe school is highly safe.
122
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Including SWDs for much of their school day in general education
classrooms has become one approach schools have used in an attempt to
improve their low achievement (Billingsley et al., 2014; Cameron & Cook, 2013;
Rea et al., 2002; Scruggs et al., 2007). Research has shown that SWDs can
benefit academically, socially, and/or behaviorally from successful inclusion (Cole
et al., 2004; Rea et al., 2002; Ryndak et al., 2013). Research has further
revealed that teachers and principals are important factors in influencing
students’ academic achievement in general education classrooms and promoting
successful inclusion of SWDs (Billingsley et al., 2014; Day et al., 2016; Dev &
Haynes, 2015; Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Leithwood et al., 2004; Rivkin et al., 2005;
Waters et al., 2003). However, few studies have been conducted to examine how
teachers and principals might influence the academic achievement of SWDs who
receive their content instruction only in general education classrooms. Therefore,
the purpose of this study was to explore how general education teachers’
professional learning and their perceptions of principals’ leadership practices
relate to the reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language
arts instruction only in general education classrooms.
The two research questions for this investigation were:
(1) To what degree is general education teachers’ professional learning
related to the reading achievement of SWDs who received reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms?
123
(2) To what degree are general education teachers’ perceptions of
principal leadership practices related to the reading achievement of SWDs who
received reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms?
In the following sections, results related to these two research questions
will be presented. This will be followed by a discussion of the limitations of this
investigation. Finally, implications for future research will be addressed.
Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Professional Learning
and the Reading Achievement of SWDs
For this investigation, general education teachers’ professional learning
included their professional certificate, years of teaching, years of teaching SWDs,
education degree, and hours of PD. Due to the time span of the three
constructed samples (i.e., one-, two-, and three-year), hours of PD was only
included in Sample 1. In order to better understand the relationship between
general education teachers’ professional learning and the reading achievement
of SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms, student-, peer-, family-, and school-related characteristics
(i.e., previous achievement and the number of SWDs in the same general
language arts classrooms; the school lunch status one-, two-, and three-year
before; as well as students’ gender, race, disability status, and SES) were
controlled.
Overall, after one, two, and three years, general education teachers’
professional learning only accounted for a small and non-significant amount of
variance in the reading achievement of SWDs who received their
124
reading/language arts instruction only in general education classrooms, with a
range of 0.3% to 3.0%. However, students’ reading achievement significantly
differed based on different categories within some individual general education
teachers’ professional learning variables.
For example, after one year, while holding other variables constant, SWDs
whose teachers had taught more than 25 years had significantly higher letter-
word identification achievement than those SWDs whose teachers had taught
from 3-5 years. After two years, while holding other variables constant, SWDs
whose teachers were only certified in special education had significantly higher
letter-word identification achievement than those whose teachers held a general
education certificate or a dual certificate, and also had significantly higher
passage comprehension achievement than those whose teachers held a dual
certificate. After three years, while holding other variables constant, SWDs had
significantly higher passage comprehension achievement if their general
education teachers held a bachelor’s degree, had one year of course work after
their bachelor’s degree, or held a master’s degree as compared to those SWDs
whose teachers held a degree beyond the master’s degree (i.e., educational
specialist, Ph.D. degree).
It is noteworthy that these significant differences were not consistent
across the three constructed samples. More specifically, these findings each
occurred for only one of the data samples that were analyzed. This suggests that
conclusions that are reached based on these limited findings are tenuous at best.
However, it is noteworthy that some previous researchers (i.e., Clotfelter et al.,
125
2007, 2010; Feng & Sass, 2013) have found significant relationships that are
similar to those found in this investigation. This suggests the need for further
research that provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between
teaching experience, types of teacher certification, and teacher highest education
degree level and student achievement outcomes. Specific recommendations
were discussed in the Implications for Future Research section later in this
chapter.
Relationship between General Education Teachers’ Perceptions of
Principal Leadership Practices and the Reading Achievement of SWDs
For this investigation, general education teachers’ perceptions of
principals’ leadership practices included holding high expectations for all
students, promoting instructional improvement among school staff, and creating
a safe school environment. Overall, across the three constructed samples,
general education teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership practices only
accounted for a small and non-significant amount of variance related to the
reading achievement of SWDs, with a range of 0.5% to 2.4%. However, students’
reading achievement significantly differed based on their general education
teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership practices related to different levels
of school safety.
For example, after two years, while holding other variables constant, if
SWDs’ general education teachers “strongly agreed” that their principals created
a safe school for all students, the SWDs in their classes had significantly greater
gains on the letter-word identification outcome measure than SWDs of teachers
126
who “agreed” that their principals created a safe school for all students.
Furthermore, after three years, if SWDs’ general education teachers “strongly
agreed” that their principals created a safe school for all the students, their SWDs
had significantly greater gains on the passage comprehension outcome measure
than SWDs of teachers who “disagreed” or “agreed” that their principals created
a safe school for all students.
Collectively, these findings are consistent with the results of prior studies
that revealed there was a positive relationship between school safety and student
academic achievement (Hopson et al., 2014; Jacobson et al., 2007).
