# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
October 2019 Edition
~Happy Halloween~

Regional Education Service Centers
Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators. As the Texas Education Agency (TEA) continues its efforts to redesign Special Education with Regional and Local Education Agencies across Texas, RESCs will be adapting services and supports in response to the changing needs that arise.

Special Education Liaisons
Special Education Liaisons connect resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Have you considered Leveraging Your Liaison to support your LEA, Campus, or Classroom? You can do so by contacting your Regional Education Service Center. As the role of Special Education Liaisons continues to be adapted in response to the evolving needs of our Regional LEAs, turn to them for innovative resources, supports, and services. Connecting resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities; We are ESC Liaisons!
In This Edition
In this edition of SPEDTalk Newsletter, you will find ideas, information, and resources about Special Education Finance and Budgeting, SPED Leadership Academy, and the Small and Rural Schools Network (SRSN). Be sure to check out the flyer for the SRSN Small School Connection Conferences included below.

Links to new episodes of SPEDTalk with Pam & John are also included. Amy, Pam, and I took a road trip to College Station to learn about the Aggie ACHIEVE Program. We also sat down with SPED Directors from LEAs in Region 12 to discuss RDA, SPED Leadership, and managing the whirlwind.
Liaisons Connect Texas
Texas really is Rich in Resources, and Information should always flow through us to those who need it the most. Often this is our students, parents, and teachers in addition to our campus and district leaders. In my experience as an educator, my focus has primarily been in support of students with disabilities, which has led me to the following belief.

All Kids (each and every one) need caring, positive adult role models who prioritize the needs of children above their own. When we pair these characteristics with growth minded individuals dedicated to studying their standards and mastering their craft in the classroom, children thrive. In the recipe for creating a high performing classroom, campus, and culture, these are the basic ingredients required to help Gen Ed Student, SPED Student, GT Student, EL Student, and all the rest. ~JCB~

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
October 2019 Edition~Happy Halloween~ Regional Education Service Centers Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES

John C. Bullion, ABD, M. Ed., LPC-S

RESC Supports for Special Education
September 2019 Edition

Regional Education Service Centers
Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators. As the Texas Education Agency (TEA) continues its efforts to redesign Special Education with Regional and Local Education Agencies across Texas, RESCs will be adapting services and supports in response to the changing needs that arise.

Special Education Liaisons
Special Education Liaisons connect resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Have you considered Leveraging Your Liaison to support your LEA, Campus, or Classroom? You can do so by contacting your Regional Education Service Center. As the role of Special Education Liaisons continues to be adapted in response to the evolving needs of our Regional LEAs, turn to them for innovative resources, supports, and services. Connecting resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities; We are ESC Liaisons!
In This Edition
In this edition of SPEDTalk, you will find ideas, information, and resources about Dyslexia, SPED Certification, Differentiated Monitoring & Support, Results Driven Accountability, SPED Changes, SPED Resources, and TEA Trending Topics. Texas is Rich in Resources, and I believe information should flow through us so that others might benefit. It is my hope that you might take a moment today to feel blessed and bless others!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES September 2019 Edition Regional Education Service Centers Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
August 2019 Edition

Regional Education Service Centers
Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators. As the Texas Education Agency (TEA) continues its efforts to redesign Special Education with Regional and Local Education Agencies across Texas, RESCs will be adapting services and supports in response to the changing needs that arise.

Special Education Liaisons
Special Education Liaisons connect resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Have you considered Leveraging Your Liaison to support your LEA, Campus, or Classroom? You can do so by contacting your Regional Education Service Center. As the role of Special Education Liaisons continues to be adapted in response to the evolving needs of our Regional LEAs, turn to them for innovative resources, supports, and services. Connecting resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities; We are ESC Liaisons!
In Case You Didn't Know
In case you didn't know, Education is changing. A growing tension exists between two schools of thought; between teaching and learning, lessons and experiences. While some believe that schools should be places of wonder and excitement in which students should be engaged in passion-based problem solving, many others are holding on tightly to a more traditional view of education, one in which teachers are the keepers of knowledge and controllers of concepts. But these opposing views may not be such a new phenomenon in our collective psyche.

According to Craft (1984), there are two different Latin roots of the English word "education." They are " educare," which means to train or to mold, and " educere," meaning to lead out. While the two meanings are quite different, they are both represented in the word education. One side views education to mean the preservation and passing down of knowledge and the shaping of youths in the image of their parents. The other side sees education as preparing a new generation for the changes that are to come, readying them to create solutions to problems yet unknown.

And then there are those who believe we can do both; that we can both honor the lessons learned and paths paved by the generational teachings that came before, while also forging ahead into new innovative approaches and practices and educational destinations yet to be discovered. I am from this group of divergent thinkers. Craft contends that striking the right balance in educational aims is a valid focus for educators; however, this requires changing organizational structures and the ways in which decisions are made. The first steps to achieving such a balance involves utilizing stakeholder perceptions, establishing a shared vision of education, and facilitating a change in educators' roles.

The changes to Texas educator certifications including the Special Education Certification and the Principal as Instructional Leader most certainly aim to facilitate a change in educators' roles. The TEAs Special Education Strategic Plan took on several iterations in response to stakeholder perceptions and feedback, and the redesign of the Statewide Leadership Functions and Projects will maintain many resources and materials from the current functions and projects as they launch this school year.

While the degree to which these efforts will result in the establishment of a shared vision of education in Texas schools is yet to be determined, change is definitely the new norm. In 2017, redefined our state accountability system by emphasizing the importance of closing the achievement gap of struggling learners and ensuring that every student makes a years growth. As we enter the 2019-2020 school year, educators are still adapting to these changes, and those seeing the greatest improvement in student outcomes understand that change is not the enemy that we have been taught to believe. These educators realize that it is the choices made in response to these changes that define their success. Adding to these changes and choices are the funding reforms provided by , which prioritizes pay raises for educators across the state. With change comes opportunity, and with all these new opportunities, it truly is an exciting time to be an educator in Texas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
August 2019 Edition Regional Education Service Centers Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators.

# data[].attributes.body
Bradley W. Carpenter, Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bradley W. Carpenter, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership. Dr. Carpenter teaches graduate courses in the Department of Educational Leadership's K-12 Ed.D. program. As a former public-school teacher, assistant principal, and principal Dr. Carpenter's has a passion for working with public school administrators. Specifically, he enjoys his role in helping aspiring principals and superintendents realize their identity as transformational leaders of school communities.

Dr. Carpenter's research is focused on three primary areas of scholarship: (a) Development of Social Justice- and Anti-Racist-oriented School Leaders; (b) Leadership Wellbeing; and, (c) How Discourses and Policymaking Shape Federal, State, and Local Policy.

Dr. Carpenter's research has been published in journals such as the Journal of School Leadership, NASSP Bulletin, Education Policy, Urban Education, Education and Urban Society, and many others. Bradley is a member of the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), Texas Council of Professors of Educational Administration (TCPEA), and actively participates in the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) and American Educational Research Association (AERA) Divisions A & L. Dr. Carpenter is a current associate editor for the Journal of Research on Leadership Education (JRLE), a past associate editor for the Journal of School Leadership (JSL), and an editorial board member of the Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership (JCEL).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bradley W. Carpenter, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership. Dr. Carpenter teaches graduate courses in the Department of Educational Leadership's K-12 Ed.D. program. As a former public-school teacher, assistant principal, and principal Dr. Carpenter's has a passion for working with public school administrators.

# data[].attributes.body
John E. Wilson, Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John E. Wilson, Ph.D., Clinical Professor of K-12 Educational Leadership, is Program Director for the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in K-12 Educational Leadership. He is a professional educator with more than four decades of experience, having served seven different public school districts in a 34-year career. He served more than two decades in the role of superintendent of schools. He was superintendent most recently of the Clear Creek ISD, where district enrollment grew by 7,000 during his eight-year tenure. He was also superintendent in Amarillo, Greenville and Cuero Independent School Districts. He has twice been the keynote speaker for the Urban Superintendents Association of America Academy for Superintendents and served as the president of the Texas Association of Suburban/Mid-Urban Schools.

In addition, business ownership provided experience in consulting with private and public school districts, private businesses, law firms and public agencies. Before joining the Baylor graduate faculty in 2010, he taught in higher education as an adjunct professor at Texas A&M University-College Station, Texas A&M University-Commerce, West Texas A&M University-Canyon, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston Baptist University, and Lamar University-Beaumont.

Dr. Wilson's research and scholarly interests are in K-12 policy and leadership, preparation of K-12 education executives, politics of education, governance, education law, organizational behavior and persuasive communications.

Dr. Wilson is focused on creating in his students a passion for learning, a positive leadership style embedded with virtues of ethical leadership. His expertise is in mentoring and developing leaders. Leadership roles in school districts, communities, and organizations include President of Texas Academic Decathlon, President of Texas Association of Suburban/Mid-Urban Schools, Board of Trustees for Hardin-Simmons University, and the Advisory Committee for Texas A&M University System Center for Leadership in Higher Education.

Dr. Wilson received The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Public Service Medal for exceptional contributions to the NASA program through a partnership with Clear Creek schools. He also received the Omicron Delta Kappa Baylor University Sesquicentennial Men and Women of Merit Award and was a Danforth Fellow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
John E. Wilson, Ph.D., Clinical Professor of K-12 Educational Leadership, is Program Director for the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in K-12 Educational Leadership. He is a professional educator with more than four decades of experience, having served seven different public school districts in a 34-year career.

# data[].attributes.body
Tracey N. Sulak, Ph.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tracey N. Sulak, Ph.D., is a Clinical Associate Professor in Educational Psychology. Dr. Sulak received her B.A. in English from the University of Houston, her M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on gifted education, and her Ph.D. from Baylor University in Educational Psychology. Prior to joining the faculty, she was a public and private school teacher in classrooms serving children from age 3 years to eighth grade.

