What's In Store at Wrightslaw?
Special Ed Law & Advocacy Training (6.5 hrs)
25% Off the Wrightslaw Bundle of 4 PRINT books for $58.35 (Sorry, coupons not accepted on this product)
Includes Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Ed., Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy, 2nd Ed., Wrightslaw: All About IEPs and Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments, 2nd Ed.
New! The Wrightslaw Bundle is now available as an immediate PDF download. All four Wrightslaw books as PDFs for just $49.95!
How Principals View Children with Learning Problems
by Pam Wright
As school leaders, principals define and shape the "culture" of schools.
How do principals view children who have learning problems? What should
schools do for children who have school and learning problems?
In 1997, "How Administrators Understand Learning Difficulties" (by Allington, McGill-Franzel, and Schick) was published in Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 223-232. The article describes the findings of researchers who interviewed principals of elementary schools where large numbers of children were being retained and/or referred to special education.
Stereotypes, Prejudices and Myths
According to this study, principals shared the prejudices and stereotypes of mainstream society. Most principals believed that children with learning problems were "disadvantaged" and that "disadvantaged children" were "immature" and "slow learners."
The principals confused achievement with ability. They believed that children who entered school with limited educational experiences were also intellectually limited. The principals explained that children from poor families have learning problems because the children are "limited."
The authors of this study expressed concerns about these erroneous beliefs and posed several questions:
If principals believe that poor children are intellectually "limited," will the children receive the educational help they need?
If principals believe that children are "limited," will the children receive enrichment and other appropriate help?
The authors referenced several studies which show that "limited experience children benefit from early rich, intensive literacy environments." They cited evidence that "instruction can accelerate literacy development and literally, "catch" these children up with their more advantaged peers." (p. 226)
The principals were either unaware of these studies or didn’t accept the findings because the information didn’t fit their prejudices.
The authors of this study discovered a disturbing pattern. Many low-income children enter school without the advantages of enrichment at home. Because they aren’t adequately prepared when they enter school, many fail. When they fail, they are labeled as "limited" and are "held back" or retained.
Many of these children land in special education classes - not because they have disabilities but because this is the only place for children who are "limited." Expectations are low in most special education classes. Special education doesn't provide the instruction these children need – enrichment and instruction to accelerate literacy.
The principals discussed their own beliefs about learning problems. The researchers called these beliefs the "Gene Pool Effect."
The "Gene Pool Effect " included a mixed bag of social and economic problems - single parent homes, broken homes, "dysfunctional families," and parents who had limited education.
The principals insisted that childrens’ "failure to learn" had nothing to do with what schools do or don't do. By insisting that children’s learning problems are "not our fault," they tried to take themselves "off the hook."
One principal insisted that holding schools accountable when children don’t learn is "unfair:"
Society is saying, ‘It’s the school’s problem." Never the parents . . . We teach far more in school than we should ever have to teach. (p. 226)
The authors asked this question: "What happens when children "fail to learn?" They learned that solutions to children’s learning problems had to be cheap and easy.
The principals had two solutions - retention and referral to special education. Few children received any remediation. Why? The schools didn’t offer remediation because they didn’t have to - remediation isn’t federally or state-mandated or funded.
"Why are so many children in your school diagnosed with learning disabilities?" asked the researchers. They found that principals view special education as a way to "give services" and deal with "problem children."
Here are some principals’ comments about why children are referred to special education:
We have a bushel basket we call learning disabilities. If you want to give a child services, you throw him in the learning disabilities basket and it qualifies him.
. . . if you have a problem child all you have to do to eliminate having to deal with that child is refer him to the special class. Because special class referral almost always ends up with special class placement . . . You don’t have to deal with the kid anymore. The kid is gone. I mean it has an appeal for some people. (p. 228)
The principals used special education for their benefit. State competency testing was increasing. The results of competency testing was published in local newspapers. Publicity meant that principals were under pressure to improve school achievement test scores. If they shifted low achieving kids into special education classes, these children would not be counted against them.
The principals also expressed the belief that children with learning problems were "defective:"
In 1988, Galen Alessi published his study of school psychology practices. We wrote an article about his findings entitled "Learning Problems at School: Whose FAULT Is It?"
In Alessi's study, school psychologists said they had to "limit the reasons" they used to explain children’s learning problems to children and their parents. "School culture" did not allow them to mention "school reasons" for learning problems - improper curriculum, inappropriate teaching methods, and school administrative problems.
Principals are school leaders. The principals who were interviewed for this study believed that schools don't need change - even when children aren't learning.
Ten years after Alessi's study was published, "school culture" continues to influence how schools define problems and how decisions are made in public schools.
What are the implications of this study? If you are a parent and your child is having problems at school, the school staff probably believes that the problems are your fault - or your child's fault. This is the power of school culture.
How can you combat school culture?
First, you have to understand that you will not "win" by threatening or blowing up. You must learn to recognize the beliefs that are part of school culture (including the belief that a child's school problems are never the school's "fault"). You need to understand that these beliefs are as old as public schools - so you won't succeed in changing them.
Study salesmanship - how to make people want to give you what you want.
Learn how to ask questions, offer ideas, and make suggestions that will be heard - how to influence the actions of others by your own behavior.
Learn how to negotiate and persuade - stay cool under pressure, stand up without provoking opposition, deal with underhanded tactics, find mutually agreeable options.
"How to Argue and Win Every Time" by Gerry Spence - how to present your position effectively, using story telling and visual imagery.
How to Read a Person Like a Book by Gerald I. Nierenberg.
Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation.
Copyright © 1998-2022, Peter W. D. Wright and Pamela Darr Wright. All rights reserved. Contact Us