Furthermore, the current investigation extends these findings to SWDs who were
taught reading/language arts only in general education classrooms. Finally, the
results of this investigation suggest that the principal may play an important role
in supporting these improved outcomes for SWDs who are taught in general
education classrooms (Billingsley et al., 2014; Dev & Haynes, 2015). Additional
research is needed to confirm these tentative findings. This topic will be further
discussed in the Implications for Future Research section that is included later in
this chapter.
Limitations
This study has several important limitations. First, the most consistent
finding of this investigation was the relationship between general education
teachers’ perceptions of principal support for school safety and improved reading
achievement of SWDs. However, this finding occurred only for letter-word
identification performance for Sample 2, and passage comprehension
127
performance for Sample 3. Thus, these results were non-significant on four other
occasions across the three samples. This finding should thus be interpreted with
caution, and further research is needed to more fully understand the strength of
this relationship.
Another limitation of this investigation related to the limited items that were
used to survey general education teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership
practices. Only three items were used related to holding high expectations for all
students, promoting instructional improvement among school staff, and creating
a safe environment for all students. Each principal leadership practice was thus
only linked to one survey item. This provided a global measure of these complex
variables, which is likely not sufficient to accurately reflect general education
teachers’ perceptions of the actual principal leadership practices within the
schools. Furthermore, lack of reliability in the measurement of principal
leadership practices may have impacted the findings of this study. Finally, low
reliability might be related to the inflation of Type I error (Brunner & Austin, 2009).
These shortcomings should be addressed by future research.
Similar to the findings regarding school safety, other significant findings of
this investigation related to teacher certification, teaching experience, and
teacher education degree were each found for only one of six analyses
addressing each of these variables. Although these findings are supported by
some previous research, they nonetheless should be interpreted with caution,
and further research is needed to more fully understand the strength of these
relationships.
128
Another limitation is that this study did not examine the relationship
between general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their
perceptions of principals’ leadership practices and the reading achievement of
SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms from the beginning to the end of one school year. This
may be one of the confounding factors regarding why both general education
teachers’ professional learning and their perceptions of principals’ leadership
practices only explained a very small amount of variance in the reading
achievement of those SWDs who received their reading instruction only in
general education classrooms. However, based on the data collection
characteristics of SEELS dataset (i.e., direct reading assessments were
administered between fall and spring), this investigation could only examine the
relationship between general education teachers’ professional learning as well as
their perceptions of principals’ leadership practices and the reading achievement
of SWDs who received their reading/language arts instruction only in general
education classrooms after one, two, or three years.
Still another limitation is related to the unclear quality and content of the
PD programs received by the general education teachers. In the Teacher
Questionnaire, general education teachers were asked to provide their PD hours
during the previous 12 months. The influence of PD hours on the academic
achievement of SWDs might have diminished after two years. Meanwhile, the
quality of those PD programs was also unclear.
129
Finally, the initial SEELS data collection was conducted about 15 years
ago. Since that time, significant policy changes have occurred focusing on the
inclusion of SWDs in general education classrooms. In addition, increasing
numbers of SWDs now receive content instruction in general education
classrooms; general education teachers may have become better prepared for
those SWDs in their classrooms; and principals may have additional motivation
and skills for supporting the education of SWDs. These changes in the context of
schools suggests that the findings of this investigation should be interpreted with
caution.
Implications for Future Research
From a national perspective, this investigation used the SEELS dataset to
estimate the relationship between general education teachers’ professional
learning as well as their perceptions of principal leadership practices and the
reading achievement of SWDs who received their reading/language arts
instruction only in general education classrooms. This study has provided some
encouraging results related to the relationship between different categories of
general education teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions of
principal leadership practices and the reading achievement of SWDs after one,
two, and three years. However, this study is just an exploratory study and those
results were based on a limited sample. Furthermore, the significant results were
not consistent across the three constructed samples. Therefore, as a whole,
future studies should use larger samples to extensively examine the relationships
between general education teachers’ professional learning and their perceptions
130
of principal leadership practices and the achievement outcomes of SWDs who
receive their content instruction only in general education classrooms.
This investigation found that the reading achievement of SWDs
significantly differed based on the different levels of general education teachers’
perceptions regarding whether principals created a safe environment for all
students. However, these results were based on a single item related to school
safety. Future research should either use other datasets that include more survey
items related to school safety or develop more survey items to provide a better
understanding of the relationship between school safety and the academic
achievement of SWDs. Furthermore, this investigation found no relationship
between other principal leadership practices (i.e., holding higher expectations for
all students; promoting instructional improvement among school staff) and the
academic achievement of SWDs. In contrast, other research has found that
these practices can significantly influence student achievement (Goddard,
Sweetland et al., 2000; Hoy & Hannum, 1997; Valentine & Prater, 2013). The
lack of significance found in the current investigation might have occurred due to
the fact that only one survey item was used related to each of these principal
leadership practices. Therefore, future research should be conducted either
using other datasets including more survey items related to these principal
leadership practices or developing more survey items to provide further insight
into how they principal leadership practices might relate to the academic
achievement of SWDs.