Dr. Sulak's teaching interests include math and literacy interventions, research design, and statistics. She currently teaches courses in the special education undergraduate teacher education program, as well as courses in the master's and doctoral programs in Educational Psychology. In 2010, she was awarded the Outstanding Graduate Student Instructor for her teaching in special education.

Dr. Sulak's primary research interests involve the impact of environment on educational outcomes across the lifespan, and much of her research is funded by internal and external grants. Dr. Sulak conducts both applied research and secondary data set analysis, with much of her applied research situated in local public schools or colleges and universities. She uses secondary data to supplement and inform her applied research studies. Her work has been presented internationally, nationally and regionally, and her publications appear in journals such as the Journal of Attention Disorders and Early Child Development and Care. In 2015, she was nominated for Baylor's Outstanding Professor Award in the Non-Tenure Track Faculty category for scholarship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tracey N. Sulak, Ph.D., is a Clinical Associate Professor in Educational Psychology. Dr. Sulak received her B.A. in English from the University of Houston, her M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction with an emphasis on gifted education, and her Ph.D. from Baylor University in Educational Psychology.

# data[].attributes.body
Robert C. Cloud, Ed.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Robert C. Cloud, Ed.D., is a Professor of Higher Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership in the School of Education. He holds four academic degrees and is a former college administrator, having served as President of Lee College in Texas for ten years and as Vice President, Dean, and Department Chair for an additional ten years in three other Texas colleges. Dr. Cloud joined the Baylor University graduate faculty in 1988 and has served as chair of two academic departments at Baylor, EDL and the Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation (HHPR).

Dr. Cloud's current research interests include higher education leadership, educational law and policy, current issues, governance, the federal student loan program and student debt, and organizational behavior. He has published 110 articles in professional journals, five books, four book chapters, and three monographs. His edited books on legal issues and governance in the community colleges are required reading in graduate higher education leadership programs across the nation, and his 1995 booklet titled Drugs in Society was a National Health Information Awards winner.

Robert C. Cloud is committed to instructional excellence, focusing on integrity, compassion, and the application and integration of knowledge. Dr. Cloud teaches in a highly organized, interactive, and enriched environment which integrates intense issues-based learning, humor, and respect for students. He places students' interests first; followed closely by research, writing, and publication in a wide array of professional venues.

Dr. Robert C. Cloud is a Distinguished Alumnus of Howard Payne University (2004). He received the Outstanding Graduate Faculty Award from the Baylor University Graduate Student Association in 2003-04.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Robert C. Cloud, Ed.D., is a Professor of Higher Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership in the School of Education. He holds four academic degrees and is a former college administrator, having served as President of Lee College in Texas for ten years and as Vice President, Dean, and Department Chair for an additional ten years in three other Texas colleges.

# data[].attributes.body
Jerry G. Maze, Ed.D.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Jerry Maze is Executive Director for Education Service Center (ESC) Region 12 in Waco, which provides cost-saving services, professional development and support to 76 school districts and 10 charter schools in 12 Central Texas counties. Maze became executive director in May of 2011. His vision for the Center is to provide and continue to develop innovative, responsive and relevant solutions for the needs of school personnel and students. The Center employs 210 employees, including offsite employees that serve in school districts as part of several large grants.

Experience

Maze has served in education for 30 years in various capacities, including as a teacher, director, consultant, high school principal, superintendent and as an executive director.

Originally from southeast Texas, Maze began his education career as an English teacher at Livingston Middle School, and later taught English and journalism at Livingston High School. He worked as assistant principal, associate principal for curriculum and instruction and then as principal of Livingston High School. Maze served as the media/public relations consultant for Livingston and developed the district's public relations and bond communication programs. He also served as director of community and academic alternative programs and advanced the development of district-wide academic support programs for serving at-risk students, including acceleration, credit recovery and a school of choice. In this position, he also managed district communications, community programs and a multi-million dollar scholarship program.

While serving as superintendent at Hubbard and then in Hillsboro, Maze emphasized student achievement and focused on financial efficiency. In Hubbard, he led the district through the construction and opening of a new middle school. In addition, he established a district/community scholarship foundation.

Prior to his current role, he served for three years as associate executive director for administrative leadership & business services at ESC Region 12. In this position, he managed many areas including school finance, administrative leadership and regional satellite offices. He also created the Superintendents' Leadership Academy.

Maze has a genuine spirit of collaboration and a passion for creating a culture of high expectations and innovative thinking. Through his vision, the ESC Region 12 Technology Foundation was formed in 2012, to help schools place instructional technology into the hands of Region 12 students. The foundation has awarded nearly $280,000 in grants to 31 school districts and two charter schools. He continually searches for strategic partnerships and solutions that will help increase student achievement and save schools money. Most recently, he initiated a partnership between Baylor University and Huckabee, a planning and design firm, to create the Learning Experience Laboratories, or LEx Labs. The labs, located at the Baylor Research and Innovation Collaborative (BRIC), were designed to test the next-generation of innovative classrooms and laboratories in a nearly 6,000 square foot educational research facility. This innovative partnership will support training and research in the science, technology, engineering & mathematics.

Awards

Maze received the national E. Robert Stephens Award in 2011 from the Association of Education Service Agencies (AESA) for research and writing in connection with his dissertation study on education service centers in Texas, "Superintendent Perceptions of their Professional Development in Leadership for Student Achievement at Texas Regional Education Service Centers."

Maze is passionate about giving back to his industry and community. He is president of the national Association of Education Service Agencies and serves as the southern regional representative. He serves on the boards of McLennan County Pack of Hope, the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA) Advisory Committee and Prosper Waco. He also serves as a superintendent mentor for TASA, and is a faculty member for international programs at Louisiana College in Pineville, Louisiana.

Maze received his Doctorate of Education degree from Lamar University and his Master of Education degree from Sam Houston State University. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Journalism from Texas A&M University and holds certifications in Secondary English and Journalism, Texas professional mid-management and Texas superintendent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Jerry Maze is Executive Director for Education Service Center (ESC) Region 12 in Waco, which provides cost-saving services, professional development and support to 76 school districts and 10 charter schools in 12 Central Texas counties. Maze became executive director in May of 2011.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John C. Bullion, M. Ed., LPC-S (#61611)

Special Education Liaison at ESC Region 12

July 2019 Edition

Special Education Liaisons In Case You Didn't Know

DESTINATION EDUCATION

ESC LIAISONS CONNECT TEXAS:

This month I had the opportunity to visit my friends at ESC Region 4 and share information about Designing Educational Destinations and Digital Resources with amazing educators (I see you Pat Monaghan) at the AGC Summer Institute. Access is a means of approach.

Access is how educators expose students to the general curriculum. Designing learning environments that ensure students receive quality access to the general curriculum is challenging. Educators are faced with a wide range of learner variability in their classrooms. To address this variability, educators need professional development opportunities that focus on evidence-based practices for instruction. This annual summer institute does just that. Be sure to check it out next year. Maybe I'll see you there!

During our week in Austin with our Statewide Liaison PLC, Pam and I also sat down with Lorraine Klim (ESC Region 4 Liaison) to discuss her efforts developing an exemplar autism program that can be scaled into larger and smaller school systems. Lorraine's experience developing an autism continuum during her time in Houston ISD, makes her the perfect person to scale these efforts across the state, and as a recipient of an Autism Grant from TEA, her work stands to help countless numbers of students with autism and the educators who support them. Be sure to check out new Episodes of SPEDTalk to learn more about Lorraine's work with Autism.

We want to send a special thank you Theresa, Ginger, Kristin and the entire TCASE team for making our experience at TCASE Interactive 2019 so amazing. When Pam and I first talked about starting a podcast, we never could have imagined that we would be recording SPEDTalk with Pam & John, Live and Interactive with such an amazing group of educators at TCASE Interactive. Elevating the conversation about Results Driven Accountability from a student's perspective allowed members of the audience to empathize with the experience of being educated with a disability. It is through the contributions of our guests that SPEDTalk has become a platform for celebrating the positive aspects of special education while amplifying ideas, information, and resources around the state. Blessings & Gratitude! Without you, there is no SPEDTalk!

Just a Thought
Just a Thought
Attending public school in the 1970s and 1980s in La Marque, Texas afforded insights into diversity and disability. True to the times, students with significant cognitive disabilities were housed separately from the general population of students and only visible during off period strolls with hall pass securely in hand. Walking past the gymnasium, one might catch a glimpse of these students engaged in all sorts of aerobic type movements and postures. Wondering thoughts of "who, what, where..." were soon replaced with the realization that time out of class had exceeded any logical adult's perception of acceptable restroom break time allotment. As elementary turned to middle then secondary school, a few of these students with less significant needs became more visible in the hallways and cafeteria as memory recalls. Vague recollections of students with less visibly noticeable learning disabilities spending the majority of their school day in separate classrooms also come to mind.

Myself, a struggling student with needs that were invisible to the educated eye, spent most of my time unsuccessfully trying to keep up with the daily demands; an anomaly of public school homogeneity. My educational stemmed from symptoms of a broken home and over stimulated cerebral cortex. Learning struggles led to remedial courses and low expectations, and by today's standards, I would have likely been served in special education as a student with ADHD or an Emotional Disturbance. My career in education has left me with mixed feelings regarding my unidentified needs as a child. While I would have likely learned to type in that keyboarding class from which I was removed, I have overcome this deficit in adulthood. And that Spanish course that was replaced with another remedial math class would not likely have led to me becoming bilingual beyond my current illiterate bilingualism.

