Blazing New Trails - Connexions

118 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADERSHIP
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study was an initial foray into research terrain that currently has a
dearth of information—the nexus among special education administration, small rural school
districts and the roles and responsibilities of small district educational leaders. Rodriquez
(2007) suggested a need for increased special education training in pre-service administrative
programs. Until we begin to understand what special education functions are addressed by
school leaders in rural states, such as Montana, where districts that have spare populations and
serve large areas of geography, we can only speculate about what students need to know.
Similarly, we need to know which functions are performed by the school administrators and
to what extent. We need to know why rural school administrators are delegating the functions,
in order to effectively revise or design educational leadership preparation programs that
adequately prepare future administrators for assuming leadership roles and provide support
for those already serving in the field within these small and geographically isolated school
districts. Although the conclusions are limited by the size of the sample and the reliance of
self-reports, this study does provide a contribution to the literature of the field by suggesting
that small rural school and school district leaders are attending to the administration of special
education programs in their schools and assuring primary leadership roles with multiple
responsibilities. Further studies are needed to substantiate this finding and to continue to build
our understanding regarding the needs of rural school leaders in administering special
education programs.
REFERENCES
Bays, D. A. (2001). Supervision of special education instruction in rural public school districts: A grounded
theory. Dissertation Abstract International: 64, no. 10A (2006): 3642.
DiPaola, M. F., Walther-Thomas, C. (2003). Principals and special education: The critical role of school
leaders (COPPSE Document No. IB-7). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Center on Personnel
Studies in Special Education.
Dunlop, C. D. (2006). Perceptions of superintendents and business managers regarding purchasing policies,
practices, and procedures in small, rural school districts: A North Dakota study. Dissertation Abstract
International: 67, no. 11A (2006): 4047.
Hansen, S. P. (2007) Ending Special Education’s Isolation. Principal Leadership 7(9), 37–40.
Helge, D. (1981). Problems in implementing comprehensive special education programming in rural areas.
Exceptional Children, 50(4), 294–305.
Hesbol, D. G., (2005). The role understanding and perceptions of the superintendent/principal in small rural
Illinois schools. Dissertation Abstract International: 66, no. 07A: 2452.
Hodge, C. L. (2007). Effects of No Child Left Behind mandates on special education programs in rural school
districts. Dissertation Abstract International: 70, no. 01A (2007): 140.
Hutchinson-Page, L. M., (2004) Attrition and mentoring special education teachers in rural Georgia. Dissertation
Abstract International: 65, no. 02A: 465.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4 th ed.) San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Lamkin, M. L. (2006). Challenges and changes faced by rural superintendents. Rural Educator, 28(1)17–24.
Lasky, B., Karge, B. D. (2006) Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities: Experience and Confidence of
Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 90(1) 19–36.
Lochry, R. R. (1998). The superintendent/principal in small, rural elementary school districts in California:
Managing dual responsibilities. Dissertation Abstract International: 59, no. 04A: 1028.
Patterson, J. (2001). School leader's guide to special education: Essentials for principals. Alexandria, VA:
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Patterson, J., Bowling, D., Marshall, C. (2000). Are Principals Prepared To Manage Special Education
Dilemmas? NASSP Bulletin, 84(613), 9–20.