131
Recently, Kini and Podolsky (2016) synthesized the effect of teaching
experience on student outcomes by reviewing 30 studies over the last 15 years.
According to that report, a standard solution to bias in accurately estimating to
what degree teachers can improve their effectiveness as they increase their
years of teaching is to include teacher fixed effects in the model. Through the
inclusion of teacher fixed effects, the effect of a teacher with more years of
teaching can be compared to that of the same teacher with fewer years of
teaching. This method “improves the estimate of the relationship between the
gains teachers make in their ability to improve student outcomes and their
experience and eliminates the limitations created by selective attrition and/or
differences in cohort quality” (p. 8). Although both the Feng and Sass’ (2013)
study and this study examined the relationship between teaching experience and
the academic achievement of SWDs, neither study included teacher fixed effects
in the model. Future studies should include teacher fixed effects to accurately
estimate the relationship between their teaching experience and the academic
achievement of SWDs who received their content instruction only in general
education classrooms.
Some research (Kini & Podolsky, 2016) has also shown that students’
academic achievement and other measures of success (i.e., school attendance)
may increase when their teachers increase years of teaching experience.
However, very limited research related to this topic has been conducted with
SWDs. While this investigation did indicate that SWDs whose teachers had
taught 25 or more years had significantly letter-word identification achievement
132
than those whose teachers had taught 3-5 years, an overall positive and
significant relationship between general education teachers’ years of teaching
experience and the academic achievement of SWDs was not found.
Furthermore, Edmunds (2000) suggested that years of teaching SWDs may be
an important factor in contributing to the successful inclusion of SWDs.
Therefore, future studies are needed to further investigate the relationship
between teachers’ teaching experience including their experience of teaching
SWDs and the academic achievement and other measures of success (i.e.,
school attendance, disciplinary referrals) for SWDs who receive their content
instruction only in general education classrooms.
Finally, some researchers have suggested that more than 21 hours of
intensive PD could significantly improve the academic achievement of students
without disabilities (Blank & de las Alas, 2009; Blank et al., 2007; Yoon et al.,
2007). While similar research has not been conducted related to SWDs, an
investigation by Feng and Sass (2013) indicated that 10-hours of special
education PD received by general education teachers may have the potential for
improving the reading achievement of SWD. Therefore, future research should
be conducted to investigate the relationship between high quality special
education PD received by general education teachers and the academic
achievement of SWDs who receive their content instruction only in general
education classrooms.
133
Conclusion
Through constructing three samples out of the SEELs dataset, this
investigation aimed to explore the relationship between general education
teachers’ professional learning as well as their perceptions of principal leadership
practices and the reading achievement of SWDs who received reading/language
arts instruction only in general education classrooms. Overall results indicated
that there was no significant relationship between general education teachers’
professional learning and the reading achievement of SWDs and no significant
relationship between general education teachers’ perceptions of principal
leadership practices and the reading achievement of SWDs. However, results
suggested that certain categories of general education teachers’ professional
learning and their perceptions of principal leadership practices may have
influence on the reading achievement of SWDs. Given the fact that this is only an
exploratory study, results yielded from this study are not strong enough to
provide implications for policy and practice. However, as we are striving to
ensure successful inclusion for SWDs, these and other variables should be
examined to determine how effective general education teachers and principals
can improve the achievement outcomes of SWDs who are receiving their content
instruction only in general education classrooms.
134
APPENDIX A A LIST OF VARIBALES FROM SEELS DATASET
Table A-1. A list of Variables from SEELS Dataset.
Variable Categories
Variable Description Variable Name
Variable Values
Gender Gender for column headings
w1_gender2 1 Male 2 Female
SES Household income for
column headings w1_incm3 1 $25,000 and under
2 $25,001 to $50,000
3 Over $50,000
School Lunch Status
Percentage of this school’s students
eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch
program
Sc1B5 1 Less than 25% 2 26% to 50% 3 51% to 75%
4 More than 75%
Race Race/ethnicity category for column
headings
w1_eth6 1 White 2 African American
3 Hispanic 4 Asian/Pacific
Islander 5 American
Indian/Alaska Native 6 Multi/other
Disability
categories Primary disability
category for column headings
w1_dis12 1 Learning disability 2 Speech
impairment 3 Mental retardation
4 Emotional disturbance 5 Hearing