What I have seen in my 20 years as a special educator is that for many kids like I was, identified needs leading to eligibility and services have both hastened and inhibited the learning process. While many students in special education receive needed supports and services in appropriately intensified and accelerated remediation, many more struggle to overcome the low expectations and exclusionary educational opportunities offered through modified mediocrity and accommodated apathy also known as Specially Designed Instruction (SDI). And so the story goes and only the actors change until now that is!

There is currently a national discussion on what it means to educate children with disabilities. Enthusiastic educators are debating beliefs regarding equity and equality while lackadaisical legislators are pandering to political rhetoric and policy elites. Policing practices through compliance heavy policies have created sometimes complaint systems, which aim to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) with Access to General Curriculum (AGC). Reflecting on the origins of SPED in P.L. 94-142 and iterations of IDEA frames the discussion that has been part of the sociopolitical landscape we call special education. Despite ongoing efforts by the US Department of Education to re-frame this discussion, many had begun to ask, "What's so special about special education anyway?"

Until now, attempts to fuse the two parallel systems of education (special education & general education) back together have failed to address a growing achievement gap (student paradigm) and expectation gap (adult paradigm). While progress regarding students having access to general education has been well documented, access has not led to progress in the general curriculum as expected. Recent rulings by the Supreme Court revisited FAPE as taught us that we must ensure that children with disabilities make meaningful progress in our education system (PGC) and achieve 'appropriately ambitious' objectives. Adding to this discussion is the shift at the federal and state level to Results Driven Accountability (). The Current formula for effective special education programs is as follows: Compliance + Student Achievement = RDA.

What's kinda funny is we have seen this coming for years with increased participation of students with disabilities in state standardized assessments and federal accountability. Terminology has followed suit as well; disabilities have replaced handicapping conditions and mainstreaming has been replaced by inclusive practices. What has yet to change is the system that has produced the results with which we are displeased. When approaching a complex problem in search of a second-order solution from within the same constraints that produced the problem in the first place, we get band aide fixes and patch work preponderances. So, while the Feds continue to try to legislate the reconfiguration of our bipolar educational system without addressing the need for systemic reform resulting in a single educational system designed to meet the needs of each and every child, maybe we should expand the discussion we have been having beyond the system which has led us to this point. In doing so, we just might wander upon a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) that removes learning barriers and predicts student needs. Maybe then kids with differing abilities will learn more about their strengths than their deficits and minds will shift from students being disabled to schools being disabled.
Just a Thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Special Education Liaison at ESC Region 12 July 2019 Edition Special Education Liaisons In Case You Didn't Know ESC LIAISONS CONNECT TEXAS: This month I had the opportunity to visit my friends at ESC Region 4 and share information about Designing Educational Destinations and Digital Resources with amazing educators (I see you Pat Monaghan) at the AGC Summer Institute .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
John C. Bullion, M. Ed., LPC-S (#61611)

Special Education Liaison at ESC Region 12

June 2019 Edition

Special Education Liaisons In Case You Didn't Know

DESTINATION EDUCATION

ESC LIAISONS CONNECT TEXAS:

Pam and I had the opportunity to drop into the offices of the last time we were in Austin, and I must say we definitely elevating the conversation while we were there. Joining us around the table were Theresa Parsons (Executive Director), Ginger Meyners (Deputy Director), and Kristin McGuire (Director of Governmental Relations) and of course SPEDTalk Producer, Amy Rogers. We loved learning about the vision, mission, and purpose of TCASE, as well as gaining insights into the upcoming TCASE Interactive 2019 Conference.

I was also blessed to have the opportunity to share information at the TEPSA Summer Conference regarding "What every principal needs to know about the TEA SPED Strategic Plan" where I met so many amazing campus leaders from around Texas. To wrap up an amazing month of touring around the state and sharing ideas, information, and resources, I made it back to Waco, Texas just in time for the TransformEd Summer Conference at ESC Region 12 where we recorded Destination Education: When Worlds Collide with a student paneland audience contributions.

Just a Thought
Just a Thought
For educators, summertime is a time for rejuvenation, reflection, and refocus. Thinking back on your year, was there a kid you felt like you just weren't able to reach this school year. Thinking back on my time as a teacher, counselor, and administrator, I often found myself reflecting on just such a kid. Thinking I should have tried one more approach. Wishing I would have managed my own thoughts and emotions differently when being confronted with feelings of confusion and doubt about my own abilities because of the behavior of that kid. I remember thinking about how much I focused on relationships and how much I really did care about every student in my care including that kid. And yet when things became stressful because of the behaviors of that kid, my thoughts and emotions betrayed me and undermined me ability to remain objective in my responsibilities to that kid.

The irony is that it was my desire to help kids like that kid, which led me to education as a profession. It has dawned on me over the past few years that I was that kid. I have since realized the importance of remaining in control when others are out of control; not to enable me to control the actions of others, but so that I might remain firm in my purpose for being. That is to add value to the lives of others through kindness and love. I've realized that as an educator, my main responsibility is to add value to the lives of others. In order for me to do that, I can't let my pedagogical prowess and emotional self-regulation be comprised by external factors.

If we don't remain cognizant of the impact that these external situations can have on us, we become victim to their influence. I refer to the impact these external factors have on us as "Circumstantial Turbulence." For the same biological reasons that kids become aggressive, despondent, defensive, or hyperactive, educators often respond in similar ways. It's called fight or flight and it is our bodies elevated risk response. Often our responses (Reactional Positionality) further exacerbate the amount of circumstantial turbulence experienced by the kids we are trying to help. As these external situations are internalized by kids and educators, it further elicits the fear response in each of us,which reinforces our tendencies towards reactional positionality.

As I conclude my reflection, it occurs to me that even in my current life as a Special Education Liaison, I am still the kid that gets easily distracted, hyperactive, and excitable. Somewhere along the road of life, I was blessed to have amazing educators and mentors who taught me to know my strengths. My hope is that we all begin to recognize strengths in others. We all have them...even that kid.

Just a thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Special Education Liaison at ESC Region 12 June 2019 Edition Special Education Liaisons In Case You Didn't Know ESC LIAISONS CONNECT TEXAS: Pam and I had the opportunity to drop into the offices of the last time we were in Austin, and I must say we definitely elevating the conversation while we were there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES

RESC Supports for Special Education
May 2019 Edition Regional Education Service Centers
Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators. Our Purpose is to ensure that all students across Texas have the opportunity to be successful regardless of differing abilities and needs. When was the last time you stopped in for a session or contacted your Regional Education Service Center for supports or services?
Special Education Liaisons
Special Education Liaisons provide additional supports and services to LEAs at each of the 20 Education Services Centers across Texas. While our approach varies along with the regional needs of LEAs, our purpose is to "connect resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities." Have you considered Leveraging Your Liaison to support your LEA, Campus, or Classroom?

Check out our most recent episodes of SPEDTalk with Pam & John, and you just might find a little something extra. Included this month is a Special Extended Edition of our Podcast focusing on the amazing things happening at the only Ultra-Accessible Theme Park in the World, Morgan's Wonderland in San Antonio, Texas. Let's continue to Elevate the Conversation as we Accelerate & Amplify state special education resources into the hands of those who need them. This a positive platform for celebrating the people and organizations that are really making it happen for students with disabilities across Texas.

I am also excited to announce the release of Destination Education: When Worlds Collide co-hosted by Andi McNair (A Meaningful Mess), John C. Bullion (Chaos in a Suit), Josh Essary (Digital Innovation Guru) and Arash Abnoussi (Mathematician Extraordinaire). Tune in as we connect the worlds of "Special" and "Exceptional" while highlighting and celebrating "The Genius in Me!" Explicitly connecting Genius Hour Concepts and Practices to Students with Differing Abilities. By focusing on human-connection and educational destinations steeped in experiential educational opportunities, we can bridge these two schools of thought. Results Driven Accountability (RDA) encourages educators to tap into the potential in each and every child. What better way to do that than designing to the edges of our educational landscape?

Also, remember that the student lead transition app, Big Changes, which was designed with the assistance of Northwest ISD High School Students, can be downloaded at the Apple and Google Play Store. And don't forget to circle back to and SPED Dashboard for just in time resources and supports.
Future Opportunities
If you want to Elevate the Conversation and Partake in the Positive, be sure to attend our session SPEDTalk with Pam & John: Live and Interactive at TCASE Interactive 2019. You never know what to expect when Pam and I get together, and having a live audience will only add to the fun. And, I am super excited to invite those of you attending Interactive to join Laurie Tresl and Myself in our Thought Leader Session "Building Organizational Capacity," which is scheduled for Monday, July 22nd. Hope to see you there!

Shifting gears, I am fortunate to announce the cast of DESTINATION EDUCATION: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE will also be going Live and Interactive at the TransformEd Conference in June at ESC Region 12. If you are planning to attend the conference, join your tour guides Andi, John, Josh and Arash as the connect the worlds of GT and Special Education Pedagogy and Practices and explore educational destinations yet to be discovered.
In Case You Didn't Know
While Texas is Information rich when it comes to Special Education Resources and Supports, it can be difficult knowing where to go to find what your looking for because there is so much stuff in so many locations around the state. One need look no further than ESC Region 20 to find a plethora resources at the Progress in General Curriculum (PGC) homepage on their website. Whether you are a campus or district Administrator, SPED Teacher, Gen Ed Teacher, Paraprofessional, or Instructional Specialist, ESC Region 20 and the PGC Network has you covered.

In case you didn't know, Texas has 14 Statewide Leadership Functions and Projects, but is currently re-consolidating these into 10 Statewide Technical Assistance Leadership Networks, which are scheduled to role out in the 2019-2020 school year. In addition to these Networks, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) is developing Technical Assistance Frameworks, which will provide additional information regarding Best Practices and Exemplar Models for LEA consideration.

