30942
Understanding the Role of Leadership in Supporting High Quality School Services for Students with ASD
Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) receive a majority of their therapeutic services in schools. Although evidence-based practices (EBPs) for students with ASD exist (Wong et al, 2015), the research on implementation in schools indicates low usage and fidelity. To improve service quality and student outcomes, we must focus not only on testing practices but also on how to effectively implement and sustain EBPs in schools. Current literature across other fields indicates leadership support as critical to successful implementation. Therefore, it is important to understand the leadership structure and processes for implementation of EBPs in schools.
Objectives:
To identify key factors related to implementation and sustainment of EBPs for ASD in schools by exploring: 1) leadership involvement, 2) current processes across job types, and 3) implementation barriers.
Methods:
Survey data were analyzed from 340 educators, representing 231 education agencies across California. Participants included High-level administrators (n=19), Mid-level leaders (autism/behavior specialists; n=111), School site principals (n=15), Direct service providers (n=153), and Mental health providers (school psychologists; n=33).
Results:
Leadership Involvement: Participants reported Mid-level leaders as having the most impact in implementation, including identifying new ASD educational programs (57%), choosing interventions to implement (48%), and actively providing training (76%). However, responses varied by respondent job type. For example, 63% of High-level leaders identified High-level leaders as most responsible for identifying new programs compared to 27% of Mid-level leaders. 25% of School site principals identified themselves as having the most impact in providing training, while only 1.5% of all other participants selected them.
Implementation and Sustainment Processes: A majority of School site principals (75%) indicated schools use similar processes to identify, choose, implement and sustain programs for students with ASD as is used for use for other special education programming. Only 40% of Mid-level leaders agreed that the process is the same. In contrast, participants reported the process used to identify, choose, implement and sustain ASD programs differs from the process uses for general education student services.
In planning for sustainment, 88% of High-level leaders reported planning to support use of the intervention after training ended, however, only 44% of Direct service providers agreed this was the case (see Table 1).
For the 110 respondents that provided coaching in National Professional Development Center identified EBPs for ASD, both more frequent meetings with High-level leaders and more frequent meetings with their direct supervisor about implementation activities were significantly associated with higher frequency and quality of coaching (B = 1.1, p < .02; B = 1.9, p = .001 respectively).
Barriers: Participants reported time for training as the top barrier to implementation of EBPs (25.6%), followed by lack of substitutes (16.5%), and limited foundational skills (11.5%).
Conclusions:
Leadership is an important aspect of EBP implementation in community programs. In schools, there is a disconnect between High level leaders and direct service providers regarding the amount of planning, training and implementation support provided for new EBPs. Understanding how leaders can better support providers is a next step in ensuring EBP are implemented and sustained effectively.