impairment 6 Visual impairment
7 Orthopedic impairment
8 Other health impairment 9 Autism
10 Traumatic brain injury
135
Table A-1. Continued
Variable Categories
Variable Description Variable Name
Variable Values
11 Multiple disabilities
12 Deaf-blindness
Direct Assessment
Reading
Letter-Word standard score
sa1LW_ss Standard score
Passage Comprehension standard score
sa1PC_ss Standard score
Number of students
Number of special education students in
classroom during language arts
instruction
ST1A5b Number of students
Certificate
Respondent holds the following certificates,
credentials, or licenses in this state
General education credential
ST1F7_01 0 No 1 Yes
Disability-specific credential or endorsement
ST1F7_02 0 No 1 Yes
Special education credential or endorsement
ST1F7_03 0 No 1 Yes
Speech/language certificate
ST1F7_04 0 No 1 Yes
Physical therapy license
ST1F7_05 0 No 1 Yes
Occupational therapy license
ST1F7_06 0 No 1 Yes
136
Table A-1. Continued
Variable Categories
Variable Description Variable Name
Variable Values
Other ST1F7_07 0 No 1 Yes
None ST1F7_00 0 No 1 Yes
Education
degree
Highest level of education completed
by respondent
ST1F8 1 High school diploma
2 Associate’s degree 3 Bachelor’s degree 4 At least 1 year of
course work beyond a bachelor’s but not a graduate degree 5 Master’s degree
6 Education specialist or
professional diploma with at least 1 year or course work past a master’s degree 7 Doctoral degree
0 Other
Years of teaching
Number of years responded has been a
teacher
ST1F3 Number of years
Number of years taught students who
receive special education services
ST1F4 Number of years
Language arts
instructional setting
Language arts instruction provided to
student in a special education or individualized
instructional setting
ST1_spec_set 1 General
education
setting
1 Special education or individualized
instructional setting
137
Table A-1. Continued
Variable Categories
Variable Description Variable Name
Variable Values
Leadership-related
variables
The school leadership has high expectations
and standards for students and teachers
ST1F12c 1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree 3. Agree
4. Strongly agree
The principal promotes instructional
improvement among school staff
ST1F12d 1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree 3. Agree
4. Strongly agree
This school is a safe place for students
ST1F12e 1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree 3. Agree
4. Strongly agree
138
APPENDIX B R CODE FOR ORGANIZING THE INITIAL DATASET
Code B-1. R Code for Organizing the Initial Dataset.
library (foreign)
teacher.w1 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_teacher_w1.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
dassess.w1 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_dassess_w1.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
teacher.w2 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_teacher_w2.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
dassess.w2 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_dassess_w2.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
teacher.w3 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_teacher_w3.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
dassess.w3 <- read.spss("D:/REM Exam/seels_dassess_w3.sav", use.value.labels = FALSE, to.data.frame = TRUE)
library(dplyr) SEELS.w1<- inner_join(dassess.w1, teacher.w1, by = "StudentID")
names(SEELS.w1) SEELS.w2<- inner_join(dassess.w2, teacher.w2, by = "StudentID")
names(SEELS.w2) SEELS.w3<- inner_join(dassess.w3, teacher.w3, by = "StudentID")
names(SEELS.w3) SEELS.w1 <- subset(SEELS.w1, select =
c(StudentID,w1_grade.y,w1_Age.y,w1_gender2.y,w1_eth6.y,w1_dis12.y,sa1LW_ss,sa1PC_ss,sa1Calc_ss,sa1AP_ss,st1_Spec_Set,w1_incm3.y,st1F2,st1F3,st1F4,st1D2Cert,st1DCntCert,st1F7_01,st1F7_02,st1F7_03,st1F7_04,st1F7_05,st1F7_06,st1F7_00,st1F10,st1DSkillse,st1F8,st1F12a,st1F12b,st1CurrMaterial_2,st
1DIndiv2, st1DReadge,st1E4a,st1PosClimate,st1F12c,st1F12d,st1F12e,sa1ORF_a,sa1OR
F_b,st1ClassSize,st1A5a,st1A5b,st1C7_03,st1C7_06, st1F_Eth,st1A3,st1A4a:st1A4e,wt_sa1))
colnames(SEELS.w1) <- c("StudentID","Grade", "Age","gender","race", "disability","LW","PC", "cal","AP",
"LAS","SES","lcertgrade","years","SWD","certificate","cert_n","general","DS","SPED","Speech","P_T","O_T","none","PD","Skills","education",
"support","training","CurAdap","Individulization","BRP","EnglishProf","climate","expectations","improvement","safe", "ORF_a","ORF_b","Class_S","General_S", "Special_S","Co_Teaching","Aide","T_Race","ELLs","MAA","SAA", "Average",
"SBA","MBA","weight")
write.table(SEELS.w1,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.w1.txt",sep="\t" )
139
Code B-1. Continued
SEELS.w2 <- subset(SEELS.w2, select = c(StudentID,w2_grade.y,w2_Age.y,w2_gender2.y,w2_eth6.y,w2_dis12.y,sa2LW_ss,sa2PC_ss,sa2Calc_ss,sa2AP_ss,st2_Spec_Set,w2_incm3.y,st2F2,st2F3,st2 F4,st2D2Cert,st2DCntCert,st2F7_01,st2F7_02,st2F7_03,st2F7_04,st2F7_05,st2F7_06,st2F7_00,st2F10,st2DSkillse,st2F8,st2F12a,st2F12b,st2CurrMaterial_2,st
2DIndiv2, st2DReadge,st2E4a,st2PosClimate,st2F12c,st2F12d,st2F12e,sa2ORF_a,sa2ORF_b,st2ClassSize,st2A5a,st2A5b,st2C7_03,st2C7_06,st2F_Eth,st2A3,st2A4a:st2
A4e,wt_sa2)) colnames(SEELS.w2) <- c("StudentID","Grade", "Age","gender","race",
"disability","LW","PC", "cal","AP", "LAS", "SES","lcertgrade","years","SWD", "certificate","cert_n", "general","DS","SPED","Speech","P_T","O_T","none","PD",