Regional Education Service Centers across the state are connected to and provide support in these areas and many more. Expect to see and hear more about these Networks and Frameworks in upcoming SPEDTalk Newsletters and on SPEDTalk with Pam & John as we will no doubt be keeping a close on their evolution. In Region 12, these topics will be explored in more detail throughout the 2019-2020 school year in our Special Education Leadership Academy 2020sessions, which will be hosted at the ESC Region 12 at the Baylor Research & Innovation Collaborative BRIC.

DESTINATION EDUCATION

John C. Bullion, M. Ed., LPC-S (#61611)

Just a Thought
Just a Thought

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES May 2019 Edition Regional Education Service Centers Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES April 2019 Edition Regional Education Service Centers Regional Education Service Centers located across Texas provide a multitude of programs, products, and services to support LEAs with regard to state and federal legislative requirements, special education funding, and special education coaching and professional learning for staff and administrators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES

SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPPORTS
March 2019 Edition ESC Region 12 Special Education
ESC Region 12 offers numerous programs and services to support LEAs and their Special Education staff with meeting the needs of students. This includes complying with state and federal legislative requirements, securing funding, and training Special Education staff and administrators to ensure that all their students have the opportunity to be successful regardless of special needs or disabilities.
SPED Liaisons
Special Education Liaisons provide additional supports and services to LEAs at each of the 20 Education Services Centers across Texas. While our approach varies along with the regional needs of LEAs, our purpose is to "connect resources and supports across Texas to improve outcomes for students with disabilities."

In my time as an ESC Liaison, I have had the opportunity to work on several projects, which focus on amplifying the state's resources such as SPED Dashboard and ARD Buddy. More recently I am collaborating with ESC Regions 9,10, & 11 on the development of a Podcast about all things SPED called " SPEDTalk with Pam & John." More on that to come.
Future Opportunities
Opportunities to provide support in your local context has enabled me to learn so much from each of you. I look forward to continuing these efforts whenever invited to do so. Special Education Leadership Academy has provided additional opportunities to collaborate and learn from one another. Moving forward the Academies will be held in the LEx Labs at the BRIC.

DESTINATION EDUCATION

John C. Bullion, M. Ed., LPC-S (#61611)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IDEAS, INFORMATION, & RESOURCES March 2019 Edition ESC Region 12 Special Education ESC Region 12 offers numerous programs and services to support LEAs and their Special Education staff with meeting the needs of students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SPEDTalk with Pam & John • A podcast on Spotify for Podcasters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Welcome to SPEDTalk with Pam Humphrey & Dr. John C. Bullion (2021 & 2022 Barbara Jordan Media Award Winners). The past 39 years, Pam’s work in Special Education has been integral in statewide efforts regarding Inclusive Practices and Transition Services. In his 20+ year career in education,…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By A Chaotic Mess

The World is changing. Education is changing too. A growing tension exists between two schools of thought: between teaching and learning, lessons and experiences. Although, some believe schools should be places of wonder and excitement in which students engage in passion based problem solving and strength focused pedagogy, many others insist on preserving a more traditional view of education; one in which teachers are viewed as the keepers of knowledge and controllers of concepts. Destination Education: When Worlds Collide provides another way forward.

Career, Technology, Education, and Covid: To Commute or Converge?

DESTINATION EDUCATION: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDEMay 22, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
DESTINATION EDUCATION: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DESTINATION EDUCATION: WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The World is changing. Education is changing too. A growing tension exists between two schools of thought: between teaching and learning, lessons and experiences. Although, some believe schools should be places of wonder and excitement in which students engage in passion based problem solving and strength focused pedagogy, many others insist on preserving a more traditional view of education; one in which teachers are viewed as the keepers of knowledge and controllers of concepts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this episode of KIDSpin, Mia, Aiden, and Addi May visit with VMISD Elementary Principal, Chris Dowdy and Assistant Principal, Joanie Moody about their experiences responding to Covid-19. It's easy to see why Valley Mills ISD is such a great school district when listening to Mr. Dowdy and Mrs. Moody express their concern for students and staff. It hasn't been easy transitioning to remote learning, but the VMISD Administration and Staff have done an exceptional job ensuring that students continue to receive opportunities for meaningful learning and support. Every Step Eagle Pride!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode of KIDSpin, Mia, Aiden, and Addi May visit with VMISD Elementary Principal, Chris Dowdy and Assistant Principal, Joanie Moody about their experiences responding to Covid-19. It's easy to see why Valley Mills ISD is such a great school district when listening to Mr. Dowdy and Mrs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Every Principal Needs To Know About SPED Strategic Plan.pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Survival to Revival (TCASE) Presentation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Interactive Flyer SPEDTalk Live & Interactive at TCASE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DESTINATION EDUCATION Live & Interactive - TransformEd 2019.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Survival to Revival SWEP Presentation PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2019 TASA Midwinter Presentation Confirmation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SPEDTalk Special Edition: MOE & ME!
The Intersection Between SPED Programs & SPED Finance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bullion-McKinnon Synergy Presentation (MOE & ME!).pptx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bullion Dissertation Rough Draft (01-15-20)

# data[].attributes.body
SPED LEADERSHIP ACADEMY PROMO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESC Region 12 Special Ed Leadership Academy

# data[].attributes.body
Abbott, G. (2018). Governor Abbott directs TEA to take action to fix special education in Texas [Press release]. Retrieved from https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/TEA_LETTER_1_11_18.pdf

Brister, B., Bettencourt, P., Bernal, D., Johnson, N. C., Huberty, D., King, K., Killian, D., Taylor, L., Ellis, K., Martin, M., West, R., Reyna, E., & Williams, T. (2018). Final report [Draft]. Austin, TX: Texas Commission of Public School Funding Report. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Texas%20Public%20School%20Finance%20Commission%20Report.pdf

Aleman, S., & McGuire, K. (2019). Funding reform for students with disabilities. Paper presented to the House Public Education Committee. Disability Rights Texas. Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education.

Alvoid, L., & Black, W. L. (2014). The changing role of the principal. Education, K–12.

Anastasiou, D. & Kauffman, J.M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education, Exceptional Children, 77(3), 367-384.

Andrews, R., & Brewer, G. A. (2014). Social capital and public service performance: Does managerial strategy matter? Public Performance & Management Review 38(2), 187–213.

Angelle, P., & Bilton, L. (2009). Confronting the unknown: Principal preparation training in issues related to special education. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(4), 5–9.

Aristotle. (1980). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 334–323 BCE)

Arsen, D., Bell, C., & Plank, D. (2004). Who will turn around failing schools? A framework for institutional choice.  Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinion About Educational Service Agencies, 10, 1–19.

Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re]Claiming “inclusive education" toward cohesion in educational reform: Disability studies unravels the myth of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2122–2154.

Ballis, B., & Heath, K. (2019). The long-run impacts of special education.

Bandura, A. (1977).  Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Barth, R. M. (1990). Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Bartolome, L. I. (1994). Beyond the methods fetish: Toward a humanizing pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 17–194.

Bateman, D. F., & Bateman, C. F. (2014). A principal's guide to special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Bays, D. A., & Crockett, J. B. (2007). Investigating instructional leadership for special education. Exceptionality 15(3), 143–161.

Beavers, A. (2009). Teachers as learners: Implications of adult education for professional development. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(7), 25–30.

Beratan, G. (2006). Institutionalizing inequality: Ableism, racism, and IDEA. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2).

Berger, D. E. (2004). Using regression analysis. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bergert, S., & Burnette, J. (2001). Educating exceptional children: A statistical profile (Report No. Ed99-CO-0026). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Billingsly, B. (2005). Cultivating and keeping committed special education teachers: What principals and district leaders can do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Blanton, L. P., Pugach, M. C., & Boveda, M. (2018). Interrogating the intersections between general and special education in the history of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education 69(4), 354 –366.

Board of Education v. Rowley. (1982) 50 U.S.L.W.

Brantlinger, E. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 425–459.

CAST (2019). Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/

Castleberry, J., & Alanis, F. (1998). An accountability system for regional education service centers: The approach in Texas. Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinion about Educational Service Agencies, 4, 27–29.

Causton, J., & Tracey-Bronson, C. P. (2015). The educator's handbook for inclusive school practices. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

Causton-Theoharis, J., & Kasa, C. (2012). Leadership for inclusive education: What every principal needs to know. New York, NY: Columbia University.

Christensen, J., Williamson, R., Robertson, J. S., & Hunter, W. C. (2013). Preparing educational leaders for special education success: Principals’ perspectives. The Researcher, 25(1), 94–107.

Clark, E., (1981). A program for training school administrators in organization problem solving. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.

Clark, E. A. (2008). Managing the tasks: The systemworld in balance with the lifeworld of schools. TX ASCD Leaders of Learners.

Cobb, C. (2015). Principals play many parts: A review of the research on principals as special education leaders 2001–2011. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(3), 213–234.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cooner, D., Tochterman, S., & Garrison-Wade, D. (2005). Preparing principals for leadership in special education: Applying ISLLC standards. Journal of Principal Preparation and Development, National Association of Secondary School Principals, 6, 1–14.

Copeland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395.

Crabill, A. J. (2017). Lone Star Governance. Board Leadership, 17(153), 6-7.

Craft, A. (1984). Education for diversity. In M. Craft (ed.), Education and cultural pluralism (p. 5-26). London: Falmer Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crockett, J. B. (2002). Special education's role in preparing responsive leaders for inclusive schools. Remedial & Special Education, 23(3), 157.

Crockett, J. B., Becker, M. K., & Quinn, D. (2009) Reviewing the knowledge base of special education leadership and administration from 1970–2009. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 32(2), 55–67.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.

Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership–different in kind and degree. Institute for Educational Leadership.

Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. (2000). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121(2), 331–337.

Davidson, D. N., & Algozzine, B. (2002). Administrators' perceptions of special education law. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15(2), 43–48.

DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principal at a crossroads: A study of the condition and concern of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43–65.

DiPaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2004). School principals and special education: Creating context for academic success. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(1), 1–9.

Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The Criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141-150.

Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123.

Dudley-Marling, C. & Burns, M. B. (2014). Two perspectives on inclusion in the United States. Global Education Review, 1(1), 14-31.

Duncan, A. B. (2010). Principal leadership for special education: Perceptions of principals and directors of special education. (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor: MI: ProQuest LLC.

Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the “Growth Mindset.” Education Week.

Eby, F. (1954). The first century of public education in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/comm/tps_handbook04

Edwards, B. (2012). The impact of educational leadership decisions on the delivery of special education services in school districts. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Education Service Center Region 12 Brochure. (2015). Retrieved from file:///G:/My%20Drive/Documents/ESC%2012%20Info/ESC%20Region%2012%20Brochure.pdf

Education Service Center Region 12 Lex Labs. (2020). Learning Experience Laboratories. Retrieved from https://www.esc12.net/page/about_lex_labs

Education Service Center Region 12 TransformED. (2020). Modern learning for today’s educators. Retrieved from https://www.esc12.net/page/TED12

English, F. W., (2000). Deciding what to teach and test. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Estes-Jones, K. K. (2013). Beginning, building, and sustaining an inclusive public school education: A study of Texas programs for preschool-aged children with disabilities. Ann Arbor, MI: Pro Quest LLC.

Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf

Farley, G. O. (2002). Barriers and supports affecting the inclusion of special education issues into the preservice training of school principals: Faculty perceptions. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/730

Ferguson, P. M., & Nusbaum, E. (2012). Disability studies: What is it and what difference does it make? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37(2), 70–80.

Fielder, R. (2005). ESAs and leadership development: History, research, and one agency’s experience. Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinions about Educational Service Agencies, 11, 1-12.

Fleck, F. (2008). The balanced principal: Joining theory and practical knowledge. Education Digest, 73(5), 27–31.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009).  How to design and evaluate research in education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Frick, W. C., Faircloth, S. C., & Little, K. S. (2012). Responding to the collective and individual “best interests of students”: Revisiting the tension between administrative practice and ethical imperatives in special education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 207–242.

Frost, L. A., & Kersten, T. (2011). The role of the elementary principal in the instructional leadership of special education. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 1(6), 1–21.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60(4), 294–309.

Fuchs & Fuchs. (2010). The "blurring" of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional children 76(3), 301–323.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2006). The development of transformational leaders for educational decentralization. Toronto, Canada: Michael Fullan.

Fullan, M. (2014). The principal. Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gallagher, A., & Thordarson, K. (2018). Design thinking for school leaders. Five roles and mindsets that ignite change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Gardner, H. (1984). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Glass, T., & Franceschini, L. (2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education and American Association of School Administrators.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.

Goor, M. B., & Schwenn, J. O. (1997). Preparing principals for leadership in special education. Intervention in School & Clinic, 32(3), 1–17.

Gould, S. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co.

H. Rep. No. XX, at 55 (1970).

Hargeaves, A., & Fink, D. (YEAR). Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2) p. 229–240.

Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership and Management, 23(3), 313–324.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hedge, N., & MacKenzie, A. (2012). Putting Nussbaum's capability approach to work: Re-visiting inclusion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(3), 327–344.

Heuman, J. E., & Hehir, T. (1998). Helping all students achieve to high standards: A partnership between federal and secondary school administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 82(594), p. 1–4.

Higher Education Opportunity Act. (2008). Public Law 110-315. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ315/pdf/PLAW-110publ315.pdf

Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 88, 531–569.

Hord, S., & Reynolds-Gibbs, R. (1993). The school boards' leadership role in restructuring. Journal of Texas Public Education, 2(1), 37–52.

Hunt, J. H., & Andreasen, J. B. (2011). Making the most of universal design for learning. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17(3), 166–172.

Hyatt, K. J., & Filler, J. (2011). LRE Re-examined misinterpretations and unintended consequences. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(9), 1031–1045.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 (1990).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C.§ 1400 (2004).

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. (2008). Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Retrieved from https://www.danforth.uw.edu/uwdanforth/media/danforth/isllc-2008.pdf

Jacobs-Bell, T. (2014). Attitudes and inclusive practices: A dilemma for elementary school principals and special education administrators. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Jacobson, L. (2007). Study looks at California teacher retention. Education Week, 26(35), 17–19.

Johnson, P. A. (2010). Leading for learning: Leadership practices of boards. Educational    Research Service, 28(4), 27–42.

Johnston, D. (2011). A Brief History of Justice. (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Jorgenson, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions, 6(3), 1–8.

Keddie, A. (2015). Prioritizing social and moral learning amid conservative curriculum trends: Spaces of possibility. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 355–373.

Kee, J. E. (2004). Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Keenoy, P. (2012). Principal preparation and support for special education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3–13.

Kleinhammer-Tramill, J. (2003). An analysis of federal initiatives to prepare regular educators to serve students with disabilities: Deans' grants, REGI, and beyond. Teacher Education & Special Education, 26(3), 230.

Korkmaz, M. (2007). The effects of leadership styles on organizational health. Educational Research Quarterly, 30, 22–54.

Korobkin, M., & Meller, J. (2019). Getting to effectiveness: The special education transformation approach. How your district can improve student outcomes and build procedural compliance. Boston, MA: Public Consulting Group, Inc.

LaPoint, M., & Davis, S. H. (2006). Effective schools require effective principals. Leadership, 36(1), 16–38.

Lashley, C. (2007). Principal leadership for special education: An ethical framework. Exceptionality, 15(3), 177–187.

Lasky, B., & Karge, B. D. (2006). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities: Experience and confidence of principals. The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 90(1), 19–36.

Leithwood, K. (2004). Educational leadership. A review of the research. The Laboratory for Student Success (LSS), The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27–42.

Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive education and critical pedagogy at the intersections of disability, race, gender and class, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 168–184.

Liddell Kraft, R. A. (2017). Principal-identified challenges, needs, and recommendations for instructional leadership in special education. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2019). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Lynch, J. M. (2012). Responsibilities of today's principal: Implications for principal preparation programs and principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(2), 40-47.

Machesney, Covey, & Huling (2012). The four disciplines of execution. New York, NY: FranklinCovey Co.

Mahdavi, J. N., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2009). Pioneering RTI systems that work: Social validity, collaboration, and context. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 64–72.

Mandlawitz, M. (2016). Special education after 40 years: What lies ahead? Policy Priorities, 22(1), 1–7.

Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.

Marzano, R. J., & Waters, J. T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, J. T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005).  School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Maze, J. (2009). Superintendents’ perceptions of their professional development in leadership for student achievement at Texas regional education service centers. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

McEllistrem, S., Roth, J., D’Agostino, T., & Brown, C. (2009). Students with disabilities and special education law (26th ed.). Malvern, PA: Center for Education and Employment Law.

McGinley, C. W. (2008). Examining changes in role conceptualization in aspiring principals. (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

McChesney, C., Covey, S., & Huling, J. (2012). The 4 disciplines of execution: Achieving your wildly important goals. New York, NY: Free Press.

McLaughlin, M. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 265–278.

McLaughlin, M. J. (2009). What every principal needs to know about special education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Nolet, V. (2004). What every principal needs to know about special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N., & Redd, L. (2014). A case study of a highly effective inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education, 48, 59–70.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Pennsylvania State University, PA: Krieger Publishing.

MGT of America Inc. (2004). Management and performance review of Texas Regional Education Service Centers: Volume 1–Management Summary. Location: Author.

Miller, L. (1993). What we call smart: A new narrative for intelligence and learning. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.

Minor, V. B. (1992). An analysis of special education training received during university administrative preparation programs for building principals in Kansas (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Mitchell, D. E., Shipps, D., & Crowson, R. L. (2018). Shaping education policy: Power and process (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mohamed, C., Sedory, S., & Singh, S. (2018). Improved mean methods of imputation. Statistics, Optimization, and Information Computing, 6(4), 526–535.

Mooney, J. (2019). Normal sucks. How to live, learn, and thrive outside the lines. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.

Morgan, D. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–279.

Morgan, H. (2016). Relying on high-stakes standardized tests to evaluate schools and teachers: A bad idea. Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(2), 67–72.

Morrier, M. J., & Gallagher, P. A. (2011). Disproportionate representation in placements of preschoolers with disabilities in five southern states. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(1), 48–57.

Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, England: Sage Publications Inc.

Nardone, A. J. (1999). The campus administrator as instructional leader in acquisition of knowledge of special education legal issues. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Neeley, S. (2006). SSI cuts would be particularly painful. Texas Education News, 23, 2.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2001).

Pepper, K. (2010). Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student success: A focus for the reauthorization of ESEA. Changing and Planning, 41, 42–56.

Pierson, M. R., & Howell, E. J. (2013). Two high schools and the road to full inclusion: A comparison study. Improving Schools, 16, 223–231.

Powell, P. R. (2009). An exploratory study of the presentation of special education law in administrative preparation programs for aspiring administrators (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 135–145.

Praisner, C. L. (2000). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/index.html

Pulliam, J. D., & Van Patten, J. J. (2007). History of education in America (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Pyrczak, F., & Bruce, R. (2005). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences.  Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

Quigney, T. A. (1997). Special education and school administrator preparation programs: Finding the missing link. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 59–70.

Ramirez, R. C. (2006). Elementary principals’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education setting (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: PBG Publishing, LLC.

Ravitch, D. (2012). NCLB-The death star of American education. National Education Policy Center [Web log]. Retrieved from: https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/nclb-death-star-american-education

Ravitch, D. (2014). Hoaxes in educational policy. The Teacher Educator, 49(3), 153–165.

Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system. How testing and choice are undermining education. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: PBG Publishing, LLC.

