Survey of North Carolina principals\u27 knowledge of special education law

The purpose of this study was to assess North Carolina principals\u27 knowledge of special education procedural safeguards and educational services. The survey used by Hirth in a 1988 Tennessee study of Principals\u27 Knowledge of Public Law 94-142 and Significant Court Litigation in the Area of Special Education was updated due to the 1990 and 1997 IDEA reauthorizations and adapted for use in North Carolina. The survey response rate was 65%. Results revealed that (a) North Carolina principals in 2004 scored similar to those in Tennessee in 1988 (68% overall score in North Carolina); (b) Principals were significantly weaker in their knowledge of educational services than procedural safeguards; (c) No significant differences were found in principals\u27 knowledge due to school or district size characteristics; (d) Regarding individual characteristics, principals with 6–10 years of experience as a principal scored significantly higher than principals with 1–5 years of experience as a principal; (e) Principals with doctorates scored significantly higher than principals with master\u27s degrees; (f) Principals who accessed the special education director (or other special education central office supervisor) as a source of information scored significantly lower on overall knowledge than principals who indicated that they did not use the special education director as an information source. However, principals who indicated that they used the school district\u27s attorney or the North Carolina DPI as a source of information scored significantly higher on overall knowledge of special education law; (g) Regarding procedural safeguards alone, principals who accessed their school district attorney as a source of information regarding special education scored higher on procedural safeguards than principals who did not rely upon the school district attorney for information; (h) Regarding educational services alone, principals who relied upon their special education directors or university experts regarding special education dilemmas had significantly lower scores on educational services than principals who indicated that they did not use those sources. Recommendations were made for school districts, universities, and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction regarding principal certification requirements, special education course content, and in-service needs of school staff