"Skills","education","support","training","CurAdap", "Individulization", "BRP", "EnglishProf","climate","expectations","improvement","safe",
"ORF_a","ORF_b","Class_S","General_S", "Special_S","Co_Teaching","Aide","T_Race","ELLs","MAA","SAA","Average","SB
A","MBA","weight") write.table(SEELS.w2,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.w2.txt", sep="\t"
) SEELS.w3 <- subset(SEELS.w3, select =
c(StudentID,w3_grade.y,w3_Age.y,w3_gender2.y,w3_eth6.y,w3_dis12.y,sa3LW_ss,sa3PC_ss,sa3Calc_ss,sa3AP_ss,st3_Spec_Set,w3_incm3.y,st3F2,st3F3,st3F4,st3D2Cert,st3DCntCert,st3F7_01,st3F7_02,st3F7_03,st3F7_04,st3F7_05,st3F7_06,st3F7_00,st3F10,st3DSkillse,st3F8,st3F12a,st3F12b,st3CurrMaterial_2,st
3DIndiv2, st3DReadge,st3E4a,st3PosClimate,st3F12c,st3F12d,st3F12e,sa3ORF_a,sa3ORF_b,st3ClassSize,st3A5a,st3A5b,st3C7_03,st3C7_06,st3F_Eth,st3A3,st3A4a:st3
A4e,wt_sa3)) colnames(SEELS.w3) <-
c("StudentID","Grade","Age","gender","race","disability","LW","PC","cal","AP","LAS","SES","lcertgrade","years","SWD","certificate","cert_n","general","DS","SPED",
"Speech","P_T","O_T","none","PD", "Skills","education","support","training","CurAdap", "Individulization", "BRP",
"EnglishProf","climate","expectations","improvement","safe","ORF_a","ORF_b","Class_S","General_S",
"Special_S","Co_Teaching","Aide","T_Race","ELLs","MAA","SAA", "Average", "SBA","MBA","weight")
write.table(SEELS.w3,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.w3.txt", sep="\t" )
SEELS.1 <- rbind(SEELS.w1, SEELS.w2, SEELS.w3) SEELS.1 <- SEELS.1[order(SEELS.1$StudentID,SEELS.1$Grade),]
write.table(SEELS.1,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.data.txt", sep="\t" )
SEELS.2 <- rbind(SEELS.w1, SEELS.w2)
140
Code B-1. Continued
SEELS.2 <- SEELS.2[order(SEELS.2$StudentID,SEELS.2$Grade),] write.table(SEELS.2,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.data_1_2.txt",
sep="\t" ) SEELS.3 <- rbind(SEELS.w2, SEELS.w3)
SEELS.3 <- SEELS.3[order(SEELS.3$StudentID,SEELS.3$Grade),] write.table(SEELS.3,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.data_2_3.txt",
sep="\t" ) SEELS.4 <- rbind(SEELS.w1, SEELS.w3)
SEELS.4 <- SEELS.4[order(SEELS.4$StudentID,SEELS.4$Grade),] write.table(SEELS.4,"D:/Dissertation Data Analysis/4_5/SEELS.data_1_3.txt",
sep="\t" )
141
APPENDIX C VARIABLES SELECTED FROM DIFFERENT WAVES
Table C-1. Variables Selected from Different Waves.
Variables Sample 1 (Wave 1 to Wave
2)
Sample 2 (Wave 2 to Wave
3)
Sample 3 (Wave 1 to
Wave 3)
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 1 M 2 M 3
IV LW W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3
PC
W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3
Con
tro
l V
aria
ble
s
LW at a previous wave
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
PC at a previous wave
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Gender W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Race W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Disability status
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Number of SWDs in
general LA classroom
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Te
ach
er
Pro
fessio
na
l L
ea
rnin
g
Teacher’s certificate
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Years of teaching
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Years of teaching SWDs
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Teachers’ education
degree
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
PD hours
W1 W1 W1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
TP
PL
P High
expectations W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Instructional improvement
W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
School safety W1 W1 W1 W2 W2 W2 W1 W1 W1
Note: M = Model; W = Wave; IV = Independent Variable; TPPLP = Teacher Perceptions of Principal Leadership Practices; LW = Letter-Word; PC = Passage Comprehension; SWDs = Students with Disabilities; PD = Professional Development
142
APPENDIX D EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 1: WAVE 1 AND WAVE 2)
Figure D-1. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1.
143
Figure D-2. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1.
144
Figure D-3. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2.
145
Figure D-4. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2.
146
Figure D-5. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3.
147
Figure D-6. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3.
148
Figure D-7. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1.
149
Figure D-8. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1.
150
Figure D-9. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2.
151
Figure D-10. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2.
152
Figure D-11. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3.
153
Figure D-12. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3.
154
APPENDIX E EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 2: WAVE 2 AND WAVE 3)
Figure E-1. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1.
155
Figure E-2. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1.
156
Figure E-3. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2.
157
Figure E-4. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2.
158
Figure E-5. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3.
159
Figure E-6. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3.