Rehabilitation Act (1973). Section 504. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/ada25th/rehab_act-1973.cfm

Reynolds, B. H. (2008). Are principals ready to welcome children with disabilities? Principal, National Association of Elementary School Principals, 88(2), 16-19.

Resnick, L., & Glennan, T. (2001). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Ritter, L. A., & Sue, V. A. (2007). Introduction to using online surveys. New Directions for Evaluation, 115, 3–14.

Robertson, L. R. (1996). Public school administrators’ knowledge of special education law (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Rose, T. (2016). The end of average. Unlocking our potential by embracing what makes us different. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.

Rove, K. (2010). Courage and consequence. My life as a conservative in the fight. New York, NY: Threshold Editions. A Division of Simon and Schuster, Inc.

Rosenthal, B. (2016). Denied. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from https://www.houstonchronicle.com/denied/

Sansosti, F. J., Noltemeyer, A., & Goss, S. (2010). Principals’ perceptions of the importance and availability of Response to Intervention practices within high school settings. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 286–295.

Saphier, J., Freedman, S., Aschheim, B. (2011). Beyond mentoring: Putting an instructional focus on comprehensive induction programs. Research for Better Teaching.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (2003). Inclusion a matter of social justice. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 25–28.

Savio, M. (1964). Presentation. Berkeley, CA.

Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 596–599.

Scanlon, D. & Baker, D. (2012). An accommodations model for the secondary inclusive classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 212-224.

Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177.

Scheuren, F. (2004). What is a survey? Retrieved from http://www.whatisasurvey.info

Schulze, R., & Boscardin, M. L. (2018). Leadership perceptions of principals with and without special education backgrounds. Journal of School Leadership, 28, 4–30.

Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (Eds.). (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying the theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shoho, A. R., Katims, D. S., & Meza, P. (1998). The alienation of special education teachers. ERS Spectrum, 16(4), 18–23.

Short, C. L. (2004). Knowledge and application of special education law by selected principals and assistant principals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Special Education Guide (2019). Special Education Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.specialeducationguide.com/special-education-dictionary/

Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Forest, M. (1989). Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. London, England: Falmer.

Staumont, J. (2017). Principals’ perception and self-efficacy: Addressing achievement in a post annual yearly progress environment. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC.

Stephens, E. R., & Keane, W. G. (2005). The educational service agency: American education’s invisible partner. New York, NY: University Press of America.

Stevenson, R. A. (2002). Principals' perceptions of competence needed for administration of special education: Implications for principal preparation programs. (Doctoral dissertation).

Stilwell, T. (2004). Educational service agencies are essential to improve student achievement. Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinion about Educational Service Agencies, 10, 21–23.

Strauss, V. (2016). The Washington Post. Diane Ravitch to Obama: ‘I will never understand why you decided to align your education policy with that of George W. Bush.’ Edge Lecture Series.

Swaby, A. (2017). Texas Education Agency ends controversial no-bid special education contract. The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/15/texas-education-agency-no-bid-contract/

Swaby, A. (2018). Texas denied thousands of students special ed services. Does the policy go back to George W. Bush's presidency? The Texas Tribune. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2018/02/01/federal-assessment-cap-texas/

Szabo, S., & Sinclair, B. (2012). STAAR reading passages: The readability is too high. Schooling, 3(1), 1–14.

Texas Administrative Code 19 Chapter 149. (2020). Commissioner's Rules Concerning Educator Standards. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter149/index.html

Texas Administrative Code 19 Chapter 150. (2020). Commissioner's Rules Concerning Educator Appraisals. Retrieved from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter150/index.html

Texas Education Agency. (2013). Adequate Yearly Progress. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Accountability/State_Accountability/Performance_Reporting/Adequate_Yearly_Progress/Adequate_Yearly_Progress_%28AYP%29

Texas Education Agency. (2014). Policies for effective principals. Progress Report to the Legislature, SB 1383. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2014%20Principal%20Appraisal%20Report.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2018a). Employed principal demographics. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/Employed%20Principal%20Demographics%202014-2018.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2018b). Special Education Strategic Plan, 2018. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/SPED%20Strategic%20Plan%20April%2023%20Final.pdf

Texas Education Agency. (2019a). Laws and rules. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Laws_and_Rules

Texas Education Agency. (2019b). State performance plan and annual performance report and requirements. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/Reports_and_Data/Data_Submission/State_Performance_Plan/State_Performance_Plan_and_Annual_Performance_Report_and_Requirements

Texas Education Agency. (2019c). Strategic Support Plan 2019–2020. Retrieved on December 30, 2019, from https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/review-and-support/strategic-support-plan-2019-2020

Texas Education Agency. (2019d). Texas Principal and Evaluation Support System: T-PESS rubric design. Retrieved from https://tpess.org/principal/rubric/

Texas Education Code. (2008). Texas School Law Bulletin.

Texas Education Code (TEC) Section 21.3541. (2020). Appraisal and Professional Development System for Principals. Retrieved from https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._educ._code_section_21.3541

Teach for Texas. (2019). Texas Teacher and Evaluation System: T-TESS Rubric. Retrieved from https://teachfortexas.org/

Texas House & Senate. (2019). The Texas plan for school finance reform.

Texas Public Schools. (2004). 150 Years Sesquicentennial Handbook, 1854–2004.  Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Welcome_and_Overview/Texas_Public_Schools_Sesquicentennial_Handbook

Texas House Bill 22. (2017). 85th Texas Legislature. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/House_Bill_22_Overview_and_Expected_Timeline_for_Implementation

Texas House Bill 21. (2017). 85th Texas Legislature. Retrieved from https://www.legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB21/2017/X1

Texas Senate Bill 1383. (2011). 82nd Texas Legislature. Retrieved from https://openstates.org/tx/bills/82/SB1383/#billtext

Texas System of Education Service Centers. (2008a). History and mission.  Retrieved from http://www.texasresc.net/historyandmission.html

Texas System of Education Service Centers. (2008b). Strategic Plan 2007–2010. Retrieved from http://www.texasresc.net/strategicplan.html

The Legal Framework. (2017). Child-centered special education process. Rule of construction. Retrieved from http://framework.esc18.net/display/Webforms/ESC18-FW-Summary.aspx?FID=118&DT=G&LID=en

The new rules. An overview of the testing and accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html

Trent, J. W. (1994).  Inventing the feeble mind: A history of mental retardation in the United States.  Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. (2018). No. 18-60500. Texas Education Agency, Petitioner, versus United Stated Department of Education, Respondent.  Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Secretary of Education. Retrieved from https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/18-60500/18-60500-2018-11-07.pdf?ts=1541635570

United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 Mathematics Assessments.

United States Department of Education. (2004). Building the legacy. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/building-the-legacy-idea-2004/#bs_tab150290691146380

United States Department of Education. (2017). Questions and Answers (Q&A) on U.S. Supreme Court Case Decision Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/qa-endrewcase-12-07-2017.pdf

United States Department of Education. (2018). 2018 determination letters on state implementation of IDEA.

United States Department of Justice. (2019). Information and technical assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm

United States Senate. Toward Equal Educational Opportunity: The Report of the Select Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity, United States Senate, Pursuant to S. Res. 359, February 19, 1970.

Valesky, T. C., & Hirth, M. A. (1992). Survey of the states: Special education knowledge requirements for school administrators. Exceptional Children, 58, 399–406.

Van Horn, G. (2018), Inclusion: The ongoing illusion. Retrieved from  https://patinsroject.org/patins-blog/inclusion

Villegas, T. (2017). A brief history of special education. Think Inclusive: Education. Retrieved from https://www.thinkinclusive.us/brief-history-special-education/

Wakeman, S., Browder, D., Flowers, C., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). Principals’ knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 153–174.

Wakeman, S. L. (2005). Principal knowledge of fundamental and current issues in special education. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Information and Learning Company.

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.

Wallace Foundation (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Author.

Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2001). Educational research: A guide to the process (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Washington, N. P. (2010). School administrators’ attitudes toward the inclusion of disabled students in the general education setting (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3412492)

Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The Balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

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. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Weiss, J. (2012). Texas’ standardized tests a poor measure of what students learned, UT-Austin professor says. Dallas Morning News, Education.

West, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind: How to give it a passing grade (The Brookings Institution Policy Brief No. 149). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Wilcox, C., & Sexton, P. (2004) Meeting the new requirements of No Child Left Behind. Perspectives: A Journal of Research and Opinion about Education Service Agencies, 10, 25–29.

Will, M. (1986). Educating students with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411–415.

Yoon, S. Y., Evans, M. G., & Strobel, J. (2012). Development of the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (TESS) for K–12 teachers. American Society for Engineering Education.

Zellmer, M., Frontier, A., & Pheifer, D. (2006). What are NCLB’s instructional costs? Educational Leadership, 64(3), 43–46.

Zimmerman, J., & May, J. (2003). Providing effective professional development: What's holding us back? American Secondary Education, 31(2), 37–48.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Special Education Leadership Academy (1).pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bullion Dissertation (Ready for Consideration) PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Effective Special Education Transformation
As principals lead change efforts in response to the shift to RDA and the effectiveness phase of special education implementation, potential exists for innovative approaches to emerge for creating inclusive classrooms, campuses, and cultures that emphasize system-wide supports, processes and procedures that adhere to the principles of UDL, and strength-focused practices. Special education is a complex, multifaceted, ever-changing area of education that involves complex problems requiring creativity within constraints if lasting solutions are to be found. Beliefs, perceptions, and assumptions construct the realities of the mindsets of teachers, counselors, principals, and superintendents. These individuals in addition to myriad others create the culture in which children receive educational opportunities-at times equitable, and unfortunately, sometimes not.