160
Figure E-7. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1.
161
Figure E-8. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1.
162
Figure E-9. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2.
163
Figure E-10. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2.
164
Figure E-11. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3.
165
Figure E-12. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3.
166
APPENDIX F EXAMPLES FROM THE MULTIPLE IMPUTATIONS RELATED TO NORMALITY
ASSUMPTIONS (SAMPLE 3: WAVE 1 and WAVE 3)
Figure F-1. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 1.
167
Figure F-2. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 1.
168
Figure F-3. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 2.
169
Figure F-4. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 2.
170
Figure F-5. Imputation 1 of LW_Model 3.
171
Figure F-6. Imputation 2 of LW_Model 3.
172
Figure F-7. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 1.
173
Figure F-8. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 1.
174
Figure F-9. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 2.
175
Figure F-10. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 2.
176
Figure F-11. Imputation 1 of PC_Model 3.
177
Figure F-12. Imputation 2 of PC_Model 3.
178
LIST OF REFERENCES
Alig-Mielcarek, J. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “Instructional leadership: its nature, meaning, and influence”, in W.K. Hoy, & C.G. Miskel (Eds.), Educational leadership and reform (pp. 29-54), Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Allison, P. D. (2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Angelle, P., & Bilton, L. M. (2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal
preparation training in issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 5(4), 5-9.
Antonakis, J., & Dietz, J. (2011). Looking for validity or testing it? The perils of
stepwise regression, extreme-score analysis, heteroscedasticity, and measurement error. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 409-415.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards
integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.
Asparouhov T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(3), 411-434. Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief,
nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 411-421.
Billingsley, B., & McLeskey, J. (in press). Principal leadership for effective
inclusiveschools. In J. McLeskey, N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & B.
Algozzine (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice for effective inclusive schools. New York: Routledge.
Billingsley, B., McLeskey, J., & Crockett, J. B. (2014). Principal leadership:
Moving toward inclusive and high-achieving schools for students with disabilities (Document No. IC-8). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IC-8_FINAL_08-29-14.pdf
Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., Davies, E., Levine, P., Newman, L., ... &
Sumi, C. (2005). Engagement, academics, social adjustment, and independence: The achievements of elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Blank, R. K., & de las Alas, N. (2009). The effects of teacher professional
development on gains in student achievement: How meta analysis
179
provides scientific evidence useful to education leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2008). Does teacher professional
development have effects on teaching and learning? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blazar, D. (2015). Grade assignments and the teacher pipeline: A low-cost lver to
improve student achievement? Educational Researcher, 44(4), 213-227. Boardman, A. E., & Murnane, R. J. (1979). Using panel data to improve
estimates of the determinants of educational achievement. Sociology of education, 113-121.
Bodner, T. E. (2008). What improves with increased missing data imputations?
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15, 651-675. Boscardin, M. L., Weir, L., & Kusek, C. (2010). A national study of state
credentialing requirements for administrators of special education. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(2), 61-75.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How
changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement? Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176-216.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing
gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818.
Brunner, J., & Austin, P. C. (2009). Inflation of Type I error rate in multiple
regression when independent variables are measured with error. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 37(1), 33-46.
Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based
instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3-11.
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving
toward inclusive practices. Remedial & Special Education, 25(2), 104-116. doi:10.1177/07419325040250020501
Burton, D., & Pace, D. (2009). Preparing pre-service teachers to teach
mathematics in inclusive classrooms: A three-year case study. School Science and Mathematics, 109(2), 108-115.
180
Cameron, D. L., & Cook, B. G. (2013). General education teachers' goals and expectations for their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 18-30.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of
teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (No. 17699). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699
Ciol, M. A., Hoffman, J. M., Dudgeon, B. J., Shumway-Cook, A., Yorkston, K. M.,
Chan, L. (2006). Understanding the use of weights in the analysis of data from multistage surveys. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(2), 299-303.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and
student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673-682.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and
student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. The Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681.
Cole, C., Watdron, N., & Majd, M. (2004). Academic progress of students across
inclusive and traditional settings. Mental Retardation, 42, 136–144. Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., O’Connor, R. E. (2014). Improving
Reading Outcomes for Students with or at Risk for Reading Disabilities: A Synthesis of the Contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014-3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service
general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262-277.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’
attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 230-238.
Cook, B. G., & Smith, G. J. (2012). Leadership and instruction: Evidence-based
practices in special education. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership & administration for special education (pp. 281-296). New York: Taylor & Francis.
181
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2008). CEC’s policy on safe and positive
school climate. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(6), 41-42. Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education’s role in preparing responsive leaders
for inclusive schools. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 157-168. Crockett, J. B. (2011). Conceptual models for leading and administrating special
education. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 351-362). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Crockett, J. B., Billingsley, B., & Boscardin, M. L. (2012). Handbook of leadership
and administration for special education. New York: Taylor & Francis. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does
teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-51.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the Learning Profession:
Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Day, C., Gu, Q., & Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221-258.