Although the United States educates more students with greater diversity and need to a higher standard than ever before in the history of its public education system, this is not always the narrative shared with the public. Furthermore, although heavily influenced by federal education policies, the United States actually has 60 states and territories, each with its own unique version of the larger national vision of education. Although the majority of the 1,200 plus public schools in Texas are independent school districts with locally elected citizens serving as school board trustees, this is not necessarily the case for other states and territories.

Innate within Texas's identity is the belief in local control of government; perhaps, in some part harkening to a time when Texas was-independent from the country and fierce in its Republic-an educational topography defined by geographical, economic, and financial barriers. Within this fierce independence, exists the potential for Texas to reinvent special education with an emphasis on equity and effectiveness. According to Maze (2009),

"The effective schools correlates identified effective schools as those having five common characteristics: (a) principal as instructional leader; (b) high expectations for student success; (c) instructional focus; (d) a safe and orderly environment; and (e) frequent monitoring of student progress" (p. 38).

Texas is at a pivotal point with respect to future educational opportunities for students with disabilities. By leveraging the urgency for improvement of special education implementation felt across the state, LEAs might ride the wave of change into the effectiveness phase. To do so, principals will need to play an integral role in the development of effective school-based special education programs. This will require a systemic approach for navigating the complexities that arise at the intersection of people, processes, and mindsets. If principals can leverage these three elements effectively, they will hold the potential to create sustainable positive change to special education in Texas.
People, Processes, and Mindsets
Human capital is the most valuable commodity a school possesses. The people within a system hold the power to protect the status quo or push back on the system until change occurs. American activist Mario Savio (1964) expressed his frustration with the state of affairs at his time, but his words are apropos for the feelings shared by students and parents during the PBMAS years in Texas.

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it-that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!" (p. 1).

In its transition from PBMAS to RDA, the TEA signaled the necessity for LEAs to adapt special education programs by emphasizing effective instructional practices for students with disabilities and maintaining procedural compliance. Effective practice, reflective leadership, and supportive governance define the effectiveness phase of special education implementation. Improvements to special education practices and outcomes requires the support of people from the top to the bottom of a school system. From the school board to the classroom, the individuals in a school system create the cultural norms and expectations experienced in the daily lives of children of all abilities. School boards that are eager to create organizational cultures in which student learning is the work of every member of the educational community must effectively navigate political processes to create support-oriented central offices. Helping members of school boards and central offices to consider the impact adult expectations have on student outcomes might facilitate cultural shifts in which school climates transition from adult-focused environments to kid-centric educational destinations. When governance embraces such beliefs, it creates the potential to adopt strength-focused practices in which the differing abilities of staff and students strengthen organizational operations while normalizing relationships between students of differing abilities.

By providing school boards with information about frameworks and processes such as UDL, which are designed to remove barriers to learning, school board trustees might better understand and support such approaches if embraced at the district or campus level. Sharing improved achievement outcomes of students with disabilities and communicating with school board members about promising special and general education practices, including the ways teachers collaborate with school-based administrators to remove learning barriers and create inclusive campuses would highlight for school boards the kinds of practices that are effective in educating all students. Informing school boards about organizations such as Best Buddies and Unified Sports can create opportunities for interagency partnerships. Utilizing design thinking with school boards when ideating about what schools could be might generate novel ideas leading to effective change within the district. Most importantly, educating school board members so they better understand the conditions necessary for optimal learning to occur for all children with emphasis on struggling learners might create support for such efforts from local governance.

Superintendents are also integral to improving achievement outcomes of students with disabilities in their district. With the current shifts in special education monitoring from the TEA, forward-thinking superintendents understand the importance of creating systems and processes that will lead to improved achievement outcomes of students with disabilities in their district. Nonetheless, many superintendents lack the knowledge necessary to contribute to such efforts. Mastering the complexities of special education implementation is not required for superintendents to play an integral role in creating effective special education programs in their schools. What is crucial for superintendents in Texas is that they become educated about RDA, differentiated monitoring and support, and the TEA's review and support division. It is equally important that they understand the annual LEA special education self-assessment and strategic support plan, which are requirements for schools in Texas with respect to continuous improvement in special education. Superintendents can collaborate with their special education directors and support staff in the special education departments at their RESCs to learn more about these topics.

For superintendents wanting additional insight into how to shift focus from procedural compliance to students' outcomes, frameworks such as UDL provide processes that focus on removing barriers to learning. More information on UDL can be found on the CAST website. In addition, organizations like Best Buddies (https://www.bestbuddies.org/bbu), Unified Sports (https://www.specialolympics.org/our-work/sports/unified-sports), and the Penguin Project (https://penguinproject.org/) create opportunities for interagency partnerships. Each of these organizations focuses on the normalization of relationships between students with differing abilities, and design thinking provides a creative process with which to ideate innovative solutions within constraints and barriers such as time, funding, and mindsets. The book, Design Thinking for Educational Leaders by Gallagher and Thordarson (2018) provided excellent examples for implementing the principles of design thinking in the K-12 setting.

Principals are the catalysts for creating sustainable change because of their power to influence vertically and horizontally throughout a school system. Principals can facilitate collaboration among special and general education teachers and staff while attending to instructional quality control for all students. When principals embrace the ethics of justice, care, and profession, they can develop systems to control the chaos that so often characterizes their role. McChesney, Covey and Huling (2012) provided a process for balancing the whirlwind of daily responsibilities while remaining focused on goals for improvement in the book, The 4 Disciplines of Execution: Achieving Your Wildly Important Goals. Design Thinking for Educational Leaders is also appropriate for school-based administrators when ideating innovative solutions within constraints and barriers such as time, funding, and mindsets. Such examples provide insight into processes and practices that enable principals to create change within their systems while enabling them to work on their systemic cultures.

Mastering the complexities of special education implementation for school-based administrators elevates in importance when attempting to create effective special education programs in their schools. Principals in Texas must acquire an understanding of RDA, differentiated monitoring and support, and the TEA's review and support division. It is equally important that they understand the annual LEA special education self-assessment and LEA strategic support plan, which are requirements for schools in Texas with respect to continuous improvement in special Education. Principals should collaborate with their special education programs in the completion of these annual monitoring requirements to provide insight and feedback from the campus level. Special education directors should be including a diverse committee of stakeholders in the completion of these processes. Principals can collaborate with their special education directors and support staff in the special education departments at their RESCs to learn more about these topics.

School-based leadership depends on support from central offices, school boards, and RESCs. Because of the plethora of responsibilities populating a principal's calendar, resources and supports must be easily digestible and accessible. Educators within each LEA have established sets of beliefs and attitudes. Dweck (2015) postulates that people often have fixed or growth mindsets about intelligence, abilities, and talents and argued, "Students who believe their intelligence could be developed (a growth mindset) outperform those who believe their intelligence was fixed (a fixed mindset)" (p. 1). Mindsets - be them fixed or growth oriented - are influenced by the cultural beliefs, norms, and biases implicit within organizational systems and processes in which one works. This is why cultivating a culture of academic optimism is essential. The following examples - expounding on the efforts of Korobkin and Meller (2019) - provide options with which to explore.

· Grow and nurture a system-wide culture of academic optimism and child-focused supports

· Define a system of effective special education procedures, practices, expectations, and monitoring which emphasizes continuous growth and improvement.

· Conduct annual surveys, interviews, and pilot groups to assess teachers' instructional perceptions, practices, constraints, needs, and ideas for improvement.

· Conduct annual surveys, interviews, and pilot groups to assess school-based administrators' perceptions, practices, constraints, needs, and ideas for improvement.

· Conduct annual surveys, interviews, and pilot groups to assess parent/guardians' perceptions, practices, constraints, needs, and ideas for improvement.

· Strengthen communication and relationships between schools and families of students with disabilities through facilitation of conversations and functions in which families are prioritized as experts in understanding their child's unique characteristics and needs.

· Celebrate diversity through inter-agency partnerships, which emphasize and support the normalization of friendships between students of differing abilities.
Ideas for Teachers
This section provides information for all teachers. The aim is not for recommendations from this study to send the message that special and general education teachers are separate and require separate assistance and supports. All teachers need the equivalent assistance and supports to varying degrees. Each needs an understanding of curricular standards and alignment, high yield instructional practices, differentiation and accommodations, and positive behavioral supports. The medicalization of special education reinforced by an educational system defined by lack mentality and deficit perspective has created confusion and apathy with respect to the education of students with disabilities in otherwise capable educators (special and general). This must change to ensure a successful transition into the effective phase of special education implementation. This will require increased empathy among special and general education teachers and their school-based administration.
Educators are changing!
Evidence of this can be found in every classroom, on every campus, and all across our state and country. Emerging research into neurology, mindsets, perseverance, and habits is reshaping the collective psyche of our profession. Ideas about pedagogy once believed to be fringe are being embraced by innovative educators employing kid-centric practices in collaborative learning spaces. The quest for student engagement and instructional influence has uncovered an interesting paradigm in which children are arriving to campuses needing adults who will do more than teach and who will listen more than they speak. In empathy interventions, teachers gain insight into the lives of their students by engaging in student-led conversations about topics of their choice. Teachers are learning, students are teaching, and systems are adapting. The energy and excitement is palpable with a focus on creativity and passion pouring in from every corner. Too often such experiences are saved for students deemed worthy by standardized assessments denoting giftedness and exceptionality when schools and educators operate from a lack mentality characterized by deficit perspectives. While all children would benefit from kid-centric practices and collaborative learning environments, various constraints prevent many schools from applying such approaches full scale. In an effort to design to the edges of educational systems, effective special education departments will begin to choose personalized learning experiences, effectively designed instruction, strength engineered practices, and experience rich environments - traditionally seen in educational programs for the gifted and talented - for students with disabilities.