Deshler, D. D., & Cornett, J. (2012). Leading to improve teacher effectiveness:
Implications for practice, reform, research, and policy. In J. B Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership & administration for special education (pp. 239-259). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional
development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Desimone, L. M., & Long, D. (2010). Teacher effects and the achievement gap:
Do teacher and teaching quality influence the achievement gap between black and white and high and low-SES students in the early grades? Teachers College Record, 112(12), 3024-3073.
182
Dev, P., & Haynes, L. (2015). Teacher perspectives on suitable learning environments for students with disabilities: What have we learned from inclusive, resource, and self-contained classrooms? The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 9, 53-64.
DiPaola, M. F., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education:
The critical role of school leaders (COPSSE Document No. IB-7). Retrieved from University of Florida Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education website: http://copsse.education.ufl.edu/copsse/library/executive-summaries.php
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Farrell, P., Dyson, A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. (2007).
Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 131-145. doi:10.1080/08856250701267808.
Feng, L., & Sass, T. (2013). What makes special education special? Teacher
training and achievement of students with disabilities. Economics of Education Review, 36, 122-134.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading
fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its
meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S. R., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Academic emphasis of
urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683-702.
Goldrick, L., Sindelar, P., Zabala, D., & Hirsch, E. (2014). The role of state policy
in preparing educators to meet the learning needs of students with disabilities (Document No. PA-1). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/PA-1_FINAL_10-21-14.pdf
Guskey, T. R. (2000) Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
183
Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 466-479.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student
achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812. He, Y. L. (2010). Missing data analysis using multiple imputation getting to know
the heart of matter. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 3, 98-105.
Heck, R. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an
organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399-432.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2015). Systematic review of key leader practices
found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Advance Published Online. doi: 10.3102/0034654315614911
Hopson, L. M., Schiller, K. S., & Lawson, H. A. (2014). Exploring linkages
between school climate, behavioral norms, social supports, and academic success. Social Work Research, 38(4), 197-209.
Hoppey, D., & McLeskey, J. (2013). A case study of principal leadership in an
effective inclusive school. Journal of Special Education, 45, 245-256. doi:10.1177/0022466910390507.
Hough, H. J., Kerbow, D., Bryk, A., Pinnell, G. S., Rodgers, E., Dexter, E., …
Fountas, I. (2013). Assessing teacher practice and development: The case of comprehensive literacy instruction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, 24(4), 452-485.
Hoy, W. K., & Hannum, J. W. (1997). Middle school climate: An empirical
assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 290-311.
Huang, F. L., & Moon, T. R. (2009). Is experience the best teacher? A multilevel
analysis of teacher characteristics and student achievement in low performing schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 209-234.
Jacobson, S. L., Brooks, S., Giles, C., Johnson, L., & Ylimaki, R. (2007).
Successful leadership in three high-poverty urban elementary schools. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 6(4), 291-317.
184
Judge, S., & Watson, S. M. R. (2011). Longitudinal outcomes for mathematics achievement for students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 147-157.
Kamens, M. W., Loprete, S. J., & Slostad, F. A. (2003). Inclusive classrooms:
What practicing teachers want to know. Action in Teacher Education, 25(1), 20-26.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman test of educational
achievement (KTEA – II, 2nd edition). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.
Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple
regression and structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge. Kim, Y. S., Yaacov, P., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010). Does growth
rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652-667.
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher
effectiveness? A review of the research. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
King-Sears, M. E., Brawand, A. E., Jenkins, M. C., & Preston-Smith, S. (2014).
Co-teaching perspectives from secondary science co-teachers and their students with disabilities. Journal of Science Teacher Educator, 25, 651-680.
King-Sears, M. E., Carran, D. T., Dammann, S. N., & Arter, P. S. (2011). Multi-
site analyses of special education and general education student teachers’ skill ratings for working with students with disabilities. Teaching Education Quarterly, 39(2), 131-149.
Klehm, M. (2014). The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and
achievement of students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37(3), 216-240.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Students' perceptions of instruction in
inclusion classrooms: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 66(1), 23-37.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). Teacher effects in early grades: Evidence from a
randomized study. Teacher College Record, 113(7), 1541-1565. Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical
framework. Exceptionality, 15, 177-187. doi:10.1080/09362830701503511
185
Leithwood, K. (2012). Ontario Leadership Framework with a discussion of the
leader- ship foundations. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Institute for Education Leadership, OISE.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how
school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).
Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education
Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools .org Lohr, S. (2012). Using SAS® for the design, analysis, and visualization of
complex surveys (Paper 343-2012). Orlando, FL: SAS Global Forum. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010).
Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings Learning from Leadership Project. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota: Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today’s principal: Implications for principal
programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2), 40-47.
Mather, N., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Examiner’s Manual:
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Form C/Brief Battery. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
McGuigan, L. & Hoy, W. K. (2006). Principal leadership: Creating a culture of
academic optimism to improve achievement for all students. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 203-229.
McLaughlin, M. J. (2009). What every principal needs to know about special
education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Miller, M. (2009). Teaching for a New World: Preparing high school educators to
deliver college-and-career ready instruction. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
186
Mitchell, R. M., Kensler, L. W., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2015). Examining the effects of instructional leadership on school academic press and student achievement. Journal of School Leadership, 25, 223-251.