For some, these changes in preparation, pedagogy, and practice are disconcerting. When a teacher reaches a level of proficiency in his or her craft, change can feel forced. It is important to create a sense of normalcy whenever transitions in approach or shifts in practice take place. There has and always will be a tension between that which is and that which will be. We cannot have one without the other, and successfully navigating such changes requires courageous leadership. Kindness is the glue that holds cultural values and norms together when system transformation occurs. Organizations always take on characteristics of their leaders, and this is why it is crucial that our educational leaders maintain collegiality among all members of the school community.

Educators must stand together despite generational differences and pedagogical preferences and speak with one voice, stand as one profession, and rise with one purpose. All kids-each and every one-need caring and positive adult role models who prioritize the needs of children above their own. When we pair these characteristics with growth-minded individuals dedicated to studying their standards and mastering their craft in the classroom, children thrive. In the recipe for creating a high performing classroom, campus, and culture, these are the basic ingredients required to help the general education student, special education student, gifted student, English language learner, and all the rest. The following list of attributes will serve all educators - general and special - when working towards transitioning to RDA and effective special education programs:

· Each needs an understanding of curricular standards and alignment, high yield instructional practices, differentiation and accommodations, and positive behavioral supports.

· Each needs competent/attentive school-based administrators prepared to evaluate and support professional growth and maintain quality control regarding curricular and instructional practices.

· Each needs opportunities to collaborate with one another in support of students of differing abilities.

· Each needs opportunities to continue learning and refining pedagogical knowledge and application.

· Each needs an understanding of the difference between Lag data (STAAR results) and Lead Data (daily work, formative assessments, interim exams, and other forms of student feedback).

· Each needs to understand how to collect, analyze, and utilize student generated data in making determinations with respect to daily instruction (pivot or persevere).

· Each needs to cultivate the ability to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk through pedagogical eclecticism and experience rich learning environments.

· Each needs to become proficient at personalizing learning experiences for themselves and the children they support through the cultivation of becoming expert learners.

· Each needs to understand how to implement on concepts such as growing grit, encouraging effort, supporting sustained struggle, and failing forward.

· Each needs to understand how to engineer passion, purpose, and potential in self and others.

· Each needs to facilitate strength searching, engineered passion, defined deficit digs, interest investigations, controlled chaotic cultures, and comfortably challenging classrooms and campuses.

· Each needs to understand and implement the least dangerous assumption when planning lessons, engaging student discussions, and organizing classroom settings for optimal student learning.

· Each needs to understand the jaggedness profile of each child by learning their individual interests, beliefs, micro-motives, and propensities.

· Each needs to understand the potential detriment to relationship that overly punitive settings and practices create with an illusion of control.

· Each needs to feel safe to take chances when facilitating the learning of students through pedagogical variations, creative curricular implementations, and innovative instructional practices.

· Each needs to remain keenly aware of personal attitudes, behaviors, interactions, and tendencies ensuring that strengths and solutions permeate the conscious.

· Each needs to cultivate positive, supportive interactions with students, colleagues, and families in an effort to maximize learning, relationships, and communication.

· Each needs to understand the other's role and responsibilities in connection to that of their own in an effort towards shared responsibilities, efficiency of effort, and maximization of strengths.

· Each must teach with and through one another, coopting the learning experiences of shared students while retaining autonomous identities and collective priorities.
Education is changing!
A growing tension exists between two schools of thought: one emphasizing kid-centric practices and a strength (abundance) mindset, the other emphasizing adult focused controls and a deficit (lack) mindset. Although some believe that schools should be places of wonder and excitement in which students should be engaged in passion-based problem solving, many others insist on preserving a more traditional form of education, one in which teachers are viewed as the keepers of knowledge and controllers of concepts. However, these opposing views may not be such a new phenomenon in the collective psyche of American society.

According to Craft (1984), there are two different Latin roots of the English word education. They are educare, which means to train or to mold, and educere, meaning to lead out. Although the two meanings are quite different, they are both represented in the word education. One root suggests a process of preserving and passing down knowledge and shaping youths in the image of their parents. The other root suggests a process of preparing a new generation for the changes that are to come, readying them to create solutions to problems yet unknown. There are also those who believe both are achievable-that we can both honor the lessons learned and paths paved by the generational teachings that came before while also forging ahead into new innovative approaches and practices and educational destinations yet to be discovered. I am from this latter group of thinkers. Craft (1984) contended that striking the right balance in educational aims is a valid focus for educators; however, this requires changing organizational structures and the ways in which decisions are made. The first steps to achieving such a balance involves utilizing stakeholder perceptions, establishing a shared vision of education, and facilitating a change in educators' roles.

The changes to Texas educator certifications including the special education certification and the principal as instructional leader certification most certainly aim to facilitate a change in educators' roles. The TEAs Special Education Strategic Plan offered several responses to stakeholder perceptions and feedback. Although these changes have created chaos in the system, the shift occurring with regard to RDA and effective special education practices has arrived. With change comes opportunity, and with all these new opportunities, it truly is an exciting time to be an educator in Texas. Excitement can elevate and complicate improvement efforts by making it more difficult to remember the details needed to drive change. Although the attention span of most may be getting shorter from generation and generation, some things are worth remembering. It would seem that remembering the first moments of learning to read would represent a significant event in most people's memories, but many people, including myself, cannot recall the precise moment or day when it happened. This suggests that the age when readings skills are acquired may not matter as much as the fact that they were eventually mastered. Everyone learns at different rates and to varying degrees of proficiency given optimal conditions, but everyone is not yet afforded the equal educational opportunity to realize their individual potential to learn.

Principals should ask themselves if they feel students with disabilities in their schools receive the quality of instruction and attention that their peers without disabilities receive. They should ask themselves if students deemed to be average in their schools are exposed to educational and pedagogical opportunities like those offered to high performing students and students classified as gifted learners. Principals should ask: Do all students believe they have attributes that add value to classroom culture, experiences, and learning? Do all teachers believe that every child regardless of differing abilities can learn and contribute in their classrooms? These are questions with which many educators grapple in an effort to implement the ideals of federal and state expectations regarding the provisions defined within the IDEA.

Questions like these often lead to debate into the appropriateness of inclusion. Educators wonder if and when it's appropriate, how it should be implemented, and how far it should be taken. In my own experiences, I have seen a trend in which elementary campuses in a district or feeder pattern embrace inclusive practices, but the secondary campuses in these systems struggle or refuse to do so. For years, I participated in the quiet conspiracy of agreeing that inclusion was easier to do at elementary campuses while justifying why it might be a more allusive ideal for secondary educators. I am no longer remaining silent about my thoughts on this matter because I believe that when we know better, we are obligated to do better. I don't believe we do children any favors by developing inclusive environments in our elementary campuses only to segregate children with disabilities into restrictive settings in our secondary campuses. I do believe we live inclusion through our thoughts, words, and actions. I have also grown to understand that doing inclusion equates to doing exclusion.

Here's where I have landed on my quest for an understanding of the concept referred to as inclusion. If the question is: Should we do inclusion? The answer at best will be a flawed solution to the wrong problem. What I now hear is: Should we choose to include or choose to exclude? We include or we exclude, it's really that simple! In an inclusive environment, we do not exclude.

When we are truly open and honest about what we want for our own children, do we not want them to feel and be included? What I want for Emma, Mia, Aiden, and Addi May is a school culture that includes them in all settings and at all levels. I want each of them to be encouraged and challenged to realize their potential and fight for what they believe to be good and right about this world. I believe we all want this for our own children: for them to feel whole, perfect, strong, powerful, loving, harmonious, and happy. In my aspirations for them, I hope they learn not to be comfortable with the attributes born in them, but to aspire themselves to become their best selves and realize their god given potential. Isn't this what we all want for our children? I know it's what I want for mine.

But are they not all my children? Am I not responsible to each and every child who comes under my influence? Should I not care for each as though he or she were Aiden or Mia? Should I not search for patience and wisdom in my duty to serve their development as I often find myself doing for Emma and Addi May? They are all our children! I will care for yours if you for mine. Isn't that a concept innate in society? It takes a village of caring adults to tend to their needs. We cannot do it alone! I need you and you need me, together we are us, but have we stopped long enough lately to ask, who are we?

We are educators!

We believe when others doubt. We ignite the flames that others douse. It is our love and life's lessons that guide their hearts and minds when their families fail to do so. We don't need to treat them all the same or expect them all to get across the proverbial finish line at the same time. They don't need to be motivated by our expectations or indoctrinated by our opinions. They do however, need us to manage our priorities and agendas so as not to let our needs negatively impact our relationships with them. They need role models that are fair and just, but not perfect. Their greatest needs are of attention and time. Our children need us to prioritize their longing to feel loved, appreciated, and challenged above our need to manage time and teach subjects. They all need to feel valuable, and they all need to be included, just like you and just like me!

According to the law of the diffusion of innovation, there will be early adopters choosing to engage these efforts with rigorous intent. These LEAs will break the mold regarding the current approaches to special education service delivery. LEAs willing to take chances on innovative ideas and strength-focused practices will shape the future of special education implementation in Texas. In doing so, procedural compliance-once the ceiling for success in special education-will become the foundation for improved student outcomes, the new ceiling under which children thrive.
Someone must be the model! Why not let that someone be you? (Excerpt from Bullion Dissertation): John C. Bullion, ABD, M.Ed., LPC-S Principals' Perceptions of Self-Efficacy to Administer Special Education in Relation to Regional Education Service Center Professional Learning Opportunities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Excerpts from my Journey Effective Special Education Transformation As principals lead change efforts in response to the shift to RDA and the effectiveness phase of special education implementation, potential exists for innovative approaches to emerge for creating inclusive classrooms, campuses, and

# data[].attributes.body
Pitfalls

# data[].attributes.headline
My "I Can" is more important that my "IQ"

# data[].attributes.subject
My "I Can" is more important that my "IQ"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bullion Slides Through The Looking Glass