Murawski, W. W. (2006). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English
classes: How can we improve? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(3), 227-247.
Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and
addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154-191.
National Council on Disability. (2011). National disability policy: A progress
report. Washington, DC: Author. Nettles, S. M., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct
effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736.
No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Pub. L. No. 107-110. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher
effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning.
Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407. Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that
researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.
Pazey, B. L., & Cole, H. (2013). 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, 243-271. doi:10.1177/0013161X12463934
Phillips, K. J. R. (2010). What does “highly qualified” mean for student
achievement? Evaluating the relationships between teacher quality indicators and at-risk students’ mathematics and reading achievement gains in first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 464-493.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’
knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224-248.
187
Pigott, T. D. (2001). A review of methods for missing data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 353-383.
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Author. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.
Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for
students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68, 203–223.
Rigby, J. G. (2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 610-644. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and
academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on
student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement:
Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247-252.
Rojewski, J. W., Lee, I. H., & Gregg, N. (2015). Causal effects of inclusion on
postsecondary education outcomes of individuals with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25(4), 210-219.
Rosenberg, M. S., Sindelar, P. T., & Hardman, M. L. (2004). Preparing highly
qualified teachers for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29(3), 266-278.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York:
John Wiley & Sons. Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 91, 473-489. Ryndak, D., Jackson, L. B., & White, J. M. (2013). Involvement and progress in
the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K–12 inclusive-education research and implications for the future. Inclusion, 1, 28- 49. doi:10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028
SAS Institute Inc (2013). SAS/ACCESS® 9.4 Interface to ADABAS: Reference.
Cary, NC: Author.
188
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147-177. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in
inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416.
Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, A. S., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2006).
The essential supports for school improvement. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Sevier, F. (1957). Testing assumptions underlying multiple regression. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 25(4), 323-330. Shatzer, R. H., Caldarella, P., Hallam, P. R., & Brown, B. L. (2014). Comparing
the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(4), 445-459.
Shogren, K. A., Gross, J. M. S., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Francis, G. L., Satter, A. L.,
Blue-Banning, M., & Hill, C. (2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 243-260.
Shuls, J. V., & Trivitt, J. R. (2015). Teacher effectiveness: An analysis of
licensure screens. Educational Policy, 29(4), 645-675. Smith, P. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2007). Academic optimism and student achievement
in urban elementary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 556-568.
Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2012). Effective inclusive education: Equipping
education professionals with necessary skills and knowledge. Prospects, 41, 323-339. doi: 10.1007/s1125-011-9207-5.
SRI International. (1999). Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study
(SEELS): Revised timeline and data collection, sample, and analysis plans. Accessed May 1, 2015 at http://www.seels.net/designdocs/seelsdgr.pdf
Stanley, P. H., Juhnke, G. A., & Purkey, W. W. (2004). Using an invitational
theory of practice to create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 302-309.
189
Telfer, D., & Howley, A. (2014). Rural schools positioned to promote the high achievement of students with disabilities. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(4), 3-13.
Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Lazarus, S. S. (2012). Leadership for student
performance in an era of accountability. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership & administration of special education (pp.3-16). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the
production function for cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F3-F33.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES,
2014). The Digest of Education Statistics, 2013, Table 204.30. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES,
2015). The Digest of Education Statistics, 2013 (NCES 2015-011), Table 204.60.
Valentine, J. W., & Prater, M. (2013). Instructional, transformational, and
managerial leadership and student achievement: High school principals make a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 95(1), 5-30.
Van Voorhis, C. R. W., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules
of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50.
Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students
with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46-53.
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Epstein, M. H. (2005). The special
education elementary longitudinal study and the national longitudinal transition study: Study designs and implications for children and youth with emotional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13(1), 25-41.
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of
the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51-60.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement: A working paper. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
190
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through
understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wei, X., Blackorby, J., & Schiller, E. (2011). Growth in reading achievement of
students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89-106.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional
development in the United States: Trends and challenges. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
Wei, X., Lenz, K. B., Blackorby, J. (2013). Math growth trajectories of students
with disabilities: Disability category, gender, racial, and socioeconomic status differences from ages 7 to 17. Remedial and Special Education, 34(3), 154-165.
Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler individual achievement test (WIAT – II, 2nd
edition). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education. West, J. E., & Whitby, P. J. S. (2008). Federal policy and the education of
students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41, 1-16.
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using
chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 377-399.
Wiseman, A. W., & Al-bakr, F. (2013). The elusiveness of teacher quality: A
comparative analysis of teacher certification and student achievement in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Prospects, 43(3), 289-309.
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom
context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007).
Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
191
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Jun Wang completed her undergraduate degree at Xiangtan University,
P.R. China, where she received a Bachelor of Science degree in English
literature. She received her Master of Science degree in special education at
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. She taught English to middle school
students in P.R. China and students with severe disabilities in Florida. She also
worked with students who were struggling academically and/or behaviorally in
various settings such as resource rooms and inclusive classrooms in Illinois and
Florida.
![Shari - casestatement2[1]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/577d2d5a1a28ab4e1ead84e6/shari-casestatement21.